Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

This is misleading. The “DC private school” kid was trying to get recruited, but did not have the club level needed. At a school like Pomona, if the coach thinks you might be good enough, but isn’t willing to burn an early read/likely letter request on you, they will tell you that if you get in, they will take a look at you. This is especially true at Pomona, where they have no shortage of talented California kids trying out.

There will occasionally be true ‘walk on’ kids from overseas, where the coach hasn’t had a chance to see them or is unfamiliar with where they played in their home country.

There’s one LAC out there with 2 kids from Brazil, one from Spain and another from Japan. Those kids were all technically walk-ons, but their soccer pedigree was beyond reproach.

Finally, there’s now significant downward pressure from soccer going to smaller max rosters in D1. There will be more D1 or Bust kids that “bust” and end up doing a last minute move to D3.

He is a walk on. I don't know why we're trying so hard to beat around this bush. He was not recruited to Pomona College, and now plays for them after trying out. Kasai is not some internationally talented soccer player either-just a walk on. Why are we dumping paragraphs to add conditionals on objective truths?

I see only one private DC area kid on that roster (maybe I missed someone), and he is clearly listed as a recruit by a third party soccer camp here: https://www.soccermasterscamps.com/boys-college-commits

Unless you are the head coach, you have NO idea what conversations are happening between players and the head coach prior to admission. Stop pretending kids are walk-ons when you don't know. You are giving false hope to people without knowing the reality of the current recruiting climate.

Explain Kasai. Explain Kasai. Explain Kasai.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

This is misleading. The “DC private school” kid was trying to get recruited, but did not have the club level needed. At a school like Pomona, if the coach thinks you might be good enough, but isn’t willing to burn an early read/likely letter request on you, they will tell you that if you get in, they will take a look at you. This is especially true at Pomona, where they have no shortage of talented California kids trying out.

There will occasionally be true ‘walk on’ kids from overseas, where the coach hasn’t had a chance to see them or is unfamiliar with where they played in their home country.

There’s one LAC out there with 2 kids from Brazil, one from Spain and another from Japan. Those kids were all technically walk-ons, but their soccer pedigree was beyond reproach.

Finally, there’s now significant downward pressure from soccer going to smaller max rosters in D1. There will be more D1 or Bust kids that “bust” and end up doing a last minute move to D3.

He is a walk on. I don't know why we're trying so hard to beat around this bush. He was not recruited to Pomona College, and now plays for them after trying out. Kasai is not some internationally talented soccer player either-just a walk on. Why are we dumping paragraphs to add conditionals on objective truths?

I see only one private DC area kid on that roster (maybe I missed someone), and he is clearly listed as a recruit by a third party soccer camp here: https://www.soccermasterscamps.com/boys-college-commits

Unless you are the head coach, you have NO idea what conversations are happening between players and the head coach prior to admission. Stop pretending kids are walk-ons when you don't know. You are giving false hope to people without knowing the reality of the current recruiting climate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

Nonsense, you resent the fact that they have unique value that your DC never will. Admissions is a combination of meritocracy aligning with institutional priority and recruiting athletes fit in a way that most do. You are correct on resentment, but the resentment is driven by envy.

Trust me, my perfect stats DC does not envy your athlete. Of course, there aren't many in their high-level STEM classes. And ED admission was great for them.

They did during admissions season; even if they didn’t say anything. My very high stats athlete chose (as in picked from, not applied to) from over a dozen schools that people whine about here on DCUM everyday. Her academics qualified her for admission but it was her athletics which gave her choice.

It will continue on at med school admissions time. Talk to some readers if you know any, athletes have huge advantages in med school admissions. If you can nail the grades and MCAT scores needed for a top school while being an athlete the rigor of med school isn’t a problem.

Why would they feel envy when they were admitted ED to their first-choice WASP school, based on academic talent alone? They didn't need or want other options, and didn't need a hook beyond that. I believe that constitutes a response to OP's question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

Nonsense, you resent the fact that they have unique value that your DC never will. Admissions is a combination of meritocracy aligning with institutional priority and recruiting athletes fit in a way that most do. You are correct on resentment, but the resentment is driven by envy.

Trust me, my perfect stats DC does not envy your athlete. Of course, there aren't many in their high-level STEM classes. And ED admission was great for them.

They did during admissions season; even if they didn’t say anything. My very high stats athlete chose (as in picked from, not applied to) from over a dozen schools that people whine about here on DCUM everyday. Her academics qualified her for admission but it was her athletics which gave her choice.

It will continue on at med school admissions time. Talk to some readers if you know any, athletes have huge advantages in med school admissions. If you can nail the grades and MCAT scores needed for a top school while being an athlete the rigor of med school isn’t a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

This is misleading. The “DC private school” kid was trying to get recruited, but did not have the club level needed. At a school like Pomona, if the coach thinks you might be good enough, but isn’t willing to burn an early read/likely letter request on you, they will tell you that if you get in, they will take a look at you. This is especially true at Pomona, where they have no shortage of talented California kids trying out.

There will occasionally be true ‘walk on’ kids from overseas, where the coach hasn’t had a chance to see them or is unfamiliar with where they played in their home country.

There’s one LAC out there with 2 kids from Brazil, one from Spain and another from Japan. Those kids were all technically walk-ons, but their soccer pedigree was beyond reproach.

Finally, there’s now significant downward pressure from soccer going to smaller max rosters in D1. There will be more D1 or Bust kids that “bust” and end up doing a last minute move to D3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

This is misleading. The “DC private school” kid was trying to get recruited, but did not have the club level needed. At a school like Pomona, if the coach thinks you might be good enough, but isn’t willing to burn an early read/likely letter request on you, they will tell you that if you get in, they will take a look at you. This is especially true at Pomona, where they have no shortage of talented California kids trying out.

There will occasionally be true ‘walk on’ kids from overseas, where the coach hasn’t had a chance to see them or is unfamiliar with where they played in their home country.

There’s one LAC out there with 2 kids from Brazil, one from Spain and another from Japan. Those kids were all technically walk-ons, but their soccer pedigree was beyond reproach.

Finally, there’s now significant downward pressure from soccer going to smaller max rosters in D1. There will be more D1 or Bust kids that “bust” and end up doing a last minute move to D3.

He is a walk on. I don't know why we're trying so hard to beat around this bush. He was not recruited to Pomona College, and now plays for them after trying out. Kasai is not some internationally talented soccer player either-just a walk on. Why are we dumping paragraphs to add conditionals on objective truths?

I see only one private DC area kid on that roster (maybe I missed someone), and he is clearly listed as a recruit by a third party soccer camp here: https://www.soccermasterscamps.com/boys-college-commits

Unless you are the head coach, you have NO idea what conversations are happening between players and the head coach prior to admission. Stop pretending kids are walk-ons when you don't know. You are giving false hope to people without knowing the reality of the current recruiting climate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

This is misleading. The “DC private school” kid was trying to get recruited, but did not have the club level needed. At a school like Pomona, if the coach thinks you might be good enough, but isn’t willing to burn an early read/likely letter request on you, they will tell you that if you get in, they will take a look at you. This is especially true at Pomona, where they have no shortage of talented California kids trying out.

There will occasionally be true ‘walk on’ kids from overseas, where the coach hasn’t had a chance to see them or is unfamiliar with where they played in their home country.

There’s one LAC out there with 2 kids from Brazil, one from Spain and another from Japan. Those kids were all technically walk-ons, but their soccer pedigree was beyond reproach.

Finally, there’s now significant downward pressure from soccer going to smaller max rosters in D1. There will be more D1 or Bust kids that “bust” and end up doing a last minute move to D3.

He is a walk on. I don't know why we're trying so hard to beat around this bush. He was not recruited to Pomona College, and now plays for them after trying out. Kasai is not some internationally talented soccer player either-just a walk on. Why are we dumping paragraphs to add conditionals on objective truths?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

This is misleading. The “DC private school” kid was trying to get recruited, but did not have the club level needed. At a school like Pomona, if the coach thinks you might be good enough, but isn’t willing to burn an early read/likely letter request on you, they will tell you that if you get in, they will take a look at you. This is especially true at Pomona, where they have no shortage of talented California kids trying out.

There will occasionally be true ‘walk on’ kids from overseas, where the coach hasn’t had a chance to see them or is unfamiliar with where they played in their home country.

There’s one LAC out there with 2 kids from Brazil, one from Spain and another from Japan. Those kids were all technically walk-ons, but their soccer pedigree was beyond reproach.

Finally, there’s now significant downward pressure from soccer going to smaller max rosters in D1. There will be more D1 or Bust kids that “bust” and end up doing a last minute move to D3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

Nonsense, you resent the fact that they have unique value that your DC never will. Admissions is a combination of meritocracy aligning with institutional priority and recruiting athletes fit in a way that most do. You are correct on resentment, but the resentment is driven by envy.

Trust me, my perfect stats DC does not envy your athlete. Of course, there aren't many in their high-level STEM classes. And ED admission was great for them.

PP, then why are you even on this thread? And what school did/does your DC attend? Because there were many athletes in our DC’s high-level STEM classes; DC was one of them. Some athletes can be great students as they need discipline to succeed in their sport as well as the classroom. In COVID, DC decided not to pursue college recruitment in their sport, but I do think the years of playing a club sport brought focus and discipline to DC’s academic work.

This thread has a few posters who resent that their “high-level STEM classes” kid might not have an edge in admissions. Most colleges are communities, not monasteries filled with academics united in the sole pursuit of knowledge. If one’s DC wants the latter, then pursue those schools. But don’t expect WASP and other LACs to recreate their model based on those whims or some mistaken sense of meritocracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why do you guys think so many SLACs have this same, sports-heavy model. I'm asking - I am genuinely curious.

like for me, it seems crazy that small colleges are prioritizing the 10th best football player that might be interested in them. Or really any member of the sailing or squash team at all. Why is this an institutional priority.

I went to a big basketball school and I can see from a marketing POV, if your team is on ESPN on a Saturday afternoon, okay. It never made sense to me that these players weren't paid (or even given a scholarship I guess at some schools), but with NIL, I think the standouts are getting their pay.

But for every other sport or for Swarthmore football (if there even is such a thing) - who the f cares?

I would think some school - like maybe Swat or Williams, some place with an intellectual vibe -- would just get rid of all of it. Keep men and women soccer if you want. Or whatever is the heritage sport. But dump 90% of it.

I think there are lots of kids who would be drawn to that. All the NARPs who have maybe good reason to be wary of these schools. Plus these most of these sports are a giant expense for most of these schools. Why wouldn't one school break free?

Yeah I don't get it. My son is active and athletic but doesn't want to go to a small school like Swat or Pomona to cheer on their ootball team - he'd go for the academics and that's what he'd want to see the investments in. The money would be better appreciated by most LAC students going to renovate dorms and improve AC, hire cooler faculty, some funding for the career centers.

The schools being discussed are very wealthy, they do not have any budget issues funding athletics. But, they might have future issues if they deprioritize athletics given that athletes at Amherst give at rates almost double that of non athletes and that they out number non athletes 3:1 when it comes to donations above $1 million.

Maybe we should question why the student experience seems to be that athletes are the only ones invested in donating to the college or why they earn more than others

Maybe recruited athletes know that they received an unfair advantage during college entry and want to give back later in life when they reap the benefits they know on a gut level that they did not deserve?

That unfair advantage was a silver spoon at birth. Control for wealth and this silly “athletes donate” point goes bye, bye.

It's time to flat out say it:

I smell envy. Envy and jealousy because there is a group of potential students who flat out perform better than your DC. In the Ivy league some of those students might slightly underperform your DC in academics; in the NESCAC, or at places like Swat, Pomona, and MIT it's more likely than not that they are at the same level or higher than dear Larla. But, in both cases these kids are better overall. Better because they achieved the same academic performance while devoting far less hours too academics because they were building skills in a completely different area that far surpass those of the typical "average excellent" candidate. They are far more attractive candidates than Larla because elite schools optimize for outcome by considering multiple success vectors in their input selection process (holistic admissions).

Larla played the game but lost and now you try to denigrate others in order to feel better about yourself. Your self soothing may help you feel better but we see it for what it is....pitiful.

I think you smell resentment not envy. People don't want athlete kids with EDs, concussions or groin/foot injuries, but they do want a meritocracy in college admissions. No one wants to be you or your child, but they do want a fairer system.

facts

Nonsense, you resent the fact that they have unique value that your DC never will. Admissions is a combination of meritocracy aligning with institutional priority and recruiting athletes fit in a way that most do. You are correct on resentment, but the resentment is driven by envy.

Trust me, my perfect stats DC does not envy your athlete. Of course, there aren't many in their high-level STEM classes. And ED admission was great for them.

Anonymous wrote:ED stats are very misleading, especially for LACs. These schools are already small, traditionally accepting 1,000 people out of 15,000 applicants, and a significant amount of that accepted pool are athletes.

Using this site about equity in athletics - https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details -
about 32.6% of (the totally randomly chosen) Swarthmore's class are athletes. Divided by 4, that's about 134 athletes per class. Backing up that claim is Swarthmore's Class of 2027 being 29% student athletes.

In 2023, 216 early decision applicants out of 1,358 were admitted. Without accounting for athletes, that's an acceptance rate of 15.9%. With the estimated number of 134 athletes admitted per class, the ED acceptance rate is 6%. Using the Co2027 rate, it's 7%. Either way, under half of the overall ED acceptance rate and more akin to the 2023 RD round's 6%.

As a disclaimer, I cannot confidently say that every student counted as an athlete applied early decision. However, even with more conservative estimates (80 instead of 134 or 120) the early decision acceptance rate is around 10%.

At LACS, even ones known for their equitable admissions towards FGLI students like Swarthmore, recruited athletics are a huge part of their ED pool.

TLDR: So don't waste your ED on a SLAC (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Bowdoin, Pomona, CMC) unless you are hooked in some way: FGLI, recruited athlete, Questbridge or legacy/donor.

Not true for Colby, Middlebury, Wesleyan and others.