Anonymous wrote:Anyone know if this differs at all at some of the women’s colleges (Bryn Mawr, Smith, MHC)? The ED rates are certainly higher and appear to give a substantial bump, but I’m uncertain about for unhooked applicants like my DD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. ED is the only way to increase odds for top SLAC admissions. OP is either trying to deter others from applying or a complete ignoramus. I’m guessing the former.

I think OP is saying it's only a problem at SLACs (WASP + runners-up like Bowdoin, Wellesley, Carleton, CMC). It's fine for somewhat less selective LACs like Oberlin, Smith, St. Olaf, Macalester, Skidmore, Juniata, Lafayette, Dickinson, etc.

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:OP you're kidding yourself if you think that SLACs give preferential ED admissions to most or all athletes.

Are you kidding? It is the quid pro quo for recruitment. No ED no support is the rule.

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. ED is the only way to increase odds for top SLAC admissions. OP is either trying to deter others from applying or a complete ignoramus. I’m guessing the former.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:... also Pomon and CMC have lower athletic numbers. It may help there. I think it does help with CMC from our HS.

Wrong on CMC. Check numbers here. Almost all of ED for CMC is taken by recruited male athletes once you extrapolate from the number of varsity athletes reported on this website. Especially for guys. It seems like the entirety of CMC ED for males is dominated by recruited athletes which is a shame.

Like genuinely how does the rest of the class benefit from water polo or cross-country recruited athletes when no one ever watches either sport?

I'd rather have some super cool and smart academic folks who don't spend all their time playing sports. Comedians, actors, scientists, writers, journalists, coders, philosophers.

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

Anonymous wrote:Generally, interest in SLACs has gone down, especially for boys. Outside of the top 10-15, they are becoming an easier admit. Especially, if you are full pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can tell you is the unhooked kids I know at the most selective SLACs all got in ED. The Naviance from our HS bears out that ED seems to be the way kids usually get in.

None of these schools is easy to get into, either way. If you are saying ED isn't a huge advantage for unhooked kids, I wouldn't argue with you, but I can't agree with the "don't apply ED." Even if you're deferred to RD, you have signaled to the school it is your first choice, and that carries some value.

The point is if there is no advantage in ED, you will find other schools that have an ED advantage. Efficient.

For example, between Williams and Chicago, you would ED Chicago, if you have the chops for getting in Williams RD after deferral, Chicago ED is a shoe in.

This is stupid. If Williams is your first choice, ED to Williams.

yeah but at least be realistic about your abysmal odds. don't take the ED accept rate at face value. it's flooded with athletes. if you don't mind the overwhelming odds you'll be rejected, go right ahead. but if you're deciding between 2 ED options that are pretty close, skip the LAC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can tell you is the unhooked kids I know at the most selective SLACs all got in ED. The Naviance from our HS bears out that ED seems to be the way kids usually get in.

None of these schools is easy to get into, either way. If you are saying ED isn't a huge advantage for unhooked kids, I wouldn't argue with you, but I can't agree with the "don't apply ED." Even if you're deferred to RD, you have signaled to the school it is your first choice, and that carries some value.

The point is if there is no advantage in ED, you will find other schools that have an ED advantage. Efficient.

For example, between Williams and Chicago, you would ED Chicago, if you have the chops for getting in Williams RD after deferral, Chicago ED is a shoe in.

This is stupid. If Williams is your first choice, ED to Williams.