Anonymous wrote:D3 cannot technically recruit, and by recruit I mean guarentee someone a spot. Yes, they can get a tip or a push, but you HAVE to have the credentials. Also, in D3, you are not officially on the team until you try out, unlike D1. You would be surprised at the number of National merit Scholars and National Honor Society members on these D3 athletic teams. I even know of D1Ivy girls that had 700s on their SATs and great averages with APs and honors.

This has been mentioned, but very few elite schools are looking for the nerd. They want people who will be leaders, not necessarily the person with the highest SAT score. Athletics often breed this leaderhip and work ethic. Someone that has a personality, and will do something rather than the brillent follower.

I agree with the majority of this PP. I suppose it depends upon the sport and the D3 as to what happens once an athlete arrives on the field, etc. at the start of their sport's training season. My DD was sort of recruited by both Amherst and Williams via email communication several times per week & telephone calls for months. She received admission tips/boosts from both schools under the category of high-impact player. The coaches made it clear that they could not give her a 100% guarantee that she was in, but was 99% sure she would be accepted. DD was accepted at both schools and at the start of her freshmen year, her head coach emailed her with the training schedules, etc. as if she was indeed on the team. There was no team try out. There were very few walkons.

Yes, she scored over 2200 on her SAT, National Merit finalist, had excellent grades, and high AP scores.

D3 cannot technically recruit, and by recruit I mean guarentee someone a spot. Yes, they can get a tip or a push, but you HAVE to have the credentials. Also, in D3, you are not officially on the team until you try out, unlike D1. You would be surprised at the number of National merit Scholars and National Honor Society members on these D3 athletic teams. I even know of D1Ivy girls that had 700s on their SATs and great averages with APs and honors.

This has been mentioned, but very few elite schools are looking for the nerd. They want people who will be leaders, not necessarily the person with the highest SAT score. Athletics often breed this leaderhip and work ethic. Someone that has a personality, and will do something rather than the brillent follower.

Does affrimative action refer to such action for those from prep schools with gentelman C averages for decades but no action for those from certain ethnic groups?

The no walk-ons has been affected by Title IX and the 1st prong which is a quota system similar to affirmative action.

Anonymous wrote:I am not trying to denigrate other professions -- teaching, for one. I cited those professions as examples of paths not taken by the majority of kids from top colleges, and particularly athletes from top colleges. There is, apparently, a network that has developed to assist Ivy League athletes in getting jobs on Wall Street (see http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/642506--ivy-league-mafia-pipeline-to-wall-st-for-college-athletes) Some 60% of Princeton's recent graduates work in finance. I don't think our country or economy benefits when our top universities churn out hedge fund managers and investment bankers instead of physicists, teachers, or engineers.

Hmm . . . if your stat on Princeton is correct, though, you should keep in mind that 60% of Princeton students are not recruited athletes, so there are plenty of non-athletes going into finance as well. I agree that it's disturbing to see so many kids go into a single field, but I don't think that can be attributed to sports participation.

I am not trying to denigrate other professions -- teaching, for one. I cited those professions as examples of paths not taken by the majority of kids from top colleges, and particularly athletes from top colleges. There is, apparently, a network that has developed to assist Ivy League athletes in getting jobs on Wall Street (see http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/642506--ivy-league-mafia-pipeline-to-wall-st-for-college-athletes) Some 60% of Princeton's recent graduates work in finance. I don't think our country or economy benefits when our top universities churn out hedge fund managers and investment bankers instead of physicists, teachers, or engineers.

Anonymous wrote:I thought that was what a forum was for -- sharing views. Let's agree to disagree. Obviously you are in the majority given the statistics presented in Bowen's book -- most people do not find the current emphasis on athletics at our top universities to be a problem. And I'd appreciate your not bringing my children into this debate. I haven't referred to yours.

Actually you have referred to my child...my DC is a STUDENT/athlete at Williams and is also an academic all conference student.
But in order to continue the discussion, I will apologize for the personal reference. However this is the statement that set me off "I'd rather our premier colleges and universities choose students who will become physicists, journalists, doctors, engineers, diplomats, and heads of non-profits."

I guess that I am taken aback because it is not a secret that Williams has a huge sports vibe (although it also has a HUGE arts vibe too) and it has been that way for a long time. It was one of the reasons that DC chose it over other LACS. So I guess I am saying that Williams is what it is - if it does not fit a particular child, then another LAC might be better fit. Check out this forum on College Confidential. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/williams-college/654364-importance-athletics-williams.html.

Because to me, you are unfairly judging not only the kids at Williams (and student athletes at other top schools), but you are also judging the kids at these universities (athletes or not) who do not choose the professions that you cite. Right or not, you are implying that these kids ought not be admitted into "the premier" schools and that their talents are not as valuable as other students. I realize that it is your view and your opinion and you are certainly entitled. As to Bowen's general view, I am still waiting on evidence that this so-called misplaced emphasis on athletics (especially at the D3 level) will lead to the downfall of America. I do not see it.

But I will agree to disagree with you.

I thought that was what a forum was for -- sharing views. Let's agree to disagree. Obviously you are in the majority given the statistics presented in Bowen's book -- most people do not find the current emphasis on athletics at our top universities to be a problem. And I'd appreciate your not bringing my children into this debate. I haven't referred to yours.

Anonymous wrote:I'm wondering, however, whether our emphasis on athletics serves us well in the long run. What will help our country succeed internationally -- having really good lacrosse players or the smartest students? According to Bowen, students who are admitted for sports are, generally, less academically talented than their peers (peers chosen for editing the school newspaper, being concertmaster in the orchestra, etc., as well as being excellent students) and, for the most part, make up the bottom tiers of the class (perhaps in part because of the hours upon hours chasing after a ball). Upon graduation, the athletes are more likely to choose careers in finance, according to Bowen. I'd rather our premier colleges and universities choose students who will become physicists, journalists, doctors, engineers, diplomats, and heads of non-profits.

Ok Ok..your kid is not an athlete. We get it!

And some folks in this thread seem to be stuck on the premise that good athletes cannot be smart students. I do not care what Bowen says, it is an insulting and self serving position. And it is inaccurate, especially at the D3 level.

I have an idea. Send your kid to a top academic school where athletics is not a major factor on campus. There are plenty of those out there too. But please spare us your views on what kids and types of kids the top colleges should admit.

I'm wondering, however, whether our emphasis on athletics serves us well in the long run. What will help our country succeed internationally -- having really good lacrosse players or the smartest students? According to Bowen, students who are admitted for sports are, generally, less academically talented than their peers (peers chosen for editing the school newspaper, being concertmaster in the orchestra, etc., as well as being excellent students) and, for the most part, make up the bottom tiers of the class (perhaps in part because of the hours upon hours chasing after a ball). Upon graduation, the athletes are more likely to choose careers in finance, according to Bowen. I'd rather our premier colleges and universities choose students who will become physicists, journalists, doctors, engineers, diplomats, and heads of non-profits.

So this means that 60% of the kids get in based on other activities or hooks, including accomplishments as high school journalists, artists, performers, activists, volunteers, etc. Almost nobody gets into these schools based on grades and scores alone -- there are a slew of applicants with impreccable qualifications in this regard and the admissions staff has to sort them out based on other factors. So, yes, sports come into play, but so do other activities, as well as legacy and URM status. Essays and recommendations also weigh in, of course. And nobody who gets into Williams -- regardless of athletic prowess -- is not an excellent student. Chill -- there's no great injustice here.

Not PP, but off the top of my head, Amherst's Kendra Stern (swimming).


What your spawn didn't make it off the waitlist?

No, opted for Harvard for better athletics. What about your pickinnings?

Anonymous wrote:

There are several scholar-athletes at both Amherst and Williams who have D1/National marks, times, and ability. Many are preparing for the Olympic trials....

Who and how many are "preparing" for Olympic trials at Amherst and Williams? How many Amherst and Williams athletes do you know off in the last 4 Olympic Games?

Can't speak to those schools but Dartmouth had someting like 8 students or alums in the last winter olympics. And the olympic gold medalist and world champion in women's moguls (hannah kearney) just started as a student there and will continue to compete. Yes Dartmouth is D1 but doesn't do athletic scholarships and is not that different from the SLACs in approach to balancing academics and sports.

Anonymous wrote:

There are several scholar-athletes at both Amherst and Williams who have D1/National marks, times, and ability. Many are preparing for the Olympic trials....

Who and how many are "preparing" for Olympic trials at Amherst and Williams? How many Amherst and Williams athletes do you know off in the last 4 Olympic Games?

Not PP, but off the top of my head, Amherst's Kendra Stern (swimming).


What your spawn didn't make it off the waitlist?

Unfortunately, Bowen's books suggest that this overemphasis on athletics is not limited to one or two schools -- it's pervasive throughout the Ivy League and the top SLACs. Here's an editorial that he wrote that appeared in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/22/opinion/playing-...playing+their+way+in%22&st=nyt

Does begin in College. Take a look at white collar suburbia in New York, Boston, Washington, D.C. and mid-Atlantic, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, LA and San Francisco. Club sports (e.g., lacrosse, soccer, basketball, baseball, rowing, squash, swimming .... la, la de da)

St Albans, Landon, Georgetown Prep, Deerfield, Saint Paul's, PEA, Andover, Milton, Lawrenceville, Peddie, Harvard Westlake. It seems athletic testosterone prowess enhances admission prospects for these 9th and 10th graders at these traditional feeder schools to Ivy and SLACs. Who will play golf, squash, crew, rugby, sailing, lacrosse, water polo, swimming at Ivy and SLACs schools if not for these elite young athletes?