Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

Not really. There are tons of recruited athletes who are also in student government or who write for the paper. Community service is expected. These kids have had busy schedules since early elementary school. The ones who are good students (i.e. the ones who will play at Chicago/MIT) have learned time management skills early on, and the difference in the amount of time that a 7th grader and a 10th playing very high level sports train is not very much.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster that suggested Michigan and Wisconsin. Good, large universities have few recruited athletes compared to the general student body. I also know that Reed doesn’t have any varsity sports if that’s your cup of tea. I went to Kalamazoo and athletes were just as smart as non-athletes. This may the case at schools with >50% acceptance rates.

Sports don't matter at MI? Srsly? Have you ever watched a MI game?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

The Million dollar question with respect to sports and a place like Chicago/MIT is whether Sports can basically replace all or nearly all ECs. Correct that you still need high grades and high test scores, but even to be a strong enough athlete to get noticed by these schools, you are likely playing your sport fairly intensively which does not allow much time for other ECs. W

That's so funny. I went to an Ivy university and wished they had more sports. Too much studying makes you unfit. I would have loved more gym classes in specific sports each year.

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL OUTSIDE THE US.

Let me repeat it, in case it helps.

EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL OUTSIDE THE US.

One more reason to study abroad (unless you're a mediocre athlete).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I should say that I went to a truly huge HS that had every subgroup from jocks to gunners to goths (it was the 90s!) which is why it felt so good to “find my people” at a slac with no sports or frats.

Gunners?

Always gunners everywhere, especially law school.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster that suggested Michigan and Wisconsin. Good, large universities have few recruited athletes compared to the general student body. I also know that Reed doesn’t have any varsity sports if that’s your cup of tea. I went to Kalamazoo and athletes were just as smart as non-athletes. This may the case at schools with >50% acceptance rates.

Many top donors at elite schools are athletes (for example, Arrillaga at Stanford and the Kochs at MIT were all basketball players). What some people struggle with are admissions profiles with lower test scores or lower GPAs, even with an EC that the school is clamoring for.

Michigan and Wisconsin are examples of schools that admit athletes with different score/GPA combos and also have sports as central to a lot of campus life (football, basketball, and hockey all draw a lot of student fans and tailgating is a big deal). At large schools, you absolutely can find your own place outside of that sports culture but those two have a lot of athletic pride. Rice and Vandy are good D1 private schools where students care less. On the large state school front, Berkeley stands out as one where students don't care much unless the opponent is Stanford (much less sports oriented culture wise than Wisco or UM). Maryland looks like a fairly happy medium where some care and attendance is ok but it isn't the biggest deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

People are conflating two issues. One is help for athletes in admissions, which Chicago definitely does (they have a pretty strong D3 athletic department) versus sports mattering on campus and being a significant part of campus like (at Chicago sports are not very important on campus and are not well attended by students).

Chicago and MIT are similar in the admissions edge you gain as a recruited athlete. Sports on campus are a little more important at MIT than Chicago, though still not central to campus life.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I should say that I went to a truly huge HS that had every subgroup from jocks to gunners to goths (it was the 90s!) which is why it felt so good to “find my people” at a slac with no sports or frats.

Gunners?

I agree with the poster that suggested Michigan and Wisconsin. Good, large universities have few recruited athletes compared to the general student body. I also know that Reed doesn’t have any varsity sports if that’s your cup of tea. I went to Kalamazoo and athletes were just as smart as non-athletes. This may the case at schools with >50% acceptance rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just looking to collect info, not rehash the role of athletics in higher Ed.

Which well-known schools give no edge to athletes in admissions? Thank you.

I would say that Chicago, WashU and Emory don’t pay much attention to athletics. Chicago was a big football school until around 1940, when it dropped football.

The above is incorrect. Absolutely incorrect.

+1

This poster knows nothing about the University of Chicago.  It accepted an athlete with the score of 1200 on the SAT a few years ago.  The athlete said that himself.

MIT is the school people are clearly incorrect about. MIT and their donors care a great deal about sports. It also provides a significant boost in admissions. MIT is nothing like CalTech regarding athlete admissions or athletic campus culture. If you want your young child to go to MIT, the recruited athlete route is a great way (especially since MIT doesn't consider legacy status).

MIT cares more about sports on campus than other high-academic D3 schools like Chicago too, though not to the extent of a place like Williams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McGill. Get a great education without much, if any, focus on college sports from my the admissions committee or the student body

Are you serious? McGill doesn’t care about hockey? They also football, soccer, rugby, skiing, etc.

They certainly don't care enough to recruit athletes..or if they do recruit....they do not know what they are doing. The women's hockey team has not won a single game. Not one. And the men are not that far behind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many colleges where sports aren't very important. Among the Ivies, Penn, Columbia, and Brown are less sporty than Harvard, Yale, Cornell, or Dartmouth. NYU isn't sporty at all; I went to grad school there and didn't even know where undergrads played sports. Engineering schools like MIT and Cal Tech tend to be less sporty. Others have mentioned Chicago. University of Rochester is D3 but sports aren't a big deal. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Incorrect.

Schools like MIT, Chicago, Swarthmore, and NYU have pretty good D3 teams (and actively recruit athletes) but sports are not a very important part of campus life. Ivy League wise, Columbia seemed to really care less about sports (likely similar to NYU, students are doing other things).

Anonymous wrote:There are many colleges where sports aren't very important. Among the Ivies, Penn, Columbia, and Brown are less sporty than Harvard, Yale, Cornell, or Dartmouth. NYU isn't sporty at all; I went to grad school there and didn't even know where undergrads played sports. Engineering schools like MIT and Cal Tech tend to be less sporty. Others have mentioned Chicago. University of Rochester is D3 but sports aren't a big deal. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Incorrect.