Anonymous
10/17/2025 14:01
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
This experiment exists....it is called Reed college.
Sounds like a terrible place. Never heard of it, but my kids play ball.
I think that Reed can be a great experience for the right kid. The experience isn't the right one for most I expect.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 14:00
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Well, my kid goes to a Big Ten school, and I can assure sports as a community builder is as strong as ever. It's possible Amherst and Williams are already too far gone to be saved.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
Did you see the picture of the “big rivalry game” of Williams vs Amherst. I think this idea of sports as community builders is from a different time.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:58
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Sounds like a terrible place. Never heard of it, but my kids play ball.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
This experiment exists....it is called Reed college.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:53
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
This experiment exists....it is called Reed college.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:46
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
“Hellscape of misery.” Exactly
You must have been a SLAC English major recruited athlete!
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:44
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
Did you see the picture of the “big rivalry game” of Williams vs Amherst. I think this idea of sports as community builders is from a different time.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:43
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
A friend told me she never understood the athlete thing until she went to an admitted students event and noticed all the “normal” (her word) kids there were athletes.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:42
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
Why don’t we insist 35% of faculty play a sport at a high level?
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:41
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.
Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?
These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.
And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.
Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?
Seriously, what would happen to Cornell or Hamilton in say 50 years if they dropped out of their conferences tomorrow? How would their endowment be doing? Athletics and their conferences are arguably their lifeblood. If U Rochester took Cornell’s place, imagine the windfall.
Cornell would become another Chicago or Johns Hopkins. Some would stay away from it. Others would love it more.
The OP actually asked why JHU and Chicago recruit so many athletes. To keep up with JHU and Chicago, Cornell would have to play in their D3 league and, as a result, recruit athletes.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:36
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
It would be a fun experiment to remove athletics from a NESCAC. My bet is the heaven of a pure meritocracy optimized for academic achievement would fail to materialize as students gradually lose interest in the school without athletics. Surely alumni giving would dry up as the team-based bonds that drive donor loyalty disappear. Students would become even more neurotic with the entire student body just focused on grades and clubs, with those becoming the only currencies of status and identity. And the brighter kids with interest beyond academics would ultimately choose to go elsewhere because the school would become a hellscape of misery of those focused on PhD programs.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:35
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.
Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?
These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.
And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.
Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?
Seriously, what would happen to Cornell or Hamilton in say 50 years if they dropped out of their conferences tomorrow? How would their endowment be doing? Athletics and their conferences are arguably their lifeblood. If U Rochester took Cornell’s place, imagine the windfall.
Cornell would become another Chicago or Johns Hopkins. Some would stay away from it. Others would love it more.
But would it then recruit D3 athletes? If it’s still actively recruiting to keep sports alive, it’s still recruiting. If it drops all athletics, it’s just lost.
If Hamilton drops out of the NESCAC, even if it retains sports, it becomes Hobart or Union.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:31
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Former collegiate athletes are more likely to donate than non-athletes.
Many would-be employers prefer to hire collegiate athletes; having a heavy “roster” of them on campus improves post-graduation hiring numbers.
Some schools need male sports to mitigate what would be a heavily skewed student body, sex wise.
Many applicants view collegiate sports as part of the overall college experience and favor schools that offer them.
Some households will pay a higher tuition if it means an opportunity to play collegiate sports.
Many would-be employers prefer to hire collegiate athletes; having a heavy “roster” of them on campus improves post-graduation hiring numbers.
Some schools need male sports to mitigate what would be a heavily skewed student body, sex wise.
Many applicants view collegiate sports as part of the overall college experience and favor schools that offer them.
Some households will pay a higher tuition if it means an opportunity to play collegiate sports.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:24
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
If all this reform talk wasn’t focused on the maybe 40 or so most “elite” schools it might be interesting but it just comes off as more striver prestige whore BS. Sorry your nerd son might have to settle for, dare I say, Emory!
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:19
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What would happen to a school like Hamilton if it dropped out of the NESCAC? In a generation it would have “really fallen off” and in two generations it would be lost in the academic wilderness.
Or what if Cornell dropped out of the Ivy League and U Rochester joined? It sounds preposterous, but what would these two schools look like in 50 or 75 years?
These school know they need to remain in their athletic leagues to remain as relevant as they are today. Thus they need to recruit
athletes that will keep them competitive in their conference. Many, many of these kids being recruited are exceptional students and they get priority in admissions because they offer something to the school beyond their grades and test scores. It’s a case of “and” not “or” for the most part. Yes there is the occasional football player with the 1250 SAT but that is the extreme exception.
And the ancient Greeks agreed with the American model. The mind and intellectual pursuit was inseparable from the body and the athletic.
Um, the ancient Greeks also had slaves. If they are truly exceptional, they would not — as you euphemistically describe for an entirely different admissions process — need “priority” in admissions now, would they?
Seriously, what would happen to Cornell or Hamilton in say 50 years if they dropped out of their conferences tomorrow? How would their endowment be doing? Athletics and their conferences are arguably their lifeblood. If U Rochester took Cornell’s place, imagine the windfall.
Cornell would become another Chicago or Johns Hopkins. Some would stay away from it. Others would love it more.
Anonymous
10/17/2025 13:17
Subject: Why do elite SLACs and Small R1s value athletic recruits
Anonymous wrote:I was watching another thread where moms were arguing back and forth over athletic recruiting and it seemed like both neither side was talking about what I think is the real question. Why do they place so much value on them? It's not just the top SLACs, (they are very heavy on recruits) but it is the smaller R1s as well. MIT, Chicago, JHU, WashU, Rochester, etc. all recruit a large number of athletes. NYU as well. These[b] schools obviously see great value in athletic recruiting, what are we missing?
Schools don’t want to be overpopulated with quirky, awkward nerds.