Anonymous wrote:If you are a college recruit, you spend hours every day practicing that sport. You can't spend that same amount of time doing something else (working for the school newspaper or developing a business, for example). I just think the college environment would be more vibrant and exciting if they valued time spent on other activities equally. Everyone admitted to these colleges obviously has to have top grades and NMSF-level SAT scores.

Parent of a D3 athlete here. You do know that Williams is a D3 school, right? So this "spend hours every day practicing that sport" statement is not entirely accurate for ANY D3 school. I can guarantee that the kids on my DD's team (which is consistently ranked in D3) do not spend hours every day in the off-season practicing. They are doing internships, studying abroad, or doing service projects.

These are not D1 kids on athletic scholarship. Many of these kids are, in fact, on academic scholarships who have a wide range of interest. Also, at the top ranked SLACs, an athlete has to be within the ranhe of admissions to even get in. Williams is not taking a kis who can barely spell his name just because he plays football.

Reposted from earlier in this thread - over 18 months ago

Bottom line: Athletes at these elite SLAC's are not dumb jocks. Most of them are establshed students also. Looking at a school like Williams where last year 1202 students were admitted and 550 enrolled. Using the 40% number, 220 of the 550 woud be athletes. Williams carries 15 Men's sports (including football) and 15 women's sports (30 total sports is higher than most NCAA Division III schools). So I am not sure that the numbers are unreasonable when you look at the real facts.

And keep in mind that at a school like Williams, most of the 220 have other hooks also.

Must be March. LOL!! This same topic comes up around the time that the letters go out....EVERY YEAR!

Anonymous wrote:If you are a college recruit, you spend hours every day practicing that sport. You can't spend that same amount of time doing something else (working for the school newspaper or developing a business, for example). I just think the college environment would be more vibrant and exciting if they valued time spent on other activities equally. Everyone admitted to these colleges obviously has to have top grades and NMSF-level SAT scores.

And YOU certainly know more about putting together a class than the administration at Williams.

As I said in this same thread last year, my DD played a sport at a NESAC school. She also was active in student government and she founded a student service organization also. Oh, and she made academic all conference 3 of her 4 years of college.

And I never heard her or any of her classmates (athletests or not) complain that the campus was not vibrant or exciting.

Anonymous wrote:If you are a college recruit, you spend hours every day practicing that sport. You can't spend that same amount of time doing something else (working for the school newspaper or developing a business, for example). I just think the college environment would be more vibrant and exciting if they valued time spent on other activities equally. Everyone admitted to these colleges obviously has to have top grades and NMSF-level SAT scores.

I agree that they spend a lot of time on sports but the practice/play scheduled isn't at the same level year round. There are kids who find the time to do other things. They're kids, they have tons of energy and don't sleep much. And Williams is a very vibrant place even with lots of recruited athletes.

^^^to clarify - He played a varsity sport at Williams and continued with his music at Williams. Now has a PhD.

If you are a college recruit, you spend hours every day practicing that sport. You can't spend that same amount of time doing something else (working for the school newspaper or developing a business, for example). I just think the college environment would be more vibrant and exciting if they valued time spent on other activities equally. Everyone admitted to these colleges obviously has to have top grades and NMSF-level SAT scores.

Anonymous wrote:So, 60% for actors, artists, musicians, Intel finalists (or semifinalists), mathematicians, politicians, community leaders, entrepreneurs, poets, novelists, etc.? That doesn't make sense.

Why not? Do you think that most of the sports kids don't have other talents too? Don't kid yourself. You're talking about one of the most selective colleges in the country. Our next door neighbor who graduated from Williams played a varsity sport, had been recognized for his musical ability (beyond his high school) and was a National Merit Semi-Finalist.

I don't want to excuse them because I'm a little uncomfortable with 40% athletic recruits too. I did see though that they have 2000 undergrads, which means 500 kids per class. That's small for filling sports teams - a lot of selective schools have classes of 1000 or more. Of course they also need to fill debate teams and art studios and choruses and orchestras and student government. I wonder how many kids do athletics plus something else.

So, 60% for actors, artists, musicians, Intel finalists (or semifinalists), mathematicians, politicians, community leaders, entrepreneurs, poets, novelists, etc.? That doesn't make sense.

Further to my comments at 20:29: If 40% of the admits are for sports that means that 60% are admits for other talents or attributes that the colleges deem important in ensuring an optimal learning environment and achieving their social mission.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is we're equating Intel with sports. I have no problem with some kids being brought on because they've shown great leadership in their sports. But valuing sports ABOVE other equally demanding extra-curriculars, or superb academics, seems misguided to me. A few athletes, yes. But a third of the class? What if a school chose really talented musicians for a third of the class? Or actors? Wouldn't that seem odd?

It is what it is. Williams is not the exception. All students need hooks now. If it isn't athletics at a level that you're good enough to play for a college team it is Intel or music or acting or art that is regionally/nationally recognized (not just playing in the school band or singing in the chorus or even being the lead in the high school play). Other hooks are first generation and URM and to a smaller extent geography and smaller yet legacy.

To reiterate a point that's been made several times superb academics (grades and test scores) are the baseline now at the most selective schools.

Anonymous wrote:The problem is we're equating Intel with sports. I have no problem with some kids being brought on because they've shown great leadership in their sports. But valuing sports ABOVE other equally demanding extra-curriculars, or superb academics, seems misguided to me. A few athletes, yes. But a third of the class? What if a school chose really talented musicians for a third of the class? Or actors? Wouldn't that seem odd?

I do agree with you about the proportions. I think the colleges argue that alumns like winning teams and they donate more which helps everyone. But yes there should be limits to this, and 40% seems too high.

The problem is we're equating Intel with sports. I have no problem with some kids being brought on because they've shown great leadership in their sports. But valuing sports ABOVE other equally demanding extra-curriculars, or superb academics, seems misguided to me. A few athletes, yes. But a third of the class? What if a school chose really talented musicians for a third of the class? Or actors? Wouldn't that seem odd?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a similar college. All three of my freshman roommates were athletic recruits. No way would they have gotten in without a sport- they admitted as much (one in particular was waitlisted and the coach got her off the waitlist- she would have gone to a much less prestigous school if she weren't a talented athlete). They were not successful academically.

OK, but when was this? And how prestigious was this college? Things have changed a lot since our day, and it's a really tough admissions world out there. I'm the PP who talked about the 4 ivy athletic recruits, all if whom are DC's friends at various area schools (DC got into one of these colleges but not as an athletic recruit, instead a national-level achievement). These aren't dumb jocks by any stretch.

I'm with the PP who said good grades and SATs aren't enough any more. These are more like a threshold, and then you need something more, which may be Intel or it may be athletics.

You may be right. This was 15 years ago at a similar SLAC.