Anonymous wrote:Faculty tuition assistance makes a lot of sense (plus its a baked into the compensation package). Legacy and donor preferences need to go.

Anonymous wrote:One of the dumbest neighborhood kids is on his way to Harvard via athletics. It’s kind of funny. He is the last kid you would associate with Harvard or academic excellence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

Obscure sports are side doors into the schools for wealthy full pay kids whose parents have the means to get their kid personal coaches and trainers. The schools expect the money that was spent on training in their youth then get rolled into the university as donations.

A kid might not be a recruiter athlete, but Coach still has a roster to fill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More schools will be doing this because it is a relatively cosmetic change and good PR; it barely moves the needle. Athletes have a far greater impact: what about admission preferences for Wesleyan’s 900 or so athletes, the vast majority of whom are white? Reserve plaudits until Wesleyan, Amherst and their brethren do something about the real issue. This is a mere distraction from more fundamental change, so don’t fall for it.

What the heck? Where are you getting 900 recruited athletes at Wes? That’s nearly a third of the student body. I went to Wes and hardly knew any serious athletes. I serious doubt thirty percent of the student body is recruited athletes with admissions preference.

I do agree with doing away with athletic recruitment however.

You are right. It is closer to 25%. So almost 800. It is irrelevant whether you thought they were serious athletes: they have a huge fist pressed down on the admissions scale — and legacy was but a pinky.

Where are you getting these stats from? Just because a kid is an athlete doesn’t mean he was recruited and given admissions preference.

Apparently, you don't know the hook a recruited athlete has in college admissions regardless of division, and especially for the selective Division 3 colleges like Wesleyan.

We're not merely talking about Johnny or Sally playing a high school sport as an extracurricular activity.

Yes, I do understand that recruited athletes have a huge leg up I college admissions. What I’m challenging is your assertion that 800 Wes students are RECRUITED athletes. I seriously doubt that. You haven’t provided any evidence for that.

It’s possible that 800 of the students might say they play a sport, but that doesn’t mean that they were all recruited in the admissions sense.

NP: is recruited athlete the same as varsity athletes? According to this link 25% of the students at Wesleyan are varsity athletes.

https://www.koppelmangroup.com/blog/2023/4/1/college-athletic-recruiting-for-wesleyan

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Totally agree that the athletic departments are huge at a lot of top schools. Harvard, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Duke offer among the largest numbers of sports in the country. Harvard and Stanford are #1 and 2!

Anonymous wrote:I dont know why colleges have more sports than your average high school school. Football, basketball, swimming, tennis? Okay. Sailing, squash, fencing, water polo? Why?

I literally don't understand what these low/no spectator sports adds to a school? I played club sports and those were great, added a lot to school spirit, helped with community and mental health, I'm sure. Clubs cost the school very little and require no tips on the admission side. Just make these sports club sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

It’s zero sum. They aren’t admitting as many of those kids because 25% of the class is taken up by athletes. It leads to less diversity in the broadest sense. That isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a massive problem.

Is 25% too much? If so, why? There would still be plenty of room for the standouts from those other non-sports activities, right? Giving more real admissions preference would make the singing, robotics, debate, dancing, and art better too! Having more people involved in real campus activities would be great. That strong attachment would be good for the school too since they want donors! What I saw was too many of were people who basically did nothing once they got to college. Getting in was like the actual accomplishment rather than the start of the journey. They did fine since just about everyone graduates but didn't add much beyond the few that were truly passionate about particular subject areas.

There are so many categories of great applicants. Why are you so comfortable giving one in four spots to athletes? I’d prefer a more diverse student body. What percentage do the orchestra kids get? The actors? Singers? Painters? Poets? Scientists? Film makers? Apparently you value athletics over those things. I do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

It’s zero sum. They aren’t admitting as many of those kids because 25% of the class is taken up by athletes. It leads to less diversity in the broadest sense. That isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a massive problem.

Is 25% too much? If so, why? There would still be plenty of room for the standouts from those other non-sports activities, right? Giving more real admissions preference would make the singing, robotics, debate, dancing, and art better too! Having more people involved in real campus activities would be great. That strong attachment would be good for the school too since they want donors! What I saw was too many of were people who basically did nothing once they got to college. Getting in was like the actual accomplishment rather than the start of the journey. They did fine since just about everyone graduates but didn't add much beyond the few that were truly passionate about particular subject areas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recruited athlete has shown merit to a school, which isn't like a legacy or someone given a preference for something they can't change (like where they were born or their racial category).
You may want schools to limit their teams or even eliminate sports (keeping some of the ultra-elite ones is questionable at best but ask Stanford about trying to get rid of them) but you should recognize there is a clear difference when someone has an actual skill that has been developed that is valued by American colleges.

Doesn't the fact that athletes graduate at high rates from the most elite schools (like most everyone else does too) make people think the purely academic portion of applicant profiles really should play less of a role in admissions decisions? Schools should be doing more in admissions for standouts in the top few % nationally and internationally in areas like debate, orchestra, band, dance and art rather than less for athletes (though I do think the number of sports should go down at most schools). Those people can impact the campus community too and offer a lot post-graduation with some of the same EQ and team building you get as an athlete. The recruited athlete discussion here misses a lot.

It’s zero sum. They aren’t admitting as many of those kids because 25% of the class is taken up by athletes. It leads to less diversity in the broadest sense. That isn’t lost on anyone. It’s a massive problem.