Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

Head of admissions at Harvard not that long ago - in the test optional era - said something like 80% of applicants meet the academic requirements. They application review process sets a pretty low number of apps aside in the very first pass as not being up to the standard. I think that's true for most schools. Kids have got the grades and test scores .. and now what do they have? So athletes get a leg up from there, which is pretty enormous. Of course they meet the requirements, but then .. most applicants do. These applications are self selecting.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This hasn't been my experience, and I know a lot of squash players and fencers. They're well off, but not super rich. Full pay but not donor class. And they aren't richer than, say, top level-in-their-city cello player parents who are ponying up for 15k cellos, private lessons, camps, etc. Music costs a lot of money too.

Yes, but don’t you get it? This is a false equivalency. Music is a pinky on the scale. Athletics is a fist. No fists should be allowed.

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.

This hasn't been my experience, and I know a lot of squash players and fencers. They're well off, but not super rich. Full pay but not donor class. And they aren't richer than, say, top level-in-their-city cello player parents who are ponying up for 15k cellos, private lessons, camps, etc. Music costs a lot of money too.

Anonymous wrote:
Rumor was that Mike Bloomberg leaned hard into getting Hopkins to abolishing legacy.

From my own experience over a decade ago, there were lots of kids of means and boarding school brats in Krieger A&S who didn't belong there. But their family had gone to Hopkins for multiple generations and the kid was the heir to some dynasty that invented the zipper. Nonsense like that.

And, frankly, with the rise of mega-donors in the billionaire class and 10-figure endowments, these big name universities are no longer as reliant on the blue bloods or inherited wealth trading on their family name.

Funny, because I grew up in Baltimore with a Hopkins prof parent and know a thing or two about Hopkins' history. It was never a school that created the loyal multigenerational legacy cliques you found at the Ivies. Hopkins was founded on the German research university model and the typical students were always like Bloomberg, bright from unconnected families. Old money Baltimore never considered Hopkins one of its own, sending their boys instead to Princeton etc. And Hopkins was also a school where alumni tended to say they'd never send their kids to Hopkins because for most of its history the school had a mediocre reputation for fostering strong undergraduate experiences.

I'm sure there were a few legacies around but Hopkins was losing very little in officially abandoning legacy. However, Bloomberg's grandkids are getting in one way or another. If they wanted to go to Hopkins, and rich kids generally don't. They never did.

Anonymous wrote:A pre-read in and of itself is a huge advantage. Every other applicant has no clue how they come across to admissions until it’s too late to make changes to their application strategy - especially what is more and more a crucial decision, where to ED.

The biggest takeaway from this thread, for me, is the parents of athletes whose kids clearly got an admission preference of some sort but are in denial about it. It seems that the academic apple does not fall far from the tree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

That’s not going to stop DCUM from crying that athletic recruiting is wrong, unfair, and racist. 🙄

(Haters, sorry your young nerd sucked at sports.)

The right question to ask is not whether athletes met the academic requirements but whether they displaced the nerds who exceeded the academic requirements. They took the place of others who are more deserving academically. So, yes athletic recruiting is biased. Is it wrong? That depends on what the sport bring to the school. I agree that "minor" sports that no students go watch in big numbers, or help with school spirit should be dropped from recruiting. It costs the school, and hence our tuition dollars, a lot of money to run these "minor" sports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

That’s not going to stop DCUM from crying that athletic recruiting is wrong, unfair, and racist. 🙄

(Haters, sorry your young nerd sucked at sports.)

Most applicants are qualified. The vast majority of applicants do not get in. Athletes get in, other qualified kids don’t. This is called an admissions preference. Duh.

It’s all about the dead presidents and the Benjamins.

^^^Same argument can be made for legacies-most of the ones I know are way more qualified than their parents nowadays!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

That’s not going to stop DCUM from crying that athletic recruiting is wrong, unfair, and racist. 🙄

(Haters, sorry your young nerd sucked at sports.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

This isn’t a real article. It’s one of these consulting groups pieces that links to the paid consultant. For actual stats, read the article provided on page one of this thread which provides the actual stats.

Correction -page 5

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

This isn’t a real article. It’s one of these consulting groups pieces that links to the paid consultant. For actual stats, read the article provided on page one of this thread which provides the actual stats.

I can second this.

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read this article, it states that typical requirements aren’t lowered at Wesleyan if you apply as an athlete and so not sure athletes are given any special favors as such.

As a parent of a student-athlete who was called the "top recruit" by coaches at two other NESCAC schools, but didn't pass the pre-read at either, I can attest to that. Athletes are no less, in any way, academically qualified. They have to meet the admissions requirements. The only benefit they get is knowing before the regular cycle that they will get in. There is no academic "bump."

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.

No one knows why. But Justice Gorsuch’s opinion in the affirmative action case hints at it.