Anonymous wrote:In some ways this WASP-B do not bother applying ED as an unhooked advice is similar to the top tier of nat’l unis: top unhooked kids should not be applying SCEA either. Use the ED/SCEA ticket wisely — at your peril.

It’s really hard because WASP tries to maximize first gen and athletes in tiny campuses.

In some ways this WASP-B do not bother applying ED as an unhooked advice is similar to the top tier of nat’l unis: top unhooked kids should not be applying SCEA either. Use the ED/SCEA ticket wisely — at your peril.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Legacy and donor kids are a tiny amount of applicants at LACs- it’s just not that common, since the alumni base is so small, we’re talking maybe 10 kids max, and they don’t have to apply ed. Questbridge takes off a bit from their ed fgli numbers, since they have a guaranteed amount of fgli students from that pool. I will say that this is getting more extreme as you see schools like Pomona accepting 61% of their classes requesting financial aid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree not to waste ED as an unhooked candidate for the most selective SLACs: Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC, Carleton.

But it can be really effective for the next tier below the more selective LACs for the unhooked. Some good places to use ED if it's a top choice are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Smith, Midd, Grinnell, Skid, Macalester, Colby, Bates, Colgate, Trinity, Oxy, etc.

But if the explanation for why ED slots aren't available at the top schools is athletics, then please explain why the same wouldn't hold true for the mid-tier SLACs. Surely there are lots of athletes at Wesleyan et al?

Agreed. For example, and I know this is only anecdotal, but I personally know hooked athletes that got ED spots at Wesleyan, Vassar, and Macalester.

We are talking about top students. Wesleyan and Midd are easier admits for top students — which makes ED worthwhile. Midd in particular takes something like 70% of its class ED, plus Midd and Wes are larger for SLACs (slightly lower athlete percentage). Vassar and Macalester have a lower athlete percentage. Carleton does too — and is an easier admit than the Pomonas of the world, so I would think ED is worthwhile there as well.

It’s not a SLAC, but my son ran track/XC at an Ivy, so this might give insight.

There were nine mid and long distance runners his year on the team. One was a walk on. Three were highly recruited and would not have been admitted without the hook. The other five had the stats and had a good shot at an Ivy without the sport. But they chose that school because the coach gave the support and the AO was able to guarantee a spot with a likely letter so they took it rather than rolling the dice. One was valedictorian. All but the three highly recruited had 1500+SATs etc etc. The non-highly recruited were okay runners but their combo academic and athletic stats got them in. The coach was really hanging his hat on the three highly recruited, but needed to fill out a team so he found kids with good enough academic stats to get past admissions.

I guess the point is one out of nine walked on. A bunch had the stats to get into an Ivy and took the guaranteed ED spot and a likely letter, so they took up an ED spot over a “regular high stats kid”. I suspect NESCACs, for example, are similar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

ok we have one example.

Yes. You asked for one and received one. What a ridiculous argument.

It is ridiculous to believe that this one example, even if we believe it is true, is at all representative of athletics at SLACs.

No one said it was representative of athletics. You asked for a damn example and are now throwing a fit because you were wrong. Get over it.

It wasn’t me asking for the example, so I have nothing to get over. I do know that Pomona soccer does not have open tryouts, though, so the cited example is extremely fishy. Whatever happened it wasn’t a “walk on” in the commonly accepted sense of the term.

Huh? Go check the roster- Kasai walked on to the team- he’s from Japan and did not miraculously get recruited across the ocean by Pomona to play. You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are.

Plenty of internation kid are recruited by SLACs. Not as many for some sports but top tier INternational schools know how to play the recruiting game quite well.

Pomona does not recruit internationally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

OK wow, so given that Bowdoin only accepts around 250 students during the ED/early admission season, that means more than 50% are taken by recruited athletes!

Then you have to consider other powerful ED hooks: Legacy, FGLI institutional priority, donor kids/development tags. Questbridge matches aren't ED but also make up part of the early acceptance class. That probably leaves only a small group for fully unhooked ED applicants.

I get what OP is saying now.

Anonymous wrote:I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

The numbers for Bowdoin are pretty easy because the NESCAC has formal and informal rules. They have 30 teams and they get two slots per team and 14 for football. These are recruits who can be below the mean (they often aren't) and get full recruiting support from the team. so 58=14 equals 72 recruits with full slotted support. Those are what is available per the NESCAC recruiting agreement. Traditionally on top of this there is an equal number of "tips" which are also effectively guarantees of admission for athletes who are above the mean student profile and this is also why people constantly point out that NESCAC athletes are typically highly qualified to attend the school. It is rare for a "tip" to not get in but they are not as strong of a guarantee as a slotted athlete. All of these spots can and are traded among teams and there are circumstances where the AO allows additional "tips". Colby is a school where this is rumored to happen given massive recruiting classes in a few sports over the past few years.

So for Bowdoin in the end, recruited athletes in a typical year are somewhere around 144 give or take one or two.

I think you all overstate how many athletes are or aren't recruited.

let's look at Bowdoin.
850 athletes
(668 unduplicated athletes)

Bowdoin is pretty typical in that the largest sport is track and field.

249 track and field athletes.
84 football (male only)
83 lacrosse

together that's a big chunk of the total number.

how many track and field athletes do you think were actually recruited? I'd say 10 a class. Same w football. same with lacrosse

Am I way off? I know lots of kids doing track and field at these schools - more than 20. And I can think of 1 that was recruited. We're not a powerhouse HS sports school so I know our numbers are low. But most track and field kids at these schools are not recruited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I know a Bowdoin kid who this year walked onto women’s rugby. I wouldn’t be shocked if there are many many girls who had never played rugby before arriving onto campus

That’s a club sport. Entirely different conversation.

Yep and most people haven't had previous exposure to rugby so they are used to training newbies. Club rugby is very different from varsity soccer or softball.

club or not, it's included in the athetlic numbers. so if you want to back out the number of athletes at these schools, back out the club sports that are administered by the athletic department. like women's rugby at Bowdoin

Not in teh government numbers, those are varsity athletes. Some schools show 70% if you include club and intramural sports which is great, kids should be active!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This website is worth checking out. It is data reported (not useless anecdata). It shows total varsity athlete numbers per college and splits for male and female. It is a combined number for all 4 years but freshman year is always the highest due to recruited athletes. There is drop off in senior and junior year so freshmen account for the highest amount of that number.

VERY FEW varsity athletes are walk-ons for SLACs.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not all athletes at a college are recruited.

My DD is being recruited for track. The coach of the LACs she's been talking to say very few (almost none) walk-on. So I'd assume that the vast majority are recruited.

Exactly. Hey DCUM - can you share your personal experience of your DC successfully walking-on to a varsity team at Williams, Swat, Amherst, Pomona, Bowdoin, CMC, Wesleyan, etc. in the past 5 years?

Do you have any real-life examples to share of this happening?

Crickets.

I do. Japanese student and a DC private school kid who both joined soccer at Pomona. The team has 7 walk ons in total. This isn't completely improbable.

ok we have one example.

Yes. You asked for one and received one. What a ridiculous argument.

It is ridiculous to believe that this one example, even if we believe it is true, is at all representative of athletics at SLACs.

No one said it was representative of athletics. You asked for a damn example and are now throwing a fit because you were wrong. Get over it.

It wasn’t me asking for the example, so I have nothing to get over. I do know that Pomona soccer does not have open tryouts, though, so the cited example is extremely fishy. Whatever happened it wasn’t a “walk on” in the commonly accepted sense of the term.

Huh? Go check the roster- Kasai walked on to the team- he’s from Japan and did not miraculously get recruited across the ocean by Pomona to play. You are not as knowledgeable as you think you are.

Plenty of internation kid are recruited by SLACs. Not as many for some sports but top tier INternational schools know how to play the recruiting game quite well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree not to waste ED as an unhooked candidate for the most selective SLACs: Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC, Carleton.

But it can be really effective for the next tier below the more selective LACs for the unhooked. Some good places to use ED if it's a top choice are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Smith, Midd, Grinnell, Skid, Macalester, Colby, Bates, Colgate, Trinity, Oxy, etc.

But if the explanation for why ED slots aren't available at the top schools is athletics, then please explain why the same wouldn't hold true for the mid-tier SLACs. Surely there are lots of athletes at Wesleyan et al?

I'm assuming it's because the ED rates for next tier down of LACs is just much higher. Like Wesleyan's ED rate is 40-50% (while Swat ED rate is still below 20%). Also Wesleyan is one of the biggest LACs (3000 students) so athletes are a smaller percentage of the overall student body since the student body is so big.

Anonymous wrote:Roughly 20% of all athletes are recruited.

https://www.ivycoach.com/the-ivy-coach-blog/college-athletes/ivy-league-athletic-recruiting-and-attrition/

This article is about the ivy league and references the founder of the blog's experience a generation ago? LACs generally have a higher percentage of recruited athletes according to coaches we've spoken with. My DD was recruited to 4 different LACs in the top 20 LACs. She passed the pre-read fo all of them, was told she had coach support and "was 100% in" only if she applied ED rounds. She visited all 4, did overnights, practiced with team, met with admissions team and got a private tour, coach told her nearly all his team was recruited not walk-on so there was virtually no spot for walk-ons (maybe 1). She picked her favorite and applied ED to last year and got in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree not to waste ED as an unhooked candidate for the most selective SLACs: Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC, Carleton.

But it can be really effective for the next tier below the more selective LACs for the unhooked. Some good places to use ED if it's a top choice are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Smith, Midd, Grinnell, Skid, Macalester, Colby, Bates, Colgate, Trinity, Oxy, etc.

But if the explanation for why ED slots aren't available at the top schools is athletics, then please explain why the same wouldn't hold true for the mid-tier SLACs. Surely there are lots of athletes at Wesleyan et al?

Agreed. For example, and I know this is only anecdotal, but I personally know hooked athletes that got ED spots at Wesleyan, Vassar, and Macalester.

Anonymous wrote:I agree not to waste ED as an unhooked candidate for the most selective SLACs: Williams, Amherst, Swat, Bowdoin, Wellesley, Pomona, CMC, Carleton.

But it can be really effective for the next tier below the more selective LACs for the unhooked. Some good places to use ED if it's a top choice are: Wesleyan, Vassar, Smith, Midd, Grinnell, Skid, Macalester, Colby, Bates, Colgate, Trinity, Oxy, etc.

But if the explanation for why ED slots aren't available at the top schools is athletics, then please explain why the same wouldn't hold true for the mid-tier SLACs. Surely there are lots of athletes at Wesleyan et al?