Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

The 39% vs 28% isn’t significant given the size of the school. I’m pretty sure that the 25 boys per class more than girls is ok under Title IX and is roughly equivalent as the first poster said. Not exact but equivalent. Not ok to the poster above who obviously feels that there are too many athletes but it meets the spirit of Title IX.

Williams isn’t going to cut any men’s sports programs so if they felt that they weren’t in compliance they would add more female athletes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

Not sure what your were trying to say but I’m pretty sure that you didn’t succeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Funny how it’s all the athletes who say there’s no divide. Ever stop to think it feels different to a non athlete?

Did you even read the post?

Yeah second hand BS. I'll credit what I've heard directly instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Well, I guess you got caught being….let’s leave it at that.
Williams has not only 100 more athletes, but fewer male students. Here’s the cite and your apology for being is accepted in advance:
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/details

If you want to see a social divide between athletes and nonathletes, I would think a bigger school with strong Div 3 sports-like Emory, Tufts, Wash U or Johns Hopkins- would have a bigger “social divide” between athletes and non-athletes. They’re in bigger cities, have graduate programs and the social life is more “spread out” or fragmented, than at the smaller, more rural LAC’s. I went to a rural LAC and socialized regularly with athletes in my dorm, the dining halls, and campus events. We were all aware when teams were playing in major tournaments or playing archrivals.
My kid who’s at one of the bigger places I mentioned above has mentioned that that many of their classmates have no awareness of what’s going on with their successful sports teams. That being said, I can see why an athlete-heavy rural LAC in 2025 might be harder socially for a nonathlete.

Anonymous wrote:There's no social divide here!

Go Ephs!

There's no social divide here!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Funny how it’s all the athletes who say there’s no divide. Ever stop to think it feels different to a non athlete?

Did you even read the post?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Funny how it’s all the athletes who say there’s no divide. Ever stop to think it feels different to a non athlete?

Did you even read the post?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard Hamilton is very socially divided, is this true?

It’s not. The athlete/non-athlete divide is really only a thing on DCUM.

I mean I heard it from a student so that's not true.

Not for well adjusted kids. I see and hear the opposite from a NESCAC athlete whom I talk to pretty much everyday. I hear and observe the same from their non-athlete roommate and best friend as well.

Well adjusted kids? Ok. Judge much?

Not at all. Athletes are a minority at any of these schools yet people talk like a non-athlete is completely out of water. People also talk about boys having it harder than girls which is funny given that the gender ratios at top SLACs has a much better balance than at top Publics and the number of female athletes is basically equal to that of males because of Title IX. There is plenty of room foe everyone to find "their people". This is just a continuation of the anti-athlete bias that certain groups carry.

You don’t understand Title IX. For instance, at Williams 39% of males are athletes and 28% of females.

I understand Title IX well. Might want to check on Williams, the actual number of athletes is about the same for both sexes. You might want to check your understanding of Title IX.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a non-athlete at a NESCAC during the 90’s. Athletes often ate together due to their practice schedules but when they didn’t have games or practices, they were eating and socializing with non-athletes. They were also involved in other aspects of campus life when their time permitted, and many of them were even able to study abroad for a semester. They were way more integrated into campus life than the anti-athlete posters make it seem.

I think it has changed a lot since then. Back then athletes were almost "students who happen to be athletes." Now, with athletics playing such a big part in the admissions process, being on a team is a much bigger part of an athlete's identity. I am a huge sports fan but I think that these schools have gone overboard in their devotion to athletics. I think that much of this is driven by the coaches, who have gotten the ears of admissions. From their perspective this is totally understandable because if they are consistently coaching poorly performing teams, they are likely to lose their jobs, so they have a huge incentive to recruit talented athletes, and then require those athletes to devote a large portion of their time to their sport.

Again, I love sports. But it just seems crazy for a sport that is lucky to draw 25 fans to a game and that many on campus don't even know exists to have so much pull.

Can you support any of what you said? I ask because most of it is incorrect.

This was a big concern for me about my nonathletic kid and I steered them away from slac for that reason. Kid is now a freshman at a medium size private university and says the social scene at their school feels pretty small/tight. They are happy not to be anywhere smaller. Interestingly, I hear my kid's friends all saying same thing over winter break (kids at flagships to med size schools). Usually same kids go to same parties so everyone already looks familiar. If it feels like that freshman year, kids would outgrow the college quickly.

I’ve got an athlete and a narp. The narp has the more exclusive social group. It grew out of a coed, selective and social debate team. The curious and gregarious athlete has much broader groups of friends.

What is the most common foundation of friendship? A shared experience, repeated over time.

Most schools do not have 39 percent of the men on a varsity team. But even those that do have 61 percent of men who are not on a varsity team. That is a lot of potential friendship. But it requires identifying an interest, and joining or creating the group that pursues that interest. Then putting in the hours and sustaining a shared experience. Kinda like… a team?

Whoever thought an interesting life was going to be served up on a silver platter? Then complained about the people who are enjoying their lives as a result of putting in the work?

I have no idea how real or not this “divide” is. But I’m fairly certain it would not prevent a non athlete from having an enjoyable social life if they put energy into their own interests. Who gives a **** about the lacrosse team other than the lacrosse team? Grow up.

Anonymous wrote:I was a non-athlete at a NESCAC during the 90’s. Athletes often ate together due to their practice schedules but when they didn’t have games or practices, they were eating and socializing with non-athletes. They were also involved in other aspects of campus life when their time permitted, and many of them were even able to study abroad for a semester. They were way more integrated into campus life than the anti-athlete posters make it seem.

With all due respect to your personal experience, absolutely no one has asked what it was like 30 YEARS AGO.

Anonymous wrote:I was a non-athlete at a NESCAC during the 90’s. Athletes often ate together due to their practice schedules but when they didn’t have games or practices, they were eating and socializing with non-athletes. They were also involved in other aspects of campus life when their time permitted, and many of them were even able to study abroad for a semester. They were way more integrated into campus life than the anti-athlete posters make it seem.

I think it has changed a lot since then. Back then athletes were almost "students who happen to be athletes." Now, with athletics playing such a big part in the admissions process, being on a team is a much bigger part of an athlete's identity. I am a huge sports fan but I think that these schools have gone overboard in their devotion to athletics. I think that much of this is driven by the coaches, who have gotten the ears of admissions. From their perspective this is totally understandable because if they are consistently coaching poorly performing teams, they are likely to lose their jobs, so they have a huge incentive to recruit talented athletes, and then require those athletes to devote a large portion of their time to their sport.

Again, I love sports. But it just seems crazy for a sport that is lucky to draw 25 fans to a game and that many on campus don't even know exists to have so much pull.