SLAC with strong ED numbers that aren't 35% athletes

[Anonymous]

What many of you are missing is that the high percentage of athletes at these SLACS is part of these schools' culture. They are what they are because of the high percentage of athletes, whether you think that is a good or bad thing depending on your perspective. It's like saying, we want to have Harvard but without the cold. Or, we like Davidson, but Davidson should be in Maine. Or Swarthmore should have 5,000 students rather than 1,600. Those are all ridiculous statements but so is wishing a school is something it is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Percentage athletes:

Williams 36%
Swarthmore 33%
Trinity 33%
Hamilton 33%
Wash and Lee 32%
Amherst 30%
Haverford 30%
Kenyon 30%
Grinnell 26%
Davidson 26%
Middlebury 26%
Holy Cross 23%
Occidental 22%
Carleton 20%
Princeton 19%
Colgate 18%
Macalester 18%
Vassar 17%
Tufts 14%
Brown 13%
Georgetown 11%
Hampshire 11%
John’s Hopkins 10%
Bard 10%
Rice 10%
Notre Dame 9%
Wake Forest 8%
William and Mary 8%
WashU 7%
Chicago 7%
Boston College 7%
Virginia 5%
Fordham 5%
George Washington 4%
USC 3%
Ole Miss 3%
American 3%
Indiana 2%
Arizona 2%
Texas 2%
Maryland 2%
NYU 2%
St. John’s 0%
Reed 0%

Source?

Curious as to why this list of schools. Here is another list too:
https://xfactoradmissions.com/basic-guide-to-college-admissions/total-ncaa-athletes-at-the-top-colleges

I don’t know how accurate that article was but it clsims: “Most of the time, between 20% and 50% or more of the athletes on NCAA teams are made up of “walk on” athletes, these are students who most likely played the sport in high school, but they gained admission without any type of sport related priority.”

It would be great if colleges published their own actual recruit (admission advantaged) vs walk-on (not admission advantaged) numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even 35% puts Bowdoin towards the top of these lists.

Anything over 30 is so crazy to me.

Let’s be honest: anything over 15 is crazy.

I totally agree. Why there are more athletes than musicians or mathematicians, I’ll never understand.

I get how a big football team or basketball team might bring the student body together, but for sports that don’t even attract a viewership of peers? Lose them

My kid is at a SLAC school doing a somewhat-casual club sport. Lots of friends are athletes and, at the same time, "mathematicians and musicians." It is definitely worth paying attention to whether the social life is bifurcated between athletes and non-athletes, because that further narrows the social pool at an already small school. But lots of kids are well-rounded and want to continue their sport in college, as well as making other contributions to the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What many of you are missing is that the high percentage of athletes at these SLACS is part of these schools' culture. They are what they are because of the high percentage of athletes, whether you think that is a good or bad thing depending on your perspective. It's like saying, we want to have Harvard but without the cold. Or, we like Davidson, but Davidson should be in Maine. Or Swarthmore should have 5,000 students rather than 1,600. Those are all ridiculous statements but so is wishing a school is something it is not.

this is 100% not true. the culture was set when women's sports weren't even a thing.

colleges would like the get rid of some of these sports that are not great for the culture in 2024, like skiing, sailing, squash. But vocal alumni has issues. they should be braver.

[Anonymous]

My kid goes to a top 15 SLAC and so did I (I went to a different one than where he goes). This is not a real issue.

[Anonymous]

For a small SLAC, I’m really not sure there is an ED advantage. The Williams tour actually said that there was no advantage. My kid was a recruit at a NESCAC SLAC and I did research on the topic. Most NESCACs have about 2 spots per team (except for football which gets about 9 or 10) where they can take a player slightly below school averages. But teams need more than 2 recruits so players who meet school averages are also recruits and team can have an unlimited but normally about 2 or maybe 3. These players still get full coach support and agree to apply ED so in reality almost all athletes are recruits at NESCAC schools. The ED advantage given these numbers probably not huge but better at a school that is larger (Wesleyan) or that takes most of class ED (Middlebury).

[Anonymous]

Also, just because someone is a recruited athlete at these schools does not mean they are not also a musician or debater, etc. As noted above, most the athletes will be at or above school averages which for many schools means top grades and above 1500 SAT (coaches like test scores). These are talented kids who love their sports. The Ivy Leagues (D1) drop their academic standards much more than the NESCAC schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, just because someone is a recruited athlete at these schools does not mean they are not also a musician or debater, etc. As noted above, most the athletes will be at or above school averages which for many schools means top grades and above 1500 SAT (coaches like test scores). These are talented kids who love their sports. The Ivy Leagues (D1) drop their academic standards much more than the NESCAC schools.

It’s about who is on campus on the weekends. It’s an issue for boys

[Anonymous]

I know two happy students at Bentley. A nice SLAC on the larger side. They are not recruited athletes but enjoy club and intramural sports there. Nice admit rate. Smart kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, just because someone is a recruited athlete at these schools does not mean they are not also a musician or debater, etc. As noted above, most the athletes will be at or above school averages which for many schools means top grades and above 1500 SAT (coaches like test scores). These are talented kids who love their sports. The Ivy Leagues (D1) drop their academic standards much more than the NESCAC schools.

It’s about who is on campus on the weekends. It’s an issue for boys

Esp straight guys. These schools have strong gay communities

[Anonymous]

Niche lists the percent athletes on a school’s profile, but not sure if accurate. Maybe Wesleyan? It’s a larger LAC, so there are more non-athlete spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What many of you are missing is that the high percentage of athletes at these SLACS is part of these schools' culture. They are what they are because of the high percentage of athletes, whether you think that is a good or bad thing depending on your perspective. It's like saying, we want to have Harvard but without the cold. Or, we like Davidson, but Davidson should be in Maine. Or Swarthmore should have 5,000 students rather than 1,600. Those are all ridiculous statements but so is wishing a school is something it is not.

this is 100% not true. the culture was set when women's sports weren't even a thing.

colleges would like the get rid of some of these sports that are not great for the culture in 2024, like skiing, sailing, squash. But vocal alumni has issues. they should be braver.

🙄 How are they not great for the culture?

[Anonymous]

Ask Stanford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Percentage athletes:

Williams 36%
Swarthmore 33%
Trinity 33%
Hamilton 33%
Wash and Lee 32%
Amherst 30%
Haverford 30%
Kenyon 30%
Grinnell 26%
Davidson 26%
Middlebury 26%
Holy Cross 23%
Occidental 22%
Carleton 20%
Princeton 19%
Colgate 18%
Macalester 18%
Vassar 17%
Tufts 14%
Brown 13%
Georgetown 11%
Hampshire 11%
John’s Hopkins 10%
Bard 10%
Rice 10%
Notre Dame 9%
Wake Forest 8%
William and Mary 8%
WashU 7%
Chicago 7%
Boston College 7%
Virginia 5%
Fordham 5%
George Washington 4%
USC 3%
Ole Miss 3%
American 3%
Indiana 2%
Arizona 2%
Texas 2%
Maryland 2%
NYU 2%
St. John’s 0%
Reed 0%

Source?

Curious as to why this list of schools. Here is another list too:
https://xfactoradmissions.com/basic-guide-to-college-admissions/total-ncaa-athletes-at-the-top-colleges

I don’t know how accurate that article was but it clsims: “Most of the time, between 20% and 50% or more of the athletes on NCAA teams are made up of “walk on” athletes, these are students who most likely played the sport in high school, but they gained admission without any type of sport related priority.”

It would be great if colleges published their own actual recruit (admission advantaged) vs walk-on (not admission advantaged) numbers.

I am very doubtful of this in the case of high academic LACs. Many of those athletes are D1 caliber but wanted to go to the SLAC for academic reasons. Good luck walking onto that team.

And the next question would be, do these supposed walk ons ever see the field, or are they bench warmers? When the team travels, do they even get to come?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if you really want to game this out, figure out how many varsity athletes are at each school (there’s a government website that has this info, but many schools have it on their websites), divide by four, and then subtract that number from the number of ED admissions.

Not all varsity athletes at SLACs are recruited. As many as half may be walk-ons.

Yes - I went to Williams. Not only are there many walk ons, there are quite a few kids who are multi-sport athletes.