<p>Hi! I’m a HS senior looking at Amherst and a few other selective LAC’s for political science. Although I love the idea of the consortium and the open curriculum, I’m concerned about the athletic culture that I perceive at Amherst, since I don’t plan on attending games, don’t have very much school spirit, and want to go somewhere where academics are prioritized. Could someone speak to how easy it is to avoid the athletic culture at Amherst if you’re not that into it? Thanks!</p>
<p>That’s a legitimate concern, given that so much of Amherst’s early history and identity are tied to sports. For example, few people recall or are even aware that Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan (The Little Three) were founding members of the NCAA:</p>
<p>[NCAA</a> News Archive - Founding members hold true to NCAA educational mission](<a href=“http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2006/Membership+Information/founding%2Bmembers%2Bhold%2Btrue%2Bto%2Bncaa%2Beducational%2Bmission.html]NCAA”>http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/NCAANewsArchive/2006/Membership+Information/founding%2Bmembers%2Bhold%2Btrue%2Bto%2Bncaa%2Beducational%2Bmission.html)</p>
<p>And, the interesting thing about that original group of colleges is that three quarters of them are presently Division III colleges, suggesting a very different picture of intercollegiate sports in 1906 than exists today. A hundred years ago, a typical Little Three athlete wasn’t so different from their classmates, kids interested in running, jumping and throwing an object as far as they could - but with extremely few prospects of ever getting rich by doing so.</p>
<p>Today, you can walk around any NESCAC college (the small college version of the Ivy League) and immediately tell who the athletes are; they are bigger, taller, heavier than most of their classmates, many of them having chosen Amherst over a comparable Division I college.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with that per se; excellence comes in many forms. The problem is one of scale. At 1600 students, Amherst is the smallest of the Little Three. What that means is that in order to field a typical football roster of say, 80 guys, one in every 10 Amherst men have to be a member of the football team. Add basketball, baseball, wrestling, hockey, soccer and track and field and pretty much 40% of your classmates are members of some sort of sports team.</p>
<p>Can you avoid school spirit and all athletic events? Of course you can (only Wesleyan makes a big deal out of having “the oldest playing field in continuous use in America” - right in the center of campus.) Pratt Field is sufficiently far from the main campus that but for the occasional flu-like outbreak of purple clothing giving any hint at all, you’d have no idea of what is going on.</p>
<p>That being said, however, it depends on how pure you want to remain in your non-involvement: Amherst parties are open to everyone, but, the lowdown is that they are run by the sports teams.</p>
<p>My child attends an NESCAC school, not Amherst, I only respond because I was at Amherst yesterday for a sports competition…two amazing liberal arts schools, enthusiastic alumni in the stands, great energy from both sides. </p>
<p>Two things that confuse me from your post…Why are you so intent on not having school spirit? To your mind, does not having school spirit, or not attending sporting events make a person a more serious, more successful student? How sad. School spirit doesn’t have to equate streaking across the quad in school colored body paint. I’m sure you know that there are many, many examples of schools that have rich athletic histories AND rigorous, highly selective academic programs. Two words. Ivy League…it’s a sports conference, no? </p>
<p>And to circuitrider…interesting history lesson. I have to laugh tho’ at your suggestion that you can immediately tell who the athletes are any NESCAC campus. Mostly 'cos it’s just not true. With the exception of maybe men’s basketball players and the O-line from the football team, most athletes are pretty skilled at blending in just like normal people. :)</p>
1 Like
<p>
</p>
<p>Jobenny, those positions alone account for 10% of the Amherst student body:</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/winter/basketball-w/roster[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/winter/basketball-w/roster</a>
<a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/winter/basketball-m/roster[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/winter/basketball-m/roster</a>
<a href=“https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/fall/football/roster[/url]”>https://www.amherst.edu/athletics/teams/fall/football/roster</a></p>
<p>circuitrider and JoBenny, thank you for your replies.</p>
<p>JoBenny, let me clarify. I was referring to school spirit mainly in the “streaking across the quad” sense of the term. While I don’t mind and would, moreover, prefer a school whose students are dedicated to it, I dislike many forms of school spirit because I consider them to be pompous in that they imply that one’s school is better than other schools, when in reality both are likely very good.</p>
<p>As to the athletic culture having an impact, I think that it is inevitable that a focus on athletics will be detrimental to a school’s academic climate, since the two can occasionally conflict (e.g. do we admit the amazing athlete with decent academics or the amazing student with decent athletic ability?). I’m not saying that a school can’t have both or that Harvard isn’t a good school for academics (lol), just that it and others might be better if they didn’t focus so much on sports.</p>
<p>I’m aware enough that Amherst has a focus on sports and I know that this is a negative for me; my main question revolves around how easy it is to avoid this culture and how important of a consideration this ought to be. Any additional input would be greatly appreciated; thanks!</p>
<p>Sdkb01, it’s an important consideration basically because you say it is. Ordinarily, I would say that for someone whose tolerance for non-intellectual pursuits were within normal limits, the risk factors are minimal.</p>
<p>In my original college years, I spent 2 years at a Texas state university. There, athletics were a big deal and there was certainly an “us and them” distinction between athletes and everyone else.</p>
<p>Afterward, I went to Georgetown, and chose it partly because I wanted less of a “rah rah” sports mentality and more of a focus on intellectual pursuits. They did have the men’s basketball team with some of that “us and them” factor, but the rest of the school’s athletic teams were just part of the student body, among us having spirited debates in philosophy class, striding the boards in a theater club, or wowing the class with an elegant solution to a mathematical problem. </p>
<p>Being in that environment softened my thinking on what it meant to be at a college with a lot of sports activity. I realized that there are really two visions of how sports relates to academics out there in the collegiate landscape: A) That Division I sports-as-fundraising, athletes-as-demigods, wear-the-school-colors-or-be-marked-as-a-social-pariah vision, and B) a more balanced and integrated vision that sees athletics as simply part of a well-rounded mind-body education, athletes as integrated members of the student body, and cheering for the team not some sort of cult-like religious observance but simply a way of supporting your friends and colleagues and being social.</p>
<p>I’m not an Amherst student, but I’ve met some of their athletes in the course of my college life and beyond, and the impression I get from them is that they are solidly in column B.</p>
<p>In the years since my initial undergraduate adventure, I’ve joined a rowing team and discovered first-hand that athletics can actually quiet and focus the mind. I’m happier, smarter, and more productive when I am rowing regularly than when I am not. If you set aside the prejudice that intellectualism is the province solely of the mind, you can find that intellectual spark in every cell of your body.</p>
<p>So if you gave me the choice today between a school like Amherst just as it is, and an identical Amherst with absolutely no athletic teams, I would choose Amherst just as it is. Every time. And I would find a team to join, even if it meant being a walk-on for a sport I don’t even know how to play.</p>
<p>Your mileage may vary…but I encourage you to kick the tires a bit before deciding you will never ride in that car. :)</p>
<p>I doubt Amherst settles for less academic students in recruiting athletes. There are no “dumb jocks,” so to speak, here at Williams, and I imagine Amherst to be similar. Athletes at (only) these top few D3 schools are usually recruited out of an already academically qualified pool. Although admissions policies in practice are not always what is officially claimed, I do believe this claim indeed holds true.</p>
<p>There are absolutely lower academic standards allowed for athletes at Amherst. Try getting in with a 29 ACT if you are not a recruited athlete or otherwise hooked. Desired athletes get recruited at that level.</p>
<p>There are no “dumb athletes” at Amherst. I am a “D” band recruit at Amherst. This means I am the absolute lowest they can take. My SAT scores are still in the top 10% nationally and I have never had less than a B in any class I have taken at my very competitive HS which sends lots of kids to top schools every year. This means that yes, there is a break for needed skills, but it’s not a break that turns anyone at a school like Amherst into someone “dumb.”</p>
<p>Maybe I can’t translate the Hobbit into Latin but it doesn’t mean I don’t have something valuable to contribute to the community. </p>
<p>Amherst just happens to have sports teams where they need athletes who can play, and I have put ten years into my sport just the way anyone else puts their time into their activities. </p>
<p>Maybe I will also volunteer coach someone else’s kids in elementary school and middle school someday once my college playing time is done. </p>
<p>All of our contributions are valuable.</p>
<p>This entire conversation should remind us that the culture at Amherst (and Williams) is over-determined by the characteristics of males (athletes or no).</p>
<p>^It doesn’t remind me of any such thing. The conversation is about athletic culture, not male hegemony. And to reiterate Yankee’s point, there are no academically marginal students at Amherst, athletes or not.</p>
<p>Yankee - great point and perspective And I have a gut feeling that you may be a great coach or teacher someday.</p>
<p>Anecdotal evidence, but my son, a possible athletic recruit, has grades and scores well beyond that of the average applicant according to Naviance. Outside of the Ivies, it is difficult to find a balance of challenging athletics and academics.</p>