<p>just to clarify onemoremom's post: Amherst, Wesleyan, and Williams together, as the little three, lowered their tips to 66, the lowest in the NESCAC. </p>
<p>carry on...:)</p>
<p>Actually, the NESCAC lowered the number of allowable tips to 66. It's all semantics. That doesn't include the 30+ "protects" in each freshman class at Williams. Same thing as a "tip" except "protects" have roughly "average" academic ratings as opposed to "below average" for the "tips".</p>
<p>But, hey... it sounds like owning the jock orientation is something that people associated with Williams are hesitant to do. I don't understand that. It's a strong and unique defining characteristic of the school, IMO. I think it's a terrific identity to embrace.</p>
<p>"it sounds like owning the jock orientation is something that people associated with Williams are hesitant to do."</p>
<p>Not at all -- just interested in pointing out that the use of skewed / obsolete data serves little purpose save to sharpen the blades of the axes certain parties have to grind.</p>
<p>I think there are two issues here. One is related to admissions and the 66 tips. Do they dilute the classroom experience of others? Who isn't being admitted as a result of these tipped students being admitted? How does that affect the institution as a whole?</p>
<p>The other issue, and perhaps more important to the OP, is what are the social effects of an athletic culture? Would a non-athlete find themselves without a social outlet? Would they be ridiculed or hazed for not being part of a varsity team? How is dorm life influenced by athletes?</p>
<p>At least at the time Williams went to 66 TIPS, it was NOT a NESCAC-wide initiative as interesteddad falsely claims. The issue is not embracing an identity as a place that is hospitable to athletes -- Williams does that as it does not hide from its athletic success. As usual, you twist the issue incredibly. The issue is whether Williams is INhospitable to non-athletes / is dominated by an "athletic culture" something that you repeatedly falsely claim, backed up by figures that are either totally wrong, outdated, taken out of context, or completely debunked (as I and others did in this thread). Williams' reputation for an athletic culture is, if anything, exaggerated, and the school (and its non-athlete alumni, ahem) rightfully want a more accurate, more balanced "cultural" reputation based on, for example, its amazing strength in the arts, unequaled among its peers (a huge percentage of students -- probably as many who participate in athletics, more or less, -- take part in at least one arts-related activity on campus, for example, whether it be radio DJ or writing or theater or campus musical groups; yet, you never claim that Williams has an "arts dominated" culture). </p>
<p>Remember two things: the TIPS at Williams are NOW (this was not true pre 2000, but standards have risen, so a lot reports cited by I.D. are very dated) as strong academically as the "average" admits at most other NESCAC schools (we are still generally talking about b plus students with over 1300 SAT's ...) and the protects would be admitted at basically any NESCAC school, other than Amherst, based on academics alone. So there really should not be a fear of academic "dilution." This isn't a D-I school featuring recruited athletes with 900 SAT's or something, not even close; you still have to be a VERY strong student. And on a percentage of campus basis, Williams has fewer RECRUITED athletes than any NESCAC school other than Tufts and maybe Middlebury ... so again, if you are worried about "dilution" you shouldn't be. Again, I am not talking about the 100 person cross country or 50 person varsity crew squad, most if not all of whom are regular admits who want to continue a varsity sport; I am talking about slotted athletes, primarily in team sports ... </p>
<p>OK, I'll stop feeding the troll now.</p>
<p>And electron blue, no and no. Once again, 60 plus percent of campus is non-varsity athletes, and half the campus don't partake in any sort of serious (aka club / jv) athletics -- from reading I.D., you have the sense that there are a small handful of ostracized non-athletes on campus. That is a false impression that he gleefully pushes for his own twisted reasons. No, HALF the campus is not without a social outlet as people who are not substantial participants in athletics. And certainly you wouldn't be ridiculed or hazed for not being part of a varsity team. (The only hazing I've ever heard of at Williams was,years ago, actually BY a varsity team involving its own members, and they got in big trouble for that). The only negative I'll say is that certain sports have a bit of a reputation (I can't 100 percent say whether fair or unfair) for causing destruction in campus dorms, so that would be a negative way dorm life is influenced. But again, these sports are hardly unique to Williams -- almost every college with which Williams seriously competes with for students has those same varsity sports, and in many cases makes bigger concessions / has bigger rosters in those sports, so to the extent that influences dorm life, it is not a Williams-specific issue ...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the NESCAC lowered the number of allowable tips to 66.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The initial decision to lower tips to 66 was a voluntary agreement made by Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan, as reported by the [url=<a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i26/26a03701.htm%5DChronicle%5B/url">http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i26/26a03701.htm]Chronicle[/url</a>] in 2002. At that time, most other NESCAC schools had 69-79 tips; don't know if they've reduced their numbers since.</p>
<p>As far as I know, Williams continues to have as few, or fewer, athletic tips than any other NESCAC school, with the likely exception of Connecticut College. And that's only because Conn Coll is a former women's college that doesn't field men's teams in many sports (e.g. football, baseball, wrestling)</p>
<p>
[quote]
One is related to admissions and the 66 tips. Do they dilute the classroom experience of others? Who isn't being admitted as a result of these tipped students being admitted? How does that affect the institution as a whole?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The academic standards for Williams as a whole are (with Amherst) the highest in NESCAC, and among the highest for any school in the country. So if the tips are diluting academic quality, they don't seem to have diluted it very much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would a non-athlete find themselves without a social outlet?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you have no interest in physical recreation (e.g. sports, hiking, skiing), then you should think carefully before spending four years of your life in a place like Williamstown MA or Middlebury VT or Hanover NH. These places offer lots of great opportunities for outdoor recreation, which is why they tend to attract athletic and outdoorsy people. However, isolated small towns in rural New England tend to be more limited in terms of indoor recreational offerings (e.g. clubs, restaurants, shopping).</p>
<p>If you like to play outside, then you will have plenty to do at a school like Williams or Middlebury or Dartmouth. If that's not your idea of fun, then realistically, the range of recreational and social opportunities may narrow considerably.</p>
<p>Ephman, my daughter is an ED admit so we're big Williams fans. My post was more about getting to the heart of issues which might actually be of concern to the OP. I don't think the admissions issues matter as much to a given admitted student as much as quality of life issues. </p>
<p>My daughter is a high school athlete who isn't good enough in her sport for Williams but she'll dive right into all the outdoorsy stuff. I'm a big believer in activity as the first line of defense for mental health. It's all good.</p>
<p>Wait a minute. If you go back to the start of this thread, I wrote that many non-athelets are perfectly happy at Williams. Don't put words in my mouth.</p>
<p><a href="a%20huge%20percentage%20of%20students%20--%20probably%20as%20many%20who%20participate%20in%20athletics,%20more%20or%20less,%20--%20take%20part%20in%20at%20least%20one%20arts-related%20activity%20on%20campus,%20for%20example,%20whether%20it%20be%20radio%20DJ%20or%20writing%20or%20theater%20or%20campus%20musical%20groups;%20yet,%20you%20never%20claim%20that%20Williams%20has%20an%20%22arts%20dominated%22%20culture">quote</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've never seen stats on current Williams students' activities. However, that is most certainly not true of incoming freshmen. The number of incoming freshmen with art, music, theater, dance, and writing "tags" on their admissions folders (combined) is less than the number of recruited athletes in each incoming class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it sounds like owning the jock orientation is something that people associated with Williams are hesitant to do. I don't understand that. It's a strong and unique defining characteristic of the school, IMO. I think it's a terrific identity to embrace.
[/quote]
Following this thread because S2 has only considered large national universities, in order to ensure a significant athletic culture; not just as a participant, but for the camaraderie and school spirit that college sports inspires. Based on all the info above, I'll suggest he look at Williams, as I think a LAC would be a good fit for him. And because I've read elsewhere that the math department is very strong at Williams. Thanks for all the insights.</p>
<p>archiemom - My S is an athlete who also looked at larger national universities with a big sports scene, but unlike yours, mine was not of a caliber to be able to play at the D1 schools he was considering. He preferred Williams, because he had a greater chance of enjoying the athletic culture as a participant. He'd been an active participant in h.s., and I think he didn't want to just be on the sidelines in college. </p>
<p>One other "cultural" difference between the athletic scenes at Williams and, say, UNC or Duke, is that at UNC or Duke or schools like them, certain athletes get elevated to a level of near deity by some fans in terms of social status. In my experience, that's not the case at Williams. Even the best athletes at Williams are not given special housing or privileges or revered by their fellow students. No one is waiting after a game to catch a glimpse of them. They're just regular kids. Once they're in (and I realize that's another topic), their athletic talent doesn't get them any farther than the artist's or actress's talent does, and it certainly doesn't get them a passing grade in the classroom.</p>
<p>I wanted to chime in to agree with the earlier commenter who highlighted how important it is to be excited about the location of the college. If you're on board with living in a teensy town and making your own fun, then it doesn't much matter if "your own fun" is rugby, high jump, or paper mache. I was a high school varsity athlete, but picked up a brand new sport at Williams and played on a club team for all four years. Loved it, and never would have predicted participating in that sport before getting on campus. </p>
<p>nceph rightly pointed out that athletes get NO special treatment. I had lots of classes with "helmet sport" athletes and they had to work just as hard as the rest of us. With very, very few exceptions you would have a hard time distinguishing who was on what varsity team and who played no sport at all when sitting around a seminar table.</p>
<p>Lastly, one of the great things about a small school is that you can dabble a bit more than at a larger university. In college people do tend to focus their extracurricular activities more than in high school, but at Williams it was common to listen to your entrymate the varsity wrestler on his world music radio show, or to go to a photography show featuring work by a swimmer, an actor, and that guy who seems to be on twelve broomball teams.</p>
<p>This article brings home one of my many points in response to interested (aka Williams-hating) dad's long-running crusade against athletics at Williams, namely, that he relies upon outdated data (a report that was issued in 2001, which reflected students admitted in the mid-1990's, under a vastly different admissions regime, with vastly difference standards for recruited athletes). As I stated earlier in the thread, the athletes at Williams in large part reflect the academic credentials and culture of the student body as a whole. If there is somewhat of an exception to that, it is limited to just a small handful of male team sports, sports that Williams is not even particularly successful in, because other schools have an even greater deviance from the norm in terms of admissions concessions in those sports. </p>
<p>The</a> Williams Record - Articles</p>
<p>So I just remind folks, once again, to take interesteddad's biased pronouncements on athletics at Williams with a grain of salt. </p>
<p>Here is another article on sports at Williams, where the athletic director again notes that Williams actually spends far less than its competitors on its athletic recruiting budget:</p>
<p>The</a> Williams Record - Articles</p>
<p>And really, all it takes is a walk around campus to compare the largely-dated athletic facilities to the ridiculously lavish theater, dance, science, art studio, humanities, housing, and student life facilities, to see just how false it is to claim that Williams places an inordinate institutional priority on athletics.</p>
<p>however, of note, is that Williams has one of the largest athletics budgets overall in division III. little may be directed towards recruiting, but williams spends by far the most on athletics in the NESCAC.</p>
<p>Kinda sensitive, huh?</p>
<p>Why not just post about the article in the Record, if you think it presents a positive story, and leave me out of it?</p>
<p>I'll make you a deal, you stop your one man crusade to repeatedly, on multiple threads, in multiple venues, spread debunked, outdated, decontextualized and/or misleading stats about Williams (and make broad, inaccurate generalizations about athletes and athletics at Willaims), and I will happily leave you out of it.</p>
<p>Yep. Kinda sensitive.</p>
<p>BTW, has Williams made this new report public yet?</p>
<p>HWC: You are biased, and you make illegitimate arguments. There are certainly fair arguments to be made on this subject, but not when they involve flagrant hyperboles. No one I have heard discuss with you appreciates you.</p>
<p>So, Pawn... walk by Hopkins, get a copy of this new report, and post it here.</p>
<p>It takes a while to walk 150 miles...</p>