<p>Ever thought about the women's colleges? They have all kinds of sports teams (including soccer and swimming), but without all that competitive hype (except maybe in crew and equestrianism). And she will get to play for the love of it.</p>
<p>The athletics as educational thesis; the point is that students learn skills in playing athletics that extend beyond the playing field. Athletic experience, says Harry Sheehy, enhances growth in the classroom. Confidence, time management, leadership, group dynamics and self-awareness are a few traits that can couple with the classroom experience to help form a more effective student. The claim is difficult to assess empirically, but we did find and this is contrary to the findings of Shulman and Bowen that athletes at Williams do not perform below expectations. That is, athletes perform at the same level as non-athletes admitted with comparable academic ratings (high school grades, SAT scores, etc.). At the same time, they do not perform any better than those comparable students, so it is hard to make the case that athletic participation translates into academic advantage for these students. Among the former athletes we interviewed, about the same number said that their school work improved after dropping their varsity sport as said it made no difference one way or the other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is the NEASC? Or do you mean NESCAC?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. Sorry. Wrong intials. I meant NESCAC.</p>
<p>Californian, there are club sports at many schools that might fit the bill for your daughter. At my son's Div I school, lots of former high school athletes play club sports.</p>
<p>The captains' practice phenemenon isn't limited to college - both my kids have had these in high school too, out of season...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Athletic experience, says Harry Sheehy, enhances growth in the classroom. Confidence, time management, leadership, group dynamics and self-awareness are a few traits that can couple with the classroom experience to help form a more effective student.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that were to be the case, wouldn't you want to be able to offer that experience to all of your students, not just highly recruited, nationally ranked athletes? Wouldn't that be an argument in favor of a return to the original "walk-on" intent of Division III?</p>
<p>BTW, I'm not sure where you are quoting Williams Athletic Director Sheehey from, but the school's own Faculty study of athletics found significant differences between the athlete and non-athlete populations ranging from social life to chosen majors and courses. Taking that one-step further, the President of the college is implementing wide-ranging changes to housing system, specifically intended to reduce the balkanization of the student body, largely into athlete and non-athlete social circles. This fragmentation is consistently noted by virtually every elite college that publishes an athletics review report.</p>
<p>Frankly, you are both right. (The quote comes from the introduction to the report.) The major differences found in the report - including Balkanization, impact on social life, chosen majors, courses chosen, academic performance, etc., were for the most part limited to two sports: male football and ice hockey. </p>
<p>However, since such a large proportion (a signficant majority) of the student body is involved in sports - varsity (that's all the report dealt with), junior varsity, club, and intramural - it would be hard to argue that sports is what "Balkanizes" the student body. On the contrary, it would be easier to argue that it is non-sports participation that results in this Balkanization.</p>
<p>What Sheehy's quote implies (and with which I concur) is that the classroom is the sole determinant of the value of an academic experience.</p>
<p>There are "club sports at many schools that might fit the bill for your daughter."</p>
<p>Yes, there are and goodness knows the number of times I have made this pitch to my D! Her argument is that (1) she really wants to have a trained swim coach working with her and (2) few aquatic centers are big enough to accomodate a strong non-varsity and varsity team. (Conversely, D would be happy to play soccer at the club or intermural level.) By the way, I don't mean to downplay D's swimming ability. She has earned her way to our state's swim sections and swam at the Junior Olympics and such, but she is NOT d1 caliber and is not likely to make nationals. </p>
<p>And YES, a woman's college might just be the best fit for a kid who really doesn't want to give up serious athletics in order to go to a top notch d3 LAC.</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings, to be sure, about athletic recruiting at both the D1 and D3 levels. This was a really informative article about the process, though, for student athletes. </p>
<p>As a side note, my son attended the Headfirst honor roll camps in his junior and senior falls of high school, and loved the camp and the staff. If anyone has an aspiring baseball player and wants information about it, feel free to send me a private message. Also, Coach Beccaria, who recruited both my son and his friend (although they both ultimately decided to go elsewhere) is one of the nicest individuals you will ever meet.</p>
<p>californian,</p>
<p>The D3s you named are the top athletic/academic D3s, most have national rankings in several D3 sports. Try the Haverford, Vassar, Grinnell, Smith, Skidmore, Trinity, Macalester, Colby level-- still very strong academically and not so turbocharged athletically. Go to the ncaa regional rankings for D3 swimming and shoot towards the upper middle of each region. Or go to the very strongest leagues and shoot for the bottom of those leagues. In any case stay out of national top 20. I promise you will find schools that are very well regarded academically and good athletic fits on these lists. Williams/Amherst/ Midd are only a notch down from Ivy schools athletically.</p>
<p>mini, </p>
<p>FYI Smith recruits athletes too.</p>
<p>Yes, they do (and I, frankly, have no problem with it, as long as folks are honest about it.) Especially in crew and equestrianism. The soccer team has been on the upswing as well. But not nearly as "turbocharged".</p>
<p>As I said, I've got one totally non-athletic kid, and one athletic one, and so what I wish to see is a transparent process, where kids and parents know what they are getting themselves into. I don't like schools mouthing about diversity when they are not, talk about student-athletes when the latter takes precedence over the former, or admissions policy masquerading as meritocratic when they aren't, "need-blind" policies that are so transparently false as to be laughable. If we have enough information, we have the groundwork for making sound choices.</p>
<p>Very interesting article and discussion. I am being recruited by several D3 school, including two of the schools that one of the posters here categorized as being athletic/academic intense. Every D3 coach at one point or another, either on the phone or on a visit, has said some version of the EXACT same thing to me: Think hard, do you really want the D1 experience? At a D1 school the coach "owns" you where here (fill in the blank) you can decide how much of your life you want your sport to be.</p>
<p>Is there truth to this? Or is this just the standard D3 line? It's hard for me to understand how a D1 school that doesn't give athletic scholarships can "own" you since they aren't paying you anything to play. Instead my parents are going to be paying (a lot!) for me to play. Also, the practices and schedules seem really similar if not identical to me at the D1 and D3 schools I've visited, so it's also hard for me to understand how I get more control over my sports life at a D3 school. </p>
<p>Any thoughts? Is there something that I am missing here? Is there a real difference in time commitment and pressure between D1 schools that don't give athletes scholarships and top notch D3 schools?</p>
<p>I am quoting him from the articles you linked to this thread. Don't you read them all or only the parts that support your rather narrow opinion?</p>
<p>The "D3 athletes-as-knuckledraggers" canard is frequently trotted out here by a few who seem to have an axe to grind. About 1/3 of Williams students participate in a varsity sport at some level--from superstar down to third-string assistant benchwarmer. Each year, around 160-170 of these are recognized as "scholar athletes" by the college for maintaining a 3.2 cumulative GPA. This is a third of the total number of eligible athletes (must be sophomore, junior or senior,) but the ratio becomes even more remarkable when one considers that the honor is only offered to "starters or key reserves," i.e., those who are able to consistently keep their "A" games going in both their sport and the classroom.
<a href="http://www.williams.edu/athletics/scholath.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.williams.edu/athletics/scholath.php</a></p>
<p>So of the 80+ members of the men's football team, three were honored for having a GPA a quarter point lower than the school-wide median?</p>
<p>Four of the men's baseball players? Three of the men's tennis players? Six of the men's soccer players?</p>
<p>Interestdad, your skepticism would be more welcome if it were accompanied by an analysis of the GPA's of the editor of the newspaper, the concertmaster of the symphony, the president of student government, or any other time-consuming EC.</p>
<p>I worked for a company which recruited BA's at elite campuses; our recruiting was very GPA intensive. Everyone knew that in order to snag a "campus leader" (highly desireable) we'd have to compromise on GPA (also important). It didn't mean that these kids weren't talented academically; just that something's got to give in a 24 hour day.</p>
<p>Our kind of work required significant analytical ability, strong writing skills, and superb time management skills. The difference between a 3.2 and a 3.6 GPA is not that telling, especially if the 3.6 spends his/her time in the library, and the 3.2 is out there in a leadership capacity. And yes, we knew the grade inflated schools, and we could tell the difference in looking at a transcript between a fluffy, padded college program and a rigorous curriculum.</p>
<p>Yup, that is what we found when we toured the top d3 schools in swimming.</p>
<p>The differences that we noted were (1) you can quit the sport at the d3 school without it interfering with your scholarship/aid and (2) the travel schedule interferes less with the academic program (because the schools in the division tend to be located closer to one another). That said, I noted (in the Williams article posted above) that the women's swiming/diving team had missed a week of school in one semester for sports reasons. </p>
<p>Suggestion: ask the coach for this year's practice/travel/competition schedule and see how many classes you would likely miss. Also, see what majors the athletes in your sport are completing. One of the coaches with whom we met said that they "always try" accommodate required science labs, but he wasn't convincing. If the school really does focus on academics first, you are likely to see athletes in a range of majors. Finally, ask how many "walk on" athletes the team typically has. If the team is full of recruited athletes, the team probably will do great athleticly, but the environment and coach's expectations on your time are likely to feel very similar to a d1 team.</p>
<p>CALIFORNIAN - curious - the women's swimming/diving thing - was the week of classes missed d/t to championships by chance - being ??state/regional/national/NCAA ?? If so - this is not unusual - the mens team probably did not qualify thus only the women's team being effected.</p>
<p>This is what the article said. The reference to the "division of the day" is Williams' policy to limit the hours in a day that classes can be taught in order to accommodate ECs.</p>
<p>"To get a more nuanced sense of the impact of varsity athletes on particular departments, we visited two of the departments in Division 2 that enroll a significant number of varsity athletes, History and Economics. . . .Others in both departments spoke in terms of the adverse contingencies of team-membership. One professor noted that athletes on one team (womens swimming and diving) already had missed two of the six weeks of courses. One professor also mentioned instances of teams missing classes to attend practices in the Field House, which could not accommodate all of the teams during the times allocated by the division of the day, and other faculty expressed concerns about captains practices. They observe that captains practices intrude on class time, and, regardless of the counsel of coaches, players feel subject to pressure to attend captains practice over classes. The history faculty was, on this score, especially concerned that the division of the day, which is supposed to prevent such things, was not shielding athletes from pressure to miss classes."</p>
<p>Jeep MOM, Perhaps it was a top championship, but I still find it troublesome for a d3 program. I am really hoping for a program where sports are not emphasized quite so much. I know I balk every year when my daughter needs to miss a class or two for swim sections or champs.</p>
<p>"This is what the article said. The reference to the "division of the day" is Williams' policy to limit the hours in a day that classes can be taught in order to accommodate ECs."</p>
<p>Californian - remember this is the premier Division 3 athletic college in the country, as recognized consistently by the Sears Trophy awarded on that basis. It is instructive to know what they have found to be their practices so you can know what to look for when you seek elsewhere, but I wouldn't necessarily generalize from their experience. It IS different from what we saw elsewhere at D3s when we were looking, and at some point the quantitative differences feel like qualitative ones. D3 athletics vary from Sarah Lawrence or Bard to Williams, and everything in between.</p>