<p>Did you follow this link within the link that you linked? :)
<a href="http://www.ephblog.com/archives/000799.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ephblog.com/archives/000799.html</a></p>
<p>As to the women's swimming/diving team--they produced 13 scholar/athlete honorees during the 03-04 season, 3 of whom were history majors (and 2 of them were doubling.) I'm not sure the missed two weeks was entirely accurate.</p>
<p>No, I hadn't. Thanks. (Of course, it's all alumni speaking, so should be taken with two fi st fuls of salt. ;))</p>
<p>"As to the women's swimming/diving team--they produced 13 scholar/athlete honorees during the 03-04 season, 3 of whom were history majors (and 2 of them were doubling.) I'm not sure the missed two weeks was entirely accurate."</p>
<p>(Or maybe, as I suggested, the two missed weeks really didn't make any difference. ;)) When my d. turned down Williams, it was not because of the heavy emphasis on non-curricular activities (indeed, that was more than an attraction, it was a requirement for any place she was seriously considering, and one of main reasons Swarthmore and Reed were crossed off the lists), but simply the athletic bent (and the fact that she could find more of what she wanted elsewhere.)</p>
<p>Well, Nesbitt is an alum, but that shouldn't be held against him...he's also the director of admissions, speaking on the record.</p>
<p>One of the oddities of the Williams discussion is the extraordinary focus on SAT scores as a measure of student quality. Yet, the difference of 100 points on the combined SAT that Nesbitt reports (at that level of score) is half that reported by the CollegeBoard of the impact of family income on SAT scores. Could it be the case (I wouldn't know) that, over time, W. (and lots of other prestige private schools) are attracting a wealthier class of athletes? 73% of white students at Williams receive no need-based aid; 50%+ of them play a varsity sport. A much higher percentage of non-white students receive need-based aid, and much lower percentage of them play a varsity sport. </p>
<p>Please note - I am using W. as the example here only because they have been open and honest in making their data public - I have strong suspicions that one would see the same trends at many other LACs and Ivies.</p>
<p>I was thinking about what I wrote. Perhaps another way of looking at it would be to say that is - if an applicant is good enough to get an athletic tip at a D3 need-blind, prestigious school (or a D1 Ivy), wouldn't said applicant also often be good enough (either or both academically and athletically) to be able to receive signficant merit aid and/or need-based aid at a different one? Wouldn't that over time lead the leading D3s (and Ivies) to a higher proportion of relatively higher income athletes (and isn't there at least a suggestion of that in the W. data?)</p>
<p>Mini:
I'm still a little confused about where you're going with this....but if you're suggesting that many wealthy, highly qualified students choose the elites despite the scholarships that are available for them elsewhere--merit or athletic--the answer is yes. No question.</p>
<p>Look at the sports played at the elite colleges. I know, I know, there are exceptions. But, I don't imagine there are too many squash courts in the projects.</p>
<p>to playing on the International courts in the projects. Funny comment but true.</p>
<p>"I'm still a little confused about where you're going with this....but if you're suggesting that many wealthy, highly qualified students choose the elites despite the scholarships that are available for them elsewhere--merit or athletic--the answer is yes. No question."</p>
<p>I'm frankly not clear either. The wisp of the thought was brought on by the disconnect between Nesbitt's comments about the athletes' SAT scores only being 100 points lower, and the faculty comments (your link) about (to put it blandly) "less engaged" athletes in the classroom. So I'm suggesting (as does the CollegeBoard) that the higher income of the athletes accounts for the smaller SAT spread.</p>
<p>(Even 35 years later, I remember the four beer-drinking, acid-dropping, female-abusing ice hockey players who lived next door - sons of folks who were, to make an understatement, very high-up in the military-industrial elite of the day. I'm not very sure that they saw the inside of a classroom very much - I'm sure I never saw them there - but they went on to do very well "for themselves" in life, and contribute heavily back to alma mater. But note, these were ice hockey players, not female swimmers or divers - even the W. athletics report noted a big difference. And to be fair, one of my best friends was an acid-dropping, ice-hockey wannabe, of a similar variety - 3rd team - who dropped out, finished his degree, became an orthodox Jew, and dean of a law school.)</p>
<p>"Look at the sports played at the elite colleges. I know, I know, there are exceptions. But, I don't imagine there are too many squash courts in the projects."</p>
<p>Most of them are in Pakistan, next door to the Madrasehs.</p>
<p>Aren't the best cricket clubs in that part of the world as well?</p>
<p>Conclusion to the NYT series about LACs and athletics. The lacrosse player who didn't get into Haverford has a happy ending... I'm very happy for him.</p>