@CorryBernstein we’re capable of following links here, no need to copy/paste the entire thing. Here’s the article and comments: https://acvoice.com/2017/04/02/the-state-of-athletics/
It’s also against the TOS to do that.
This argument sounds a lot like the one made by people who say the playing field is uneven because of the lower admissions standards for recruited athletes.
You just substituted race for athletics. Kind of ironic.
@OHMomof2 CC is very touchy about what links can and cannot be posted, and it’s easier for the readers of this thread to read the comments here, rather than having to go to another link. So I won’t apologize for trying to give those reading this forum an easier time understanding.
And my point was that by enforcing racial quotas on athletic teams as well as the student body as a whole, one would be even further harming a white person’s chance of being admitted. Similar to what @ReallyFantastic said, I believe that an applicant’s admissions decision should be based on academics first, every other factor second, which doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. And it’s not entirely ironic – I am not calling for affirmative action in either case, but an equal playing field, with emphasis on academic prowess. Enforcing racial quotas on athletic teams is a step in the wrong direction.
https://auth.collegeconfidential.com/module.php/hobsonspolicies/policy.php?policy=tos
If you believe that “an applicant’s admissions decision should be based on academics first, every other factor second” then I assume you are not in favor of athletes getting special admissions consideration at all?
While I somewhat agree with this sentiment, I’m also pretty sure that I’ve not actually said anything on the subject of affirmative action within this thread.
I am honestly not sure exactly what people here are arguing about (I leave for 1 week and this happens?!), so I’ll just make a general statement and say that I don’t have a problem with affirmative action. As I mentioned upthread, Amherst goes to a lot of effort to admit a diverse student body (more so than most other elite schools, I’d suspect). The more time I spent in college, the more I came to appreciate that.
While academics should always come first, it shouldn’t be the only thing that a college looks for either. Otherwise, everybody in the Amherst student body would probably come to look a lot more like me, hah-- and while I do think that I’m super great, it’s not really conducive to student life to make everybody more of the same.
I’ve heard there’s a significant drinking culture at Amherst. Would you agree? As someone not interested in alcohol/parties, are there sufficient alternative events/activities happening around campus? Finally, are substance-free dorms open to freshmen?
Thanks so much!
@Karamellikespi I’d say there’s no more of a drinking culture than at most colleges. I’ve heard that athletes (sorry to bring it up again) may experience more pressure to drink with their teams at parties, but it depends on the team and the person.
I personally don’t drink at all, and I haven’t had trouble finding like-minded friends. There are some campus-sponsored events and parties each semester. There is also AC After Dark, which sponsors activities purposefully to give options besides partying/drinking. I’ve gone to a couple of their activities, like movie nights and ice skating. And of course, different clubs and organizations have their own get-togethers and events. However, a lot of the time, it’ll probably be you and your friends just hanging out.
There is an option when you complete your freshman room survey to indicate if you would like substance-free housing. There is usually a floor or two designated for this. In my freshman year, though, it was the first floor of a dorm that was otherwise very much NOT substance-free.
“Drinking culture” is probably an overstatement. Reports of Amherst’s “drinking culture” probably exist for the same reason that rumors of Amherst’s “anti-STEM mindset” exist: it’s probably true for certain groups on campus, but it’s definitely inaccurate to extrapolate those groups’ experiences onto the wider student body.
I’d say that Amherst is actually quite accommodating towards people who aren’t interested in drinking, unless you associate yourself with a few groups in particular. If you’re on a sports team, it’ll generally be harder to avoid drinking (though it does depend on the team). Drinking will probably also… “enhance” your enjoyment of the party scene, if that’s what you’re into. But since you’ve already stated that you’re not interested in partying, I wouldn’t worry about that.
In my freshman year, a majority of my friends did not drink. I myself did not drink for the first time until… March, maybe? Either way, it really didn’t make much of a difference to my social life, which as I mentioned before, was quite good throughout college. If you and your friends don’t feel like drinking, you guys can go to the movies, attend a campus event (always plenty of those), just hang out in the common room and chat (highly underrated), etc.
Also, all freshman can opt for substance-free dorms when they matriculate. I lived in one myself during my first year of Amherst, and had a great time; in fact, I think the experience is highly underrated. What I’ve found is that when you live in substance-free housing, people actually want to hang out in the dorm, instead of trying to leave the dorm as quickly as possible to stumble off to a party somewhere in the Triangle. I probably met half of my college friends just by hanging around the common rooms of Stearns and Williston (which were the sub-free dorms at the time) during my freshman year.
Side-note: I hear that the administration recently changed the substance-free housing system so that you had sub-free “floors” instead of entire dorms, which is a bit unfortunate-- on the other hand, my younger brother lived in a sub-free floor and he still had a pretty good time.
@glittervine “Is it true that athletes have lower standards for admission? Yes. But there’s still a benchmark they have to meet”-REALLY. My son is heading to Amherst in a few weeks. He will be playing football. He is white. We are not rich. He graduated with a 4.4 and scored a 34 on the ACT. He had many choices for school due to his hard work in the classroom. Some of these schools could be considered better than Amherst but he would of been a preferred walk on football player at these division one schools. He also could of attended Williams. He chose Amherst because he wanted to play football and receive a great education. Your comment scares the hell out of me. You placed an entire group of people into one class/grouping. First, you need to research how many of the athletes actually receive help in the admission process. You assume all of the athletes receive help with admissions which could not be farther from the truth. I believe there are only 70 spots between all of the sports! The fact you make a point of stating you have friendS in “three sports” when there are probably 12 different athletic teams is telling.
@amherstfootballdad21 Congratulations to your son! I hope he will love it here.
When I said that athletes have lower standards, it doesn’t mean all admitted athletes are less academically qualified. It means that a recruited athlete CAN be admitted with a slightly lower GPA and test scores than someone who is not a recruited athlete. Plenty of athletes don’t need this provision!
As you noted, the number of athletic factor athletes is indeed kept at 67, with 14 of those spots for football. These are athletes whose “athletic prowess weighs prominently in the admission decision.” Keep in mind that as the entering class is less than 500 (471 in the Class of 2020), athletic factors would make up about 14% of the entering class if they all accepted their offers. Don’t know about their specific yield rate though.
There are also coded athletes, who have great academic profiles (1’s and 2’s, according to the admission office) and are certainly qualified. I would guess this applies to your son. Coded athletes receive admission at a “much higher rate than the general admission rate for students who are rated academic 1’s and 2’s.” There is no admission cap for coded athletes.
Anyway, take a look at the report. I understand that people feel attacked when it feels like athletes are being denigrated, but that wasn’t my intention. Again, congrats to your son!
If people would like to continue this discussion, I think it would be best in a new thread or other venue.
Hello! Could you comment on the studio arts program at Amherst? Looking at the ARHA courses, it seems that there isn’t much variety. Do the art majors typically enjoy the program and find it enough to land them a job in the art industry after graduation? Thanks 
@meiyue Really sorry about this, but I don’t actually know much about studio arts at Amherst! The program was outside of my “scene” in college, unfortunately.
“There are also coded athletes, who have great academic profiles (1’s and 2’s, according to the admission office) and are certainly qualified. I would guess this applies to your son. Coded athletes receive admission at a “much higher rate than the general admission rate for students who are rated academic 1’s and 2’s.” There is no admission cap for coded athletes.”
This statistically would be expected I would think, as if the student is such a successful athlete as to be desired to play varsity, then as an extracurricular it should weight highly as it demonstrates successful commitment and time management skills. Varsity athletics is hugely time consuming, and requires strong dedication to balance that with top level academics.
The fair comparison would be to compare that admit rate with someone that does equally well in another time consuming extracurricular activity. For example, I was a national caliber debater which also required extensive time and travel, and read recently that such debaters had a multiples admission advantage over say high school class president.
I have an intuition though that there is no doubt some validity to your argument. However, I imagine there are soft limits on coded status by sport too. It’s just that other activities presumably lack slots or codes which makes athletics seem to stand out.
It is true though that colleges are/should think hard about the prioritization of athletics. There is a strong argument to hire those that have balanced the two successfully as it is a great indicator of future success.
The unspoken though is whether at schools like Harvard that give preference to football players that aren’t national caliber (i e., wouldn’t be considered at Stanford’s nationally ranked program) compared to whether other extracurricular activities are so adjusted downward. As @amherstfootballdad21 notes, his son was recruited at Amherst but would be a walk on elsewhere.
Overall I also think athletics typically contribute positively to the campus environment, and are important in securing alumni support.
What do current students think about the ginormous new science center construction site in the middle of campus? Does it reflect a commitment by the college to expand the STEM curriculum at Amherst? Also, any truth to the rumors that the current science building might be re-purposed into a 2nd dining hall?