This paper was noted in a different forum, but it provides a good explanation at page 7 of athletic admissions at Amherst. It explains the slots (athletic factor) and tips (athletic coded) system of admissions. The interesting take-aways are: 1) 67 slots with 14 to football; 2) no technical limit to tips, but usually 60-90 per year; 3) the reduction of the number of walk-ons and their generally less successful outcomes in terms of athletics. Also interesting was the availability of other admissions factors (legacy, first generation college students, underserved populations, etc.) that could provide an alternative to the athletic tip which would not be included in a coach’s counts.
In past years, the college papers at NESCAC schools (Bates, Middlebury and Bowdoin) have had interesting on admissions, but this comes from the school.
Really interesting, if for no other reason than the frankness with which they address the issue. I assume that the “athletic factor” kids are what is referred to here as slots and the coded kids are the tips. I wonder if this means that the A,B,C bands laid out in the Bowdoin articles from awhile ago are a thing of the past or if this is just another way of saying the same thing?
Ohiodad, I believe that you are correct that there is no change. The use of the term “band,” I believe, refers to the level of academic achievement of the recruit and what level of support is needed. So, let’s say that there are two “C bands” slots available for womens lax. The coach doesn’t need to dip to C in a given year, as all of the recruits are in the “A band.” Perhaps the coach saves the slot for the following year or “gives” it to a coach in a different sport.
It seems to me that the “athletic factor” kids are the studs that the coach wants but fall below what would fall into the top 1 or 2 level designation academically. Yes, they would be analogous to the slots, thus they are regulated in the numbers allowed per sport and institution. The coded kids are those that are impactful and academically qualify to get in to the school based upon their stats, especially with a designation. Since, these student athletes fall into that level 1,level 2 tier, designated by admissions there are no limits put upon this group for acceptance as they fall into the normal range of admits.The coaches put their own limits on the number of recruits by who they convince to apply ED thus keeping the rosters within a manageable range.
I was not very impressed with the findings or even the reason for the research.Seems like common sense could answer the questions better than the report did. If the schools want to increase POC getting recruited they need to market the schools to the inner city more. Most people living in the inner cities have no idea about the NESCAC and what it offers. With D3 recruiting it is the ahtletes who reach out to the coaches generally not the coaches to the athletes. So the schools need to improve their Q rating in the regions they want to target.
There are some really interesting data in the paper. Here are two quick hits:
– If you compare the academic performance of the ‘slots’ or ‘athletic factor’ kids to that of non-athlete students admitted with the same academic credentials, the athletes “perform significantly better”.
– If you look at Amherst graduates from classes in the 1960’s, a markedly higher percentage of athlete alumni contribute to the college compared to the percentage of non-athletes donors (76% vs. 56%). And although former Amherst athletes make up 48% of the alumni, they represent 78% of those who’ve donated a cumulative gift of $1 million or more.
I agree, but that is one of the issues the report listed about the coaches and the teams. That is my point that the report is not very common sensible with many of its points. Also complains about Econ being a major with too many athletes. Business is now one of the most common majors nationally, along with Econ being as close to a career type major at an LAC that it makes sense that many athletes make it their choice of major.
I took a quick look, and to me the point that 35-38% of all students are on varsity teams is interesting, particularly in conjunction with the point that walk-ons are a declining proportion of Amherst varsity athletes , , , and thus, athletic recruits are a high percentage of each class, much higher than at bigger schools.
@fleishmo6, I read this report for what it said about athletic recruiting and admissions. However, I think the point of the report was to respond with data to what certain people were perceiving about the role of athletics at Amherst. Imagine, for example, that a number of profs complained that the athletes were not as well qualified as other students or that students felt that athletes hung out together and that there was a divide of sorts between athletes and non-athletes. The data appears to show that actually coded athletes perform as well if not better than non-athletes. Factors don’t seem to be doing that poorly, either. That is interesting data, and was probably surprising to some.
I don’t think the report was complaining about athletes being economics majors per se. After all, economics today is not all “guns and butter,” like it was back when I went to school. It is very data and math driven. It is not an easy major by any means. Rather, I read that as a legitimate criticism that very few recruited athletes are hard science majors, probably because of labs conflicting with practices. If a student wants to pursue a career in business, and if economics can help (it is different from the study of business), that is fine. But, if a student athlete’s true passion is science, I think it is legitimate to list as an area of concern if the student must choose between sports and his or her academic passion. Not sure how anyone could fix that problem, however, short of graduating in six years.
The time demands between lab courses and sports practices/weightlifting sessions is a really significant problem. My D is on a sports team and is taking two science courses with labs this term. Her schedule is ridiculous. I don’t know how she finds time to eat and sleep.
I don’t find this surprising. Most of the students going to the NESCAC schools come from a higher SES, from prep schools or suburban high schools. They’ve been playing soccer and swimming and swinging a bat or raquet since preschool. They, and their high school counselors, know that one way into selective schools is through sports, even if it is not as a recruited athlete but only with a ‘nod’ or a ‘tip.’ They are known to the coaches before admissions. The coaches have seen them at soccer matches and lacrosse tournaments or regattas. There just aren’t that many students who walk on because they’ve all contacted the coaches hoping for a little help with admissions. Often the answer is that they can have a spot on the team IF they get accepted on their own but the coach can’t offer them a ‘slot’. Who is left to walk-on? Who could make the soccer or lacrosse team if they haven’t been part of the club circuit or showcases? A recruit from one sport might try out for another as a walk-on, but the coaches are going to try to fill their teams long before fall try outs with proven athletes.
The high percentage of varsity athletes is certainly not surprising given that Amherst has 25 varsity teams - more teams than many much larger D1 schools - and around 1,800 students to fill those teams. So I guess what I find interesting is the number of teams relative to the student population. I just took a look at Williams and it has even more, 30 teams and around 2,000 students. So maybe it’s the norm in the conference.
The Ivies also have lots of teams but also larger student populations, with even Dartmouth (I believe the smallest) having around 4,300 undergraduates.
Maybe the closest comparison is the UAA as like NESCAC those are high academic D3 schools - from a quick look, UChicago has 17 teams and about 5,800 undergraduates and WashU has 17 teams and about 7,500 undergraduates.
I assume one reason is that a lot of teams increases the attractiveness of NESCAC schools to potential applicants, but in any case I find it interesting how high the proportion of varsity athletes is compared to academically similar schools.
This is a very interesting thread. As the parent of a former Middlebury recruited athlete, a Middlebury nonathlete, and now a NESCAC prospie, I’d have to say that most of these student athletes are exactly as the Amherst report says-top tier or “second” tier already academically PLUS accomplished athletes. Athletics is a way that my tightly-wound, very academic children blew off steam, socialized, and got out of their heads sometimes. My DD now loves to go and hit or run after a mind-numbing day at school.
Both my sons played intramural sports at Midd as well and enjoyed that too, but the social experience of the varsity team was very beneficial for my recruited son, and gave him more focus.