“She was so sure she would get in eventually-only reason she didn’t was demographics-”
Foul!
My honor is maligned. I’m accused of being merely bitter and vengeful. But seriously, folks, I can prove to you thru the miracle of mathematics that coaches at Bowdoin have less “soft support” than the other NESCACs or even the Ivies. That’s why the thread has the correct heading…
Now we all know that these schools have agreements among themselves for “slots”, tho the actual numbers are hard to discern. I’m going to focus on one sport for purposes of demonstration…say softball. I believe there are 3 slots per team. I’m going to include a few Ivies, with 4 slots per team. All these schools are extremely hard to get into, even with a 35 on your ACT and a 4.0 average in a full IB program, glowing letters, etc etc. Like all these Bowdoin wannabes. So they are all “ qualified “ to attend Bowdoin. Ergo, the reason why they weren’t accepted is demographics. The coaches aren’t lying. They do want these talented athletes. But the Adcom doesn’t feel the same way.
Also, you must all agree that it is almost impossible to “walk-on”, and that a team without at least 15 players is at a disadvantage.
Note the following numbers from this past year:
SCHOOL. Roster Size2019 .Seniors left 2018 . Freshman 2019
Bowdoin. 13. 6. 3.
Amherst. 17. 3. 5.
Williams. 16. 3. 5
Bates. 17. 2. 6
Middlebury. 16. 4. 7
Wesleyan. 15. 2. 4
Yale. 18. 3. 4
Harvard. 19. 5. 7
Dartmouth. 21. 3. 6
I purport that the difference between slots and the value of soft support is demonstrated in the above table. It looks like a good word from the coach is more useful at Harvard than Bowdoin ! Of course the Bowdoin coach wanted my DD ! He was screwed by the Adcom! And it isn’t just softball. I’ve got solid examples in multiple sports. I just don’t have time to make more tables…
I guess their starting pitchers throw both games in a double-header
1 Like
I don’t agree that it is impossible to walk on at Nescacs. I know several kids at several different nescacs who were walk ons.
But yes demographics does factor into decisions. That and the fact that there are 9,000 applicants, most very qualified, for 500 spots.
Except for women’s basketball and men’s tennis, the Bowdoin admissions department, with the support of the administration, squeezes the Bowdoin coaches very hard. Aside from @OldbatesieDoc’s numbers on the “soft support,” there is the hard evidence of the collapse of both the men and women’s hockey programs in the past few years, which is due primarily to a very aggressive stance on the part of the admissions department. Particularly striking is the collapse of the men’s hockey program, which has long been the crown jewel of the Bowdoin sports world and is now the worst hockey program in the NESCAC . Similar examples abound in other sports although men’s hockey is the most extreme example of a complete collapse under the current regime . .
@torasee , what specific allowances are you suggesting women’s basketball and men’s tennis receive that other teams do not?
I am looking at the results on the court/ice and the fact that the women’s basketball players are low academic achievers compared to members of the men’s hockey (2 women’s bball players versus 13 men’s hockey players were members of the 2019 NESCAC all-academic team). .
Not making the NESCAC all-academic team does not necessarily make one a ‘low academic achiever’. NESCAC rules limit the award to sophs, juniors and seniors as well—so teams with heavy frosh participation will not have a high proportion of award recipients per se.
@torasee, Went to Bowdoin Women’s Basketball Senior’s game in February, as they announced those women and what they’d accomplished academically and off the court, I would not call them “low academic achievers”…Additionally, there are several recent Bowdoin Women’s Basketball grads who are now leading or assisting other basketball college programs and pursuing masters degrees at the same time.
I tend to have an affinity for documented examples, particularly those not influenced by colleges themselves. U.S. News profiles about seven students from a single high school annually. Beyond the basic stats, its the context of these profiles that make them interesting. In the 2015 edition, students with GPAs in the 3.3 to 4.0 range were profiled. In the 3.8 to 4.0 range, colleges chosen consisted of Northern Arizona, Lehigh, UC–San Diego, UC–Berkeley, MIT and Columbia. A student with a 3.4 chose UC–Santa Cruz. The student who chose Bowdoin was a football recruit with a 3.3 GPA (1650/2400 SAT).
Sorry guys – the current Bowdoin women’s basketball team is not a group of high academic achievers. The NESCAC all-academic team is made up of athletes with GPAs of 3.35 or greater. There are only 2 members of the 10 eligible members of the current women’s bball team who met that rather low bar; men’s hockey, in contrast, placed 13 of 25 eligible members on the all-academic team. If you adjust for team size, the men’s hockey team is doing about 2.5 times as well as women’s basketball . . . .My point is a simple one – Bowdoin does not necessarily allocate tips and slots among sports in an equitable fashion. Hence the softball and women’s ice hockey teams end up with too few players and the men’s hockey team performs badly . .
For those of you talking of standards at Bowdoin let’s be clear:
A 3.35 from Bowdoin is beyond respectable and will get most into most grad schools and certainly a good set of prospects or internships.
Don’t confuse high school standards with top tier LACs.
Hellofa lot easier to pull a 4.0 from NAU, et al than virtually all NESCACs
No. It’s 3.5 and above. From NESCAC:
Getting a 3.5 at Bowdoin is an achievement. Period. Certainly not a low bar, nor is a 3.35.
I am ok with Bowdoin allocating their slots in the manner they see fit, as long as it’s in line with NESCAC rules.
In 2018, the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA) honored the Bowdoin men’s tennis team as an “All Academic” team, requiring a minimum team GPA of 3.2. Additionally, seven members of the Bowdoin men’s tennis team were distinguished as “Scholar Athletes”, requiring a minimum GPA of 3.50. The team’s on-court success has nothing to do with preferred admissions over other Bowdoin athletes. The team has a recent history of recruiting mid-level players and developing them, winning the DIII national championship in 2016 and runner-up in 2018… while achieving high academic honors.
The Bowdoin administration allocates tips among sports and the evidence suggests that it favors some sports over others in a way that may be somewhat arbitrary in contrast to other NESCAC schools where performance levels of teams seem to be more consistent across the board. . . .Not identical obviously but not with the extreme variation in outcomes that we see at Bowdoin or the Bowdoin teams with unconscionably small number of members (like softball and women’s hockey – there have been years in which the women’s hockey team did not have enough players to dress the number of players allowed by NCAA regs).
Tips Schmips.
Either you’re are Slot with a handshake post-positive pre-read and an honest conversation on your chance of acceptance being 90%+ or you’re on your own
" Not identical obviously but not with the extreme variation in outcomes that we see at Bowdoin or the Bowdoin teams with unconscionably small number of members (like softball and women’s hockey – there have been years in which the women’s hockey team did not have enough players to dress the number of players allowed by NCAA regs)."
I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about admission practices based on the above statement as there could be many factors involved that have nothing to do with admissions. Athletes quit, get injured, etc.