Wait listed at Middlebury, in at Dartmouth

<p>
[quote]
Saying that Middlebury is more like Williams geographically and thus Williams is a better model, isn't terribly compelling.

[/quote]
I disagree. I think that geography is a key consideration for determining who does -- and does not -- go to Middlebury (or Williams or Dartmouth).</p>

<p>Time for another sweeping generalization. Colleges in isolated little towns with beautiful natural settings attract students who like to play outside. This generally means physical activity, like sports or hiking or skiing. So it make sense for these schools to emphasize their athletic programs. Let's face it, you don't come to Williamstown or Hanover or Middlebury for the night life.</p>

<p>The students at suburban schools near the Big City, like Swarthmore or Haverford, are highly qualified and academically stellar. But they would be miserable spending the winter in a small snowy town in New England. It's just not the right fit.</p>

<p>
[quote]
the Ivy's also relax admissions standards for recruited athletes, because those schools are bigger, the athletes are a smaller percentage of the student body

[/quote]
Not so. The Ivies are bigger, but they also recruit more athletes. So it evens out.</p>

<p>NESCAC schools are allowed varying numbers of athletic tips. Let's leave out Connecticut College (a former women's college which does not play football). For the other NESCACs, the total number of tips</a> per class range from 66 to 79. For comparison, each Ivy is allowed an annual average of 30</a> tips for the football team alone, with around 250 tips total. </p>

<p>The net result is that tips make up a comparable, or higher, percentage of each class at the Ivies. For example, tips make up about 23 % of the freshman class at Princeton and 18 % at Yale, compared to only 15 % at Midd and 12 % at Williams.</p>

<p>"Methinks that as the college admission process gets more and more competitive, we're going to be seeing a lot more kids getting waitlisted/rejected from Middlebury (and Bowdoin, Haverford, Wesleyan, etc.) and into Dartmouth, Harvard, etc."</p>

<p>I'm not sure why this as at all the natural, logical conclusion. I would think the same, prevailing pecking order would still remain. Not to mention, that I thought that the current college freshmen are the largest single age group in the country with anticipated declines from here, so one could surmise that college admissions will be become less competitive in the forseeable future; except for the extra hysteria that has been created in more recent years, leading to more appications per student and more concern on going to specific schools as opposed to just going to college at all.</p>

<p>Corbett, your data of higher %s of male applicants at Cornell and Princeton may also be due to what you alluded to earlier about the presence of engineering. I would guess engineering at Cornell and Princeton represents a higher % of total students than for any other Ivy or LAC.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I think that Midd's current model, where there are few examples of walk ons even making teams, let alone contributing to them, is a perversion of the student athlete ideal.

[/quote]
Your experience is with Midd lacrosse. OK, you may have a valid point in this case, but I don't think Midd lacrosse is typical for NESCAC sports.</p>

<p>NESCAC began declaring lacrosse champions in 2001. Since then, Midd has won every single men's and women's lacrosse championship (14 total); all of the other NESCAC schools have been completely shut out. I think it's fair to suspect that Midd may put an undue emphasis on lacrosse recruiting. The same may also be true of men's hockey, where Midd has won 7 of 8 NESCAC championships. However, these teams are the exceptions, not the rule. Midd is generally competitive, but not particularly dominant, in other sports. I would bet that walk-ons are welcome on the vast majority of Midd teams.</p>

<p>Certain other NESCACs also seem to be suspiciously dominant in certain sports, like Bowdoin in women's basketball, or Trinity in squash. Again, it does seem possible that the student-athlete ideal is distorted in some specific cases. But these instances are the exception, not the rule.</p>

<p>Williams is often regarded as the ultimate NESCAC "jock" school, but Williams actually has fewer tips than most other NESCACs, and is not particularly dominant in any of the high-profile college team sports, unless you count men's soccer. Williams is most successful in individual sports, like swim & dive or track & field. If you need athletes with high SAT scores, it may be easier to find qualifying swimmers and runners than qualifying lacrosse or hockey players.</p>

<p>Quote: it's also worth noting that Middlebury has been co-ed since the 1880s, making it one of the first formerly all male colleges to admit women. With the exception of Bates, the other schools on your list became co-ed in the past 40 or so years.</p>

<p>Small correction, Colby started to admit women in 1871.</p>

<p>But Corbett's point about the gender and academic focus imbalance was very real for our daughter, who did focus on languages/writing and was waitlisted at Midd. When deciding whether to stay on the waitlist, her guidance counselor was told that mostly men would be sought out for the balance of the class.
It is of course in the schools' best interest to gender balance their classes, there is a definitely a gender tipping point which is of great concern to the admission office. Cannot blame them, but it is a bitter pill for all those talented young women!</p>

<p>I understand that schools in rural NE will attract outdoors oriented kids. But how's that relevant to a discussion about whether schools should be favoring athletes in admissions? In fact, when I was there (ok, the dark ages), there wasn't a whole lot of overlap between the kids in the Mountain Club/Ski Patrol and the kids on the hockey and lacrosse teams. They were very distinct social circles. </p>

<p>I'd take Corbett's bet on the walkons. I can think of 3 kids at Midd right now that were excellent HS athletes (and terrific students) that would have liked to continue to play in college but just weren't good enough to play. A shame I think. </p>

<p>I have never really understood why the school runs itself this way. I understand the benefits of diversity and legacy admits. (And no none of my kids have been interested in Midd!) But sports? WHO CARES whether the sports teams win? What goal is being served? I understand it important to have sports teams and to make sure sufficient kids that want to play are admitted, but why bend the standards to get kids that are better at sports? No one is answering this question.</p>

<p>
[quote]
WHO CARES whether the sports teams win?

[/quote]
The short answer is: the students and the alumni. Go to a Williams – Amherst football game or a Bowdoin – Colby hockey game. You’ll see lots of people who care, rather strongly in fact.</p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, athletic success is a point of pride among most students and alumni, even in Division III, which is the lowest level of NCAA competition. Unfortunately, it’s hard to objectively compare different schools on things like teaching quality or student learning. But it’s easy to figure out which school has the best basketball team. </p>

<p>I would speculate that one development that has increased the focus on small college sports was the introduction of the NACDA Director’s</a> Cup rankings about 10 years ago. Now liberal arts colleges are "ranked" for overall athletic performance, just as US News "ranks" them for overall academic performance. Yes, both rankings are greatly overrated, but it’s pointless to deny that they have widespread recognition. </p>

<p>Whether you like it or not, schools that score highly in either ranking -- or better yet, both rankings -- reap great publicity that enhances their reputation, prestige, and applicant pool. Williams has been a particular beneficiary, but Middlebury is very close to the top in both rankings, and has undoubtedly benefited as well. If Midd ever makes it to #1 in the Director's Cup (they've finished second behind Williams several times, including last year), I'm sure that most members of the Midd community (OK, maybe not all) would be proud and delighted.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'd take Corbett's bet on the walkons. I can think of 3 kids at Midd right now that were excellent HS athletes (and terrific students) that would have liked to continue to play in college but just weren't good enough to play. A shame I think.

[/quote]
If that's happening, then I agree -- sports (and other activities) at liberal arts colleges should be open to all willing participants. If there are too many students that want to play a particular sport, then there should be a JV team. </p>

<p>But I don't see how this can be a widespread problem at Midd, given the large number of men's and women's teams (about 30 total) relative to the number of tips (about 75 total per year). There simply aren't enough tips to fill up all 30 of those teams without walk-ons. </p>

<p>For example, Williams [url=<a href="http://www.williams.edu/home/fast_facts/%5Dclaims%5B/url"&gt;http://www.williams.edu/home/fast_facts/]claims[/url&lt;/a&gt;] that 40 % of its students play intercollegiate sports (34 % at the varsity level). For a student body of 2,124, that means 850 athletes. But Williams is only allowed 66 tips per year, for a maximum (assuming zero attrition) of 264 tips enrolled at any given time. But if there are 850 athletes, then the 264 tips make up less than one-third. In other words, more than two-thirds of Williams athletes are walk-ons, not tips. I wouldn't expect Midd to be much different.</p>

<p>"This successful competition in Division I national athletics is achieved by approaching athletics as a key part of the student's regular undergraduate experience: with rigorous academic standards, the nation's highest four-year graduation rates (the same as those for non-athletes), and without athletics scholarships." from <a href="http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/whatisivy/index.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/whatisivy/index.asp&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Students who are trying to gain acceptance at Ive League schools are demonstrating their commitment to excellence in both academics and sport. And they are sacrificing dollars to do so. </p>

<p>This does not speak to your point about acceptance rates for athletes versus non-athletes, but the fact is, the Ivies have a core value that students should also be athletes, so their class profiles reflect this. I don't know if there is a similar statement of policy for the DIII league Williams is a part of, but it would be interesting to find out.</p>

<p>Middlebury, Williams, and most of the other prominent liberal arts colleges in New England (except for the women's colleges) are members of NESCAC, which provides plenty of inspirational language, like the following:
[quote]
The</a> New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC), founded in 1971, consists of eleven highly selective liberal arts colleges. Its members are committed first and foremost to academic excellence and believe that athletic excellence supports our educational mission.</p>

<p>Each institution is committed to providing a comprehensive athletic program available to the entire student body. All participants in athletic activities are treated equitably.</p>

<p>Students on all intercollegiate teams are to be representative of the overall student body and are admitted with the expectation of their full participation in the life of the college.

[/quote]
In general, I think the NESCACs do live up to these ideals -- their rules are even more restrictive than those of the Ivies -- but it's possible that certain schools stretch the ideals for certain sports.</p>

<p>Wesleyan received 2941 male applicants and 4301 female applicants according to the US News and World Report.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have never really understood why the school runs itself this way. I understand the benefits of diversity and legacy admits. (And no none of my kids have been interested in Midd!) But sports? WHO CARES whether the sports teams win?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well rounded-ness, health, leadership, ability to overcome hardship, challenges, fun, and on and on.</p>

<p>And I care who wins. Any game, every game, gimme a game with Florida A&M and Wyoming Tech in badmiton I will have chosen sides and be rooting for one(GO WYOMING!) after 5 minutes. College is the last time you can play many of these sports, and it is the physical prime of your life, seems like a perfect combo to me.</p>

<p>And why is it an admissions +? $$$(gates, concessions, etc.), school spirit(which indirectly = $$$), diversity of students(Mr. Athlete is good at something just like the kid with the art awards) and other reasons, that like legacies add to the school.</p>

<p>I'm not talking about dropping sports, I'm talking about filling the teams with kids that can meet the admissions standards on their own. We aren't talking about Notre Dame here. Doesn't an athlete that meets the academic admissions standards (rather than the athletic ones) better represent the values being cited as reasons to have sports teams in college? There'd still be an Amherst/Williams football game--the kids playing would just be a little smaller. </p>

<p>It is also not correct to assume that only 75 kids (or whatever the tip number is) are getting preferred in admissions. Tips are the kids that get in so long as they meet the absolute minimal standards--the "4's" and "5's" on the Amherst chart. There are lots of kids that are on the coaches' list that while not tips, are still admitted because the coaches want them. </p>

<p>When I attended there were JV teams in football, ice hockey and lacrosse. Well there aren't JV teams at Middlebury anymore. Why? JV teams are for kids that need to play for a year or two to develop skills. Back in the day, the coaches had to develop the skills from regular kids. Now, if a kid can't play at the varsity level as a freshman, he's unlikely to ever be able to play. Putting aside the growth in women's sports, I think less kids play intercollegiate sports at Midd than did 30 years ago. This is good?</p>

<p>Correct - there are what is known as "protects" - those would be for the 3s (in the Amherst system) who must compete with a large number of other equally well qualified 3s for a limited number of slots. I believe that Williams has something like 32 protects per year (I assume that the other NESCACs set aside a similar number of slots for protects) in addition to the 66 tips so the number of athletes getting a boost in the admissions process is about 100 per year or more than enough to populate the teams. </p>

<p>The Ivies follow a numbers-based system known as the Academic Index (AI), which is calibrated separately for each school and assigns points to test scores and GPAs. All athletes must meet minimum standards under the AI and the average AI for team members must also meet a certain minimum. That's why the lacrosse player discussed below does not qualify for admission to Cornell and Darthmouth but can slide into Middlebury.</p>

<p>
[quote]
When I attended there were JV teams in football, ice hockey and lacrosse. Well there aren't JV teams at Middlebury anymore. Why?

[/quote]
If this is indeed the case, then I agree that it's undesirable. But are you sure that it is, in fact, the case ? I just glanced at the [url=<a href="http://cat.middlebury.edu/events/type.php?eti=73&ci=5%5Dschedule%5B/url"&gt;http://cat.middlebury.edu/events/type.php?eti=73&ci=5]schedule[/url&lt;/a&gt;] for upcoming Midd athletic events, and the very first event listed is: "JV Football vs. Williams" on 10/07. There's also a "B Field Hockey" game scheduled for 10/09, and a "Men's Soccer B" game for 10/13. So there do seem to be JV teams, at least for next week.
[quote]
There are lots of kids that are on the coaches' list that while not tips, are still admitted because the coaches want them.

[/quote]
Midd is currently ranked as one of the 10 most selective liberal arts colleges nationwide by US News. The US News "Selectivity Rank" is based primarily (90%) on academic factors (SAT scores, class rankings). So if the coaches are influencing Midd admissions, they don't appear to be sacrificing much academic quality by doing so. </p>

<p>It's probably true that Midd could boost its average SAT scores by accepting more poetesses and fewer hockey players, but it hardly seems deficient in this respect right now. And realistically, Midd probably gets more favorable publicity and prestige from winning the NCAA Division III hockey tournament than from boosting its SAT range by 10 points.
[quote]
Putting aside the growth in women's sports, I think less kids play intercollegiate sports at Midd than did 30 years ago. This is good?

[/quote]
If true, it's not good. But according to [url=<a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/about/quickfacts/%5DMidd%5B/url"&gt;http://www.middlebury.edu/about/quickfacts/]Midd[/url&lt;/a&gt;], 28% of the students are varsity athletes. The number would be even higher if JV teams, B teams, and club teams were included. This is a pretty impressive figure; it's probably one of the highest rates of student participation in athletics among NCAA schools nationwide. Again, maybe the rate could be higher, and I think we would all agree that it should be maximized, but Midd doesn't exactly seem deficient in this respect today.</p>

<p>Middlebury definitely has a JV men's ice hockey team. There's actually player movement between the JV and the varsity teams during the season. The JV does not have much of a schedule, to be sure, but that's due to the fact that so few colleges have JV hockey teams.</p>

<p>Please disregard my earlier post. I wrote it very late at night when I was tired. I spoke today with my friend and realized the information is not at all accurate and I apologize wholeheartedly. The point I was trying to make is that no student/athlete should be deterred from pursuing any school which they want to attend and play a sport at because every student is different and every program is different. So give it a try!</p>

<p>
[quote]
There'd still be an Amherst/Williams football game--the kids playing would just be a little smaller.

[/quote]
Not if Swarthmore's athletic programs are used as a model, which you suggested as a possibility back in post #9. </p>

<p>Swarthmore dropped football in 2000, after 120 years.</p>

<p>or lacrosse or ice hockey or any other sport. Playing intercollegiate sports was a great experience. I just wouldn't accept kids with academics below the non athlete standards to make the teams more successful.</p>

<p>Midd currently ranks #5 on the US News academic ranking of LACs.
Midd currently ranks #2 on the NACDA athletic ranking of DIII schools.</p>

<p>The only other schools that make the Top 10 on both lists are Williams and Amherst. All three schools have broad respect and appeal. This appeal is due largely to the fact that all three schools are perceived as “well-rounded” institutions, and their success in both the classroom and on the athletic field contributes greatly to this highly desirable image. No one doubts that Midd has one of the most successful “brands” in the LAC industry. In fact, of the Top 10 LACs ranked by US News, Midd got the most applications last year.</p>

<p>As you suggest, Midd could voluntarily relinquish its high athletic ranking. It could become more like Swarthmore (currently #3 for academics, but #129 for athletics) or Wellesley (currently #4 for academics, but #123 for athletics). And it’s possible that such a move could lead to incremental gains in the academic rankings (the gains would be limited, of course, because Midd is already so close to the top).</p>

<p>But overall, such a move would hurt the “brand” more than it would help (in my opinion). Swarthmore and Wellesley are great schools, and they are great fits for some people. But they don’t have the same well-rounded image and broad appeal that schools like Midd, Williams, or Amherst currently enjoy.</p>