<p>From the student comments and such that I have seen on the Princeton Review website and reviews I've seen in college guidebooks, it seems that the student body at Williams is mostly white and that there are a lot of stereotypical "jocks". Is this true? I've never visited the campus before, but being Asian, the lack of ethnic diversity intimidates me a bit.</p>
<p>I dont think so... when I visited it seemed diverse enough. Everyone is really nice and open minded too... so you shouldn't have a problem fitting in.</p>
<p>dreamsicle, you wouldn't have a problem. Williams is 65% white and 11% asian, which is fairly diverse considering the US population is 77% white and 4% asian.</p>
<p>yes, I heard that students are far more open minded compared to some of other top schools. Trust me, you will have much more friendly environment than that of Princeton.</p>
<p>Actually, the percentages reported to USNEWS this year were:</p>
<p>69% white
9% African American
9% Asian
8% Hispanic
6% International
0% Native American</p>
<p>The percentages of black and hispanic students are quite competitive with the most diverse elite East Coast schools. The Asian-American percentage is pretty low compared to places like Harvard and Swarthmore.</p>
<p>By comparison, Amherst is 64% white with 12% Asian American. Swarthmore is 63% white with 16% Asian American. </p>
<p>My theory on that is that Asians are the big admissions losers at Williams, a school that places more emphasis on athletics than any other Div. III school in the United States.</p>
<p>I don't think the "white" moniker is fair to Williams. They have made pretty strong progress in diversity, especially considering that the location doesn't help. I do think that "jock" and, increasingly, "party school" are fair descriptions. Williams is almost like two different schools sharing a campus: the serious academic school and the hard-drinking jock school.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the info!! I feel better about Williams now. :)</p>
<p>interesteddad:</p>
<p>Your ideas about Williams being two schools (jocks separate from intellectuals) may now be more accurate, but they were not when I attended 15 years ago. Of the 8 captains in my 4 years of track and field, 4 are now doctors, one is a college professor, one works for the NSC, and I teach at a prep school. The 8th I have lost contact with.</p>
<p>I agree with the what Williams88 wrote: the "hard drinking jocks" are, for the most part, as serious about their academics as anyone else at Williams. I think the statistic right now is that the campus is 40% varsity athletes, and when you add club sports (rugby, ultimate frisbee, riding) to the mix, I'd guess that well over half the student body plays a serious sport. We take pride in the fact that we are successful in both the academic and athletic fields, and people work very hard at both. Athletes and non-athletes alike go to the same parties, and each student makes their own choices about drinking. If you want to blow your stereotypes about the "hard drinking jock" vs. the "serious academic student", spend a few days on campus talking to students about what they study and what they do in their spare time. I think you'd be surprised.</p>
<p>Actually...</p>
<p>look at this link
<a href="http://www.williams.edu/home/about_fastfacts.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.williams.edu/home/about_fastfacts.php</a></p>
<p>40% of Williams students are involved in sports, 34% play some sort of sport at the varsity level.</p>
<p>Only 1/3 of Williams students play sports at the varsity level, so if you don't play a sport, you will be in good company.</p>
<p>Besides, sometimes we "white jocks" can be quite loveable.</p>
<p>While we are on this topic, does anyone know how Williams goes about recruiting athletes. Is it similar to the Ivies where an academic index is used? thanks.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Your ideas about Williams being two schools (jocks separate from intellectuals) may now be more accurate, but they were not when I attended 15 years ago.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>It was not the case, to any large extent, when I attended a decade before you either. Williams changed radically in the 1990s and is now the most athletically focused Division III college or university in the country. They've won the Sears Cup for best Division III athletic program 7 of the last 8 years, including a national championship in basketball. Keep in mind that Williams is among the smallest Division III schools, competing against much larger schools like Emory. That does not happen without a huge emphasis on varsity sports. Williams has, for example, the highest percentage of varsity athletes of ANY elite liberal arts college, by a big margin in many cases.</p>
<p>To answer a number of the questions and comments in this thread about recruiting and academic performance, here is a full report from an Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics requested by Morty Shapiro a couple of years ago.</p>
<p>The report has some sobering thoughts on the negative impact of certain sports teams on the academic climate at Williams. Although not mentioned in the report, it is quite likely that the athletic emphasis contributes to the recent alcohol problems. There is a well-established correlation between certain high-visibility "helmet sports" and drinking in national surveys. There is growing alumni unease with the direction the college has chosen, since most of us believe that Williams' primary focus should be on academics.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Of the 8 captains in my 4 years of track and field, 4 are now doctors, one is a college professor, one works for the NSC, and I teach at a prep school. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Track and Field is not a sport that correlates with reduced academic admissions standards or reduced academic performance. Athletes on most of the low-visibility teams (track, swimming, etc.) will mirror the overall student body academically. Those are sports that fit very nicely with an elite academic campus culture.</p>
<p>Those are also not sports where the athletic department is using many of its 100 reserved slots (66 of them for below average academic qualifications) in each freshman class at Williams.</p>
<p>Actually, if you read the article, it is clear the college "acknowledges" the admissions errors it made in the 1990's, and is determined to ensure that the athletes who are admitted fit the average student profile.</p>
<p>I was at Williams when this "admissions" transition took place, and I assure you that the college is taking the findings of the study very seriously. </p>
<p>Frankly, since we are stereotyping, when I was at Williams, the biggest drinkers were not the jocks, but the hippies. They were also the most likely to use drugs.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that Amherst has the same number of athletic "tips" as Williams, and a significantly smaller student body.</p>
<p>"I do think that 'jock' and, increasingly, 'party school' are fair descriptions."</p>
<p>I disagree. The Williams student body may be more athletic than it was 10 or 20 years ago but it is no more jockish. The term jock implies a sort of anti-intellectualism and while it is true that a large %age of Williams students are athletes, athletic, or athletic-loving, I am not sure if there are any "jocks." </p>
<p>"Williams is almost like two different schools sharing a campus: the serious academic school and the hard-drinking jock school."</p>
<p>Once again, I disagree. To begin with, this statement implies some sort of separation between the "jocks" and the intellectuals. I don't know what it was like at Williams when you attended, but I assure you that there is little separation between athletes and non-athletes.</p>
<p>Also, Mikey's correct in saying that Williams has the same amount of "tips" (admitted athletes) as Amherst (and many other NESCACs) while having a larger student body. Williams may have more athletes per capita than most colleges but it doesn't have more recruited athletes per capita. The "more" athletes Williams have are deserving of admission aside from their athleticism, not because of it.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Actually, if you read the article, it is clear the college "acknowledges" the admissions errors it made in the 1990's, and is determined to ensure that the athletes who are admitted fit the average student profile.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Baloney.</p>
<p>Here are the academic index numbers on a scale from 1 to 9. 1s are almost all admitted to Williams. Williams will not admit 8s and 9s:</p>
<p>In 1990 and 1991:</p>
<p>Tipped athletes: 5.75
Non tipped athletes: 3.6</p>
<p>In 2000:</p>
<p>Tipped athletes: 5
Non-tipped athletes: 2.8</p>
<p>All they've done is shift the scale! Or, I suppose, if you were Republican, you could argue that a rising tide lifts all boats. </p>
<p>For the incoming class in the fall of 2003, ten of the tipped athletes (15%) were in the lowest band, BELOW 6.</p>
<p>1s are almost all admitted? does this only apply for atheletes?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Keep in mind that Amherst has the same number of athletic "tips" as Williams, and a significantly smaller student body.</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Again, baloney. It's semantics. The "tipped" athletes in this case refer to athletes with below-standard academics selected by the athletic department. The number is currently limited by NESCAC rules to 66. However, within that group, each college is free to decide "how low they will go".</p>
<p>What Williams is not telling you is that the athletic department ALSO has the power to choose 32 more athletes who are academic "3". Again, these admits are at the sole discretion of the athletic department. Since these students have more or less average academic qualificiations, these are really the students that should be called "tips", although even that is not accurate since the admissions department has no power to "tip" them.</p>
<p>On top of those 98 students, there are an additional 30+ varsity athletes who get no push from the athletic department and are accepted on the basis of their academic qualifications and ECs (1s and 2s).</p>
<p>There is no way to say with any degree of intellectual honesty that Amherst emphasizes athletics as much Williams. Williams was 56-8 in Little Three play this year and won all but 2 of the 26 Little Three Championships, losing only the Women's Lacross and Men's baseball titles to Amherst or Wesleyan.</p>
<p>In fact, there to way to say with intellectual honesty that ANY division III school in the United States emphasizes athletics as much as Williams. Not ony does Williams have by far the higest percentage of varsity athletes, but it has won the overall Division III national championship in 8 of the last 9 years.</p>
<p>It's OK for Williams to be the biggest Division III jock school in the country. Just be honest about it.</p>
<p>As for my two-college suggestion, I quote from the Committee's summary findings:</p>
<p>"But a substantial minority of our community, students and faculty alike, believes athletics has assumed excessive significance at Williams. About 40%-45% of our non-athletes think that the influence of athletics is too pervasive for an excellent college, that it detracts from their experience at Williams, and over half of our students think that their status as athletes or non-athletes defines them at Williams. Meanwhile, faculty is concerned with the practical impact of athletics at Williams, and the concerns increase with the exposure to varsity athletics, tipped athletes, and specific teams."</p>
<p>"Third, athletics imposes social and educational costs. Socially, a substantial chunk of students lives somewhat circumscribed social lives. Whether these students are disaffected or not, Williams has produced an environment in which non-athletes are a sub-culture, with all that implies of limited social possibilities. Educationally, the costs are distributed unevenly. They are concentrated in Division 2, and specifically in several large departments. It is, we suggest, unfair to expect students and faculty in a handful of departments to bear disproportionately the costs of our athletic programs in the form of less demanding and less interesting courses than would be mounted otherwise."</p>
<p>"Fifth, our athletic program differs from standard academic departments in two respects. First, it inevitably generates externalities for the rest of the College in the form of weaker students and scheduling conflicts. Second, the logic of athletics is, potentially, expansionist. The College recruits athletes to win games. It organizes the schedule to help them play and to win their games. Our success in winning games then is used to recruit more athletes. Understandably, athletes presume the College is committed to their athletic achievements. On this score, one senior coach suggested that the academic faculty ought to stay in tune with the culture of the College. The problem, of course, is that success may come to feed on itself. The better we are at athletics, the more commitments athletics instills; the greater the commitments, the more the pressure on academics to accommodate them. Consider, on this score, tournaments. The College accommodates successful teams, fueling their success. Their success produces invitations to tournaments; tournament invitations produce demands for more accommodations. To offset this tendency, the College needs to declare explicitly the place of athletics in our community. Our laissez faire practices have become inadequate, and the College should declare a mission statement to define, legitimate, and contain the place of athletics at Williams."</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>1s are almost all admitted? does this only apply for atheletes?</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>No. Across the board. But, an academic "1" is a very tall order. I would guess that the SAT cutoff is 1500 or above. More importantly, it probably requires being in the top 1% of your high school class.</p>
<p>Does anyone know the formula for calculating one's academic rating? I know the AI for Ivy's can be found on this website.</p>