NESCAC Spoken Here:

That calls into question, then, what we really mean by “diversity”, doesn’t it?

I don’t typically associate boarding school with the idea but yours is a good reminder that privilege isn’t always white. I wonder what we would we say if we learned that (making this up) 95%+ of racial diversity in the NESCAC were full pay boarding school students. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of people don’t have that demographic in mind when they criticize a place for lacking diversity. At least I don’t.

In terms of access, though, I can think of few sports that are more accessible than track - if you are fast or can jump high or throw far someone will see it and know it and you will be able to compete and will be found. The clock and the tape measure don’t lie. Squash, on the other hand, is not a sport that a good many people even know is a sport and the facilities are few and far between, as are the coaches and clubs.

2 Likes

One problem is the golf, swimming, squash, and tennis recruits have academic records/GPAS/SATs/rigor much more in line with the given NESCAC school’s academic average than track/football/basketball. It’s a significant difference. More spots for these latter sports means lowering the school’s academic bar. The pre-read requirements for GSST are far higher. So impacting diversity through athletic spot re-distribution will impact academic standards. Some of these schools are gently tweaking how many ED spots go to GSST, and offering RD slots instead.

For golf, tennis, squash - $35k-$100k per year starting 7th or earlier for club, coaching, tournament, camp, travel fees - these kids are mostly full pay.

Tons of racial diversity - but not a lot of socio-economic diversity.

The slot/tip/band system used by the NESCAC schools places hard limits on the number of supported students who are below the mean at these school from an academic perspective. However, these “slots” do not get distributed in the same manner as awarded which is two per team plus 14 for football. Coaches are free to trade or move slots among teams and they do move slots.

There is also a “general agreement” that tips (recruiting spots at or above the academic mean) equal the number of slots but this is not a formal part of the NESCAC rules and some colleges do allow additional “tips” beyond the norm. This also results in slots being moved from certain sports to helmet sports which results in some teams being very qualified from an academic perspective, and possibly from a racial perspective but probably not very diversified in terms of socio-economics while not causing additional impacts to the schools overall academic bar.

1 Like

“The pre-read requirements for GSST are far higher.” Do you know this for a fact? Across the board at NESCAC schools? I have never heard such a thing. I don’t think my athlete had an easier time passing the preread because they are track rather than squash.

1 Like

It isn’t directly about the sport but rather about slots vs tips. Slots grant a level of academic relief. A ‘B band’ kid is typically in the ~30-49% of mean academic range (however a schools AO determines it) and a ‘C band’ kid is in the ~10%-30% range base on past articles and conversations with coaches and AOs at these schools. Slots are limited in total number (2 per team plus 14 for football) but they are not tied to any particular sport. Most slots go to helmet sports in a typical year which means that at some schools sports like Golf, Squash, and Tennis have no slots allocated. The net effect of this is that the pre-read requirements are much higher because the coach for that sport cannot support a player who gets a B or C band assignment from the AO during the pre-read.

I can’t speak to Track. But for Williams/Amherst/Bowdoin, across golf, tennis and squash vs. hockey - yes, based on the figures we’ve seen.

1 Like

Just wanted to say that at many BS, close to half the kids are getting FA, so don’t assume those BS alums are all rich.

Great book on this topic is Privileged Poor.

7 Likes

Thanks for the info. I just want to make sure no one is implying that golf, squash, and tennis are the smart ones.

(I am trying to reply to the thread in general, not any one poster.)

Does anyone who has a genuine basis for their estimate know how many students a coach in NESCAC in a given sport gets to offer full support to and separately offer a “tip” to?

I am assuming it varies by sport. Possibly by NESCAC college. I think it would help people - certainly it would me - to get a list going. It’s so hard for a NARP to approximate how many slots in ED are up for grabs vs likely taken by an athlete. (Not making any judgments at all - just trying to get an estimate.)Deciding whether or not to ED can be very tricky. Would be great to have some reliable info on this point.

I think most varsity athletes at NESCAC schools come in as ED. So for the rest of the class, I’m not sure it makes any difference who is given support. Like if my kid passes the pre-read and the coach is confident that they are going to get in ED even without support, they don’t use their “tip” but that is still an ED admission. There are also kids coming in through QuestBridge, Posse, and other programs as well.

3 Likes

There’s a topic under discussion on another thread entitled, “Job Prospects for 24.25 Grads and beyond” that observes the negative effect of AI on recent CS graduates from a well-known R1 university on the west coast.

It has real - almost “real-time” - implications for the well-rounded, “try-it-you-might-like-it“ sort of education offered at the NESCACs.

Thoughts?

2 Likes

This article was posted yesterday and is being discussed in this thread: Job Prospects for ‘24, ‘25 Grads and beyond?

Since Stanford isn’t a NESCAC school, this article would not be on topic for this thread.

We’ll try not to mention Stanford.

2 Likes

Here’s my take - and the irony here is that in putting together this reply, I found myself relying heavily on AI. Specifically, I asked my search engine a series of questions:

  1. When did the teaching of Shakespeare become commonplace among liberal arts colleges?
  2. Is the word, “cult“ the root word of the words, “culture“ and “cultivate“?

I asked the Shakespeare question because here in the 21st Century, it’s easy to assume that the Ancient Bard was always a part of what we call a well-rounded, liberal arts education. What I found was that it took nearly 250 years after his death in 1616 and well after most of them had been established, before the NESCAC college curriculums deemed his work worthy of study at the college level, and only because by that point the entire idea of studying literature at all had finally taken root.

This is where the second question comes into play. For nearly a thousand years, Anglo-American scholars had hewn fairly closely to what many described as a classical education based almost exclusively on the writings of ancient Greek philosophers. Why would I call that a “cult”? Because of its origins in the Dark Ages, classical education (aka, the liberal arts and sciences) owes its existence to the painstaking work of monks and priests. They were the only people in Western Europe who could read and they were especially adept at translating ancient Greek into Latin. We all know the story: without them, our knowledge of Plato, “the Socratic Method”, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Sophocles and Aeschylus would most certainly have been lost for hundreds of years.

These people tended to live in cloistered circumstances and under the patronage of the Western European churches. By sharing their discoveries and pooling their resources they were able to organize themselves into collequia or small conferences and later into universities where they were able to produce literate people capable of filling the needs of a rising civil service much of whose business was still conducted in Latin. Thus, university graduates were able to make themselves both indispensable and members of an elite class at the same time.

Add their association with the growing popularity of Gothic architecture and it wasn’t long before the idea of “the ivory tower“ became a label that stuck.

I think that in the period leading up to the inclusion of Shakespeare (as well as modern languages and modern science) as part of the expanded canon of the NESCACs, ordinary people in Europe and America became literate in their native tongues, books (including the Bible) were published in the vernacular and grammar schools became more common.

This left small New England college education increasingly the domain of the very rich and parallel to a time when Oxford and Cambridge became the destination for English public school (their phrase for boarding schools) graduates and just in time for intercollegiate sports (which included sailing and rowing regattas) to take off in popularity in America. I think it remained that way through the second half of the 20th century. What would ultimately become the NESCAC colleges still depended on patronage, but it was the patronage of the rich and not necessarily of a church denomination.

Were NESCAC graduates still “useful” to society? Yes, if you believe a well-educated, (i.e., cultured) professional class (doctors, lawyers, bank presidents, foreign service workers) were a value-added proposition. The popular culture of the time - mainly “screwball comedies” - are full of upper-class characters with pseudo-British accents performing all sorts of jobs.

The real change was after WWII with the returning GIs who came from all economic classes, introduced to a world far beyond their birthplaces and perhaps with a shared determination to make it a better place. They swelled the basketball teams and football teams of many of the hallowed halls of ivy and pretty soon these exclusive diplomas, many of which were still written in Latin became the preserve of ordinary middle-class Americans.

What had begun as a trickle, became a tidal wave following the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957. Big Science exploded, and suddenly all that math, calculus and astronomy were able to gather the imagination in ways the Ancient Greeks could not possibly have foreseen. And universities in general became “useful” again, even indispensable. Their patrons had shifted once more to include billions of dollars in federally sponsored research as well the tuition from a rapidly expanding middle-class.

The NESCACs, true to their nature. tended to depend more on the tuition and endowment growth rather than federal dollars (Tufts and Wesleyan being the outliers). but they too were more actively middle-class than ever in their histories.

Which brings us to The Present. The K-shaped economy has certainly challenged middle-class patronage. But also, the sooner than expected dominance of so-called, “artificial intelligence” has made the entire idea of “knowledge” and how it’s acquired an open question. Mutatis mutandis.

1 Like

I haven’t the words or thoughts to be anywhere near as thoughtful or erudite as you on the topic, though I hasten to add I used mutatis mutandis in an agreement I was drafting a month or so ago!

I will just add my own personal experience with education to make my views clear. I majored in Finance & Economics and Philosophy, strange academic bed fellows at the time where I attended school. By the time I found myself bored to tears in finance, I was too far in to completely switch, so I doubled.

What I do for a living is practice law, though I mostly direct traffic at this point in my career. My legal practice has been heavy to corporate finance and M&A, with a few silly specialties that qualify as arcane to most people. I also deal a lot in policy, governance and manage risk with regulators, shareholders and other stakeholders. There is not a lot of time or need for musing about the nature of knowledge or the like. We’re not asking the big questions and it’s a pragmatic exercise.

And with all that said, I say with a straight face that I draw upon my philosophy and other liberal arts & sciences studies much more than I do the other. The things I learned in business school were facts and concepts that had little to no relevance to me at the time. The most valuable of those classes were the econ classes I took in the econ department. All of the things I’ve learned about accounting and finance and how the system works I’ve learned at work. Critical thinking skills, which still matter a great deal where I hang out, were developed from my other classes, particularly those taken in the philosophy major. In that sense, I “use” that education more than any practical or trade education I ever received.

So far, it has worked out for me as it has my children to this point. The astrophysics major, for example, isn’t doing astrophysics. Rather, she’s consulting for mostly bio-tech and pharma clients. I expect my recently graduated mathematics major won’t be doing pure math for a living. Etc. etc.

8 Likes

Also an Econ-Philosophy major and agree with your take.

Abstract/ Creative Thinking trumps technical going forward, I’m guessing.

5 Likes

Last night, a tech chum of mine related that so far, there’s a clear need for employees who can uncover instances when AI engines such as ChatGPT produce “hallucinations”. But more broadly, irrespective of whatever advances the industry makes, you will need people “who ask the right questions.“

1 Like

Don’t forget that you live in a world with people from that world who are convinced that you take all the humanities and social science classes you’ll ever need in high school. There is a thread somewhere in the forum where one or two tech parents strenuously make that argument.

1 Like