16 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // May 5, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  Jeff, this is a great post. You really understand the dynamic here and I agree with your sentiments.

  For the purposes of being precise:

  Varsity athletes make up 32% of the student body.
  https://cms.amherst.edu/athletics/quickfacts

  Athletic admits get 16% of each year’s slots
  http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_09/b3973087.htm

  So…you’re right in that the athletic “spots” don’t make up a majority of varsity athletes, but it’s not too far off.

  I would tend to disagree that we could remain competitive in intercollegiate athletics without those spots. Even with a coach’s tap, it’s very hard to get into Amherst. Thus, the recruitment of elite athletes with strong academics is very competitive. So while there are some math/physics/GK superstars, it would be a serious challenge to fill our 27 teams without the spots.

• 2 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // May 5, 2008 at 7:29 pm

  I agree with Dave, great post. You addressed both the non-athletes who don’t give athletes a chance and the “loud, self-segregating athletes that take away from our school’s academic integrity.” I wonder how many of the latter group there really are. I am an athlete, I have many friends who are athletes, and I can think of very few who meet that description.

  To all those students in the former group, who think that athletes basically don’t deserve to be here and/or waste their time here while contributing nothing, I have a simple question: Name one thing that alums would rather do than attend the Amherst-Williams game on homecoming.

• 3 sastewart09 (sastewart09) // May 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm

  Hey, Jeff.

  I think this is a smartly written entry and I do agree that the two sides need to find a way to stop polarizing each other, but I think a lot of the problem has to be faced top down. If the admissions system wasn’t adding stigmas to the “perception of who goes to our College” (don’t ask why that’s in quotes) then I think there’d be less of a threat to need to feel the separation. No one feels special for getting in here because there’s no exception for it - if you’re smart, you get pooled into the big group like everyone else, but if you’re a recruited athlete, all of a sudden you have an asterisk and matter in a different manner.

  I think we have to rid ourselves of these baseline box-ourselves-in categories from the admissions process and we might see it trickle down into society with the next four years of non-categorized classes coming in. There will always be self-proclaimed jocks and self-proclaimed nerds (or those who point the categorical finger at the other) but it would help if it weren’t being institutionalized, yeah?

• 4 Jeff Grover (jgrover09) // May 5, 2008 at 8:34 pm

  Dave, I’ll concede that spots are necessary in order to be competitive…I think I went too far to say ‘eliminated entirely.’ I guess I would like to see certain standards tightened up (or maybe numbers decreased), as Parker readily admitted that in some isolated cases they need to relax these standards quite a bit.

  And to Sam, I’m not going to say it’s a majority of athletes who fit this bill (that’s my whole point), but I guess it’s the self-created visibility of this minority that gives rise to the negative sentiment. But you can’t tell me that you don’t regularly overhear other athletes discussing the easiness of their schedules, back loaded with Mitzi and Marinis classes, topped off with Astro 11. I don’t expect everyone to take 5 courses that include 3 seminars and a lab every semester, but I didn’t think the point of college was to seek the easiest course load possible (this isn’t Duke basketball, or any other high-profile sports school). Sometimes I feel like there is a reversal in priorities where people become athlete-students rather than the other way around. To me, D3 should maintain the proper order.

• 5 dolphinflogger (bbabbott09) // May 5, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  Jeff,

  I agree with most of what you are saying but I think you leave out one important factor which seems to loom in the background. I think that any group of people with whom you are forced to spend a good amount of time will naturally (though not always) play a substitute role as an prevalent social group. Athletes practice together, eat together, win and lose together, etc. This shared experience will create a close bond no matter what. At a school like Amherst where student-athletes (and of course everyone involved in the billions of extracurriculars) have extremely limited time, it makes sense that individuals are divided/divide themselves into these exclusive groups.

  Speaking from experience, my participation within the Zumbyes has played a similar role. Due to the fact that we practice, travel and perform together, we naturally congregate as a tight-knit social group as well. Naturally, I share your sentiment concerning sweeping judgements, as I often come across individuals who express deep resentment with our group (although I admit, we are rude, obnoxious and really really really rediculously good-looking). The athlete/non-athlete divide, however, permeates the Amherst social scene to a much greater extent and it’s sweet to hear some discussion about it. Can’t wait to get to know all those nice football players. Let’s go running sometime nerd!

  Ben Babbott

• 6 Eric Schultz (eschultz10) // May 6, 2008 at 12:27 am

  Great post Jeff. When I first came here, I admit to having those initial stereotypes about athletes, though these were quickly dispelled from having classes with them. After being here for almost 2 years now, I would agree that many of the athletes I know are as hard-working, intelligent and deserving of a spot at Amherst as anybody else. The fact that they can balance serious athletic commitments with intense academics is truly impressive. That said, there is certainly a group of students (not entirely composed of athletes, to be fair) who are primarily the root of these unfortunate generalizations. The people who pack their schedules with joke classes so they can party every night of the week instead of going to class, doing work, or getting involved in extracurriculars are really the ones who don’t belong here. I don’t hold a grudge against student athletes who get preferential admission as long as they understand that the “student” part comes first.

• 7 caravan70 (dpshupe92) // May 6, 2008 at 12:35 am

  Jeff -

  It seems to me that athletics should be treated like any other talent, as contributing to an applicant’s total package, just like playing the flute well or a proficiency in studio art. This is a Division III school: we’re not recruiting like a school such as USC, where they’d actually enroll kids years ago on athletic scholarship just because they didn’t want them to attend another college, and had positions on the football team three or four deep.

  As for the athlete/non-athlete divide Mr. Babbott mentions - I don’t really experience much of it here; I’ve always gotten along with everyone equally. But it strikes me as fair for the athletes who participate on teams to bond with each other; it’s actually essential. And I have no problem with that. There are indeed problematic athletes - I remember the guy who I saw throw a keg through the window of Crossett back in 1990 - but they don’t represent the majority of athletes here who do their work, make positive contributions to the campus, and graduate on schedule.

  We’re all here for the same reason - to get an excellent education. I don’t see why, in Rodney King’s immortal phrase during the 1992 LA riots, we can’t “just all get along.” I’ve never had a single problem with an athlete on this campus - actually, as I recall, I’ve never had a problem with anyone on this campus. I know I’ve had problems during my time here because I’m older than most of the students, but I simply shut up and deal with it. I would suggest that while admissions should never be predicated upon athletic ability, we should all have a little more tolerance for one another and not dismiss anyone as simply a “jock.” Some of the smartest people I’ve ever met haven’t even graduated from a college, and the “jock” one might put down could well be a genius.

• 8 Anna Brenner (abrenner09) // May 6, 2008 at 1:22 am

  Think it’s “laibs,” neighbs. You’re such a jock right now.

• 9 Anna Brenner (abrenner09) // May 6, 2008 at 1:23 am

  That’s embarrassing. I’m such a jock right now.

• 10 Jeff Grover (jgrover09) // May 6, 2008 at 9:39 am

  Caravan70,

  I agree that athletics should be treated as any other talent in an applicant’s package…it is an immense time commitment (believe me, I know) and brings a new dynamic to the campus. But the issue is that it’s not always treated that way. When it is the dominating factor for admission, that’s where most people have the problem.

  I take issue with this, but also wanted to point out to others that these students are by no means the majority of athletes (despite looking perilously close to a majority by Dave’s numbers, not all spots are created equally, and some that receive them I’m sure were quite close to gaining admission on their own). I wanted to dispel the myth that all of us got in here just because of our athletic ability.

  And, I know that this isn’t USC. That’s why I find it troubling when athletes get here and pad their schedules to coast by. Prof Sanderson noted the other night that studies have shown that athletes aren’t dumber than anyone else…but people think they are…so they act like they’re dumber. She went on to say that athletes here are no exception given the data. I wanted to make the point that this problem stems from both sides, creating a feedback loop of sorts.

  Being on the soccer team, I’m well aware of the bond that forms. I love my teammates, and I cherish every soccer season. I’m crushed when they’re over…but why should I only be friends with kids on my team and other athletic teams? How can someone honestly not make any friends with people in their classes? You don’t find that troubling?

  I get along fine with non-athletes and athletes alike…I just wanted to bring these issues to the table because I know people on both fronts who express concern over the situation here. It’s great that some people have come forward and said that they don’t have problems with either group of people, that’s what I’d hope for. But that doesn’t mean the problem isn’t there and that we shouldn’t address it.

• 11 tanderson10 (tanderson10) // May 6, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  I’ve heard another complaint related to this student-athlete divide: that athletes do not attend on-campus lectures and club-sponsored events. This makes perfect sense, because most events and lectures on campus occur at that critical 4:00-6:00 time slot when virtually every team on campus is having practice. In addition, weekend panels and colloquiua frequently conflict with meets and games. It’s no wonder, then, that athletes don’t show up. Especially with the expectations that no other athletes will be present, it’s an uncomfortable experience to be the only athlete at an event.

  I don’t think there is an easy solution to this divide. Even evening lectures pose problems for athletes who cannot attend because they haven’t have their afternoons free to do coursework like non-athletes have. A week or so ago, at the “Be Heard” meeting, an event attended mostly by RC’s and those who arranged it, a group of people observed that this self-segregating phenomenon occurs not only with athletes, but is in fact widespread through all the other types of cliques on campus. Whether a club, affinity group, or sports team, these cliques prefer to attend their own events and no one else’s. The attendees of pro-life week events were virtually all from the republican and newman clubs who sponsored the events. The attendees of culture-house sponsored events are virtually all members of those culture-houses. Even athletes rarely attend each others’ games. In fact even the grouping “student-athlete” fails to acknowledge the divisions within that group. Members of the track team, swim team, football team all sit at their own tables and more often than not, remain within their own social group. I don’t think the divide lies so much between students and athletes, but between individual teams, individual clubs, and individual social groups.

  Also, you’re right to raise concerns about admissions benefits for athletes, but these ’slots’ are not only for athletes. Legacies, racial groups, geographical demographics, and even those deemed to have unique or interesting experiences, all receive a significant boost in the admissions process. I feel like the problem resides not with these admissions benefit in any case, but in the widespread refusal to step outside of comfort zones and to put down those defensive, competitive barriers between all of the groups. I don’t know what to do to make the campus infrastructure more amenable to unity and inclusion between members of different groups. Someone at that “Be Heard” meeting suggested funding bonuses for events co-sponsored by athletic teams and clubs or affinity groups. I think this is a clever idea, but I’m skeptical whether it would actually bring athletes and non-athletes together. Any thoughts? Maybe even this Amhpub thing will prove valuable in creating dialog and mixing these groups up. We’ve got to stop complaining and move beyond this dialog if we want to see changes on campus, though.

  In the meantime, if anyone not on the track/cross country teams wants to sit together in val (gasp!), be sure to let me know.

• 12 Ryan Milov (rmilov10) // May 6, 2008 at 10:57 pm

  Great thread–
  It has recently been a suspicion of mine that valentine, though currently the place where the problem (read: athlete segregation) is most evident (on a daily basis), also provides an appropriate opportunity to address the problem.

  I think the following represents a simple solution–though perhaps not an easy one: if we are really interested in learning from other people during our time here, we should (it seems to me) make an effort to sit and share meals with different people in valentine. For example, I eat in West too much; I am the first to admit this. I need to get to the back annex more, and just sit down somewhere–irregular.

  A big part of the idea of a centralized dining hall (which I think is important) is that you see the whole community everyday…when we sit with the same 5-10 people night in and night out, we are missing a great opportunity to meet and talk with other people. Of course, this solution requires individual effort, and doesn’t let us shovel responsibility onto institutional practices. Nor do I mean to suggest that the institution could not reform itself appropriately (though on the nature of this reform, I admit to no clarity). I would only say that we would all do well to remember the first few weeks of freshman year? Where went that courage (italics)!

• 13 caravan70 (dpshupe92) // May 7, 2008 at 4:03 am

  Jeff -

  You ask how one might fail to make friends with anyone in their classes. Though I’ve made friends, largely through old fraternity connections, it’s in my case because I’m 15 years older than most of the students here. But for most of the students I think it’s because they’re disconnected from each other, and afraid to attempt connection. This vaunted “diversity” initiative didn’t take into account the idea that people might get here and scare the living shit out of each other, resulting in an all-too-powerful campus police force and an intolerance of “people who don’t look like me” that I’ve never seen the likes of (forgive me for ending a sentence with a preposition).

  I’m not arguing against “diversity” at all, but I am saying that the administration needs to consider that students need time to adjust to one another, particularly when they come from such different backgrounds. A centralized dining hall, yes, does do much to help this along, but when you have different wings students will simply coalesce in the one that accommodates their interests. What is most important is that you, say, go up to someone who doesn’t look or seem like you and chat them up. You could start with “How is your day?” And you follow up, and make a friend. Simple, but highly effective.

  As to the courage? Part of it went away, I think, when we moved from all-campus taps to these private parties where someone brings a 30-pack of Keystone and everyone who already knows everyone else can congregate. Tap, at least, brought you the chance to encounter other people on campus you didn’t know; if you hung out with the people you already knew, at least you were forced to deal with other cliques and circles. As it is now, when do you get the chance to do that? Senior Ball, a highly formalized affair?

  My solution, admittedly a somewhat radical one: Start funding Taps again through the Student Activities Committee. Let people mix. Let them share a beer together on a Friday night. There’s no better way for disparate groups to get to know each other than to do that. They’ll start to come out to your games, and you’ll go out to theirs. And you’ll unify the campus more successfully than if you funded 1,000 seminars and “focus groups.”

  There is a picture of me sitting there, beer in hand, at an Amherst-Williams football game with four of my best friends, in the 1989 Olio. Those were some of the best times of my life. And they resulted from the fact that alumni came back and tailgated, and everyone knew each other from Taps and other such social occasions. We seem to be lacking such social occasions today, and the opportunities to get to know each other and reduce the tensions on this campus that result from our presumptive divisions. I think the simple solution is that we need to, as a community, lighten up a bit. The more complex solution is that we need to find ways to come into contact and encounter each other as fellow students and potential friends, without the level of suspicion and prejudice some bring to the encounter. In my case, it’s been ageism; some seem to think I should be in a group home at this point in my life. But it cuts across all lines, and it infects every aspect of Amherst culture: Asians don’t seem to get along with blacks, and whites seem to stick to themselves. It’s more than just athletic solecism.

• 14 caravan70 (dpshupe92) // May 7, 2008 at 4:42 am

  Athletic solipsism, that is. It’s getting late and I’m tired.

  Sorry,

  Darren

• 15 Ben Klein (bklein10) // May 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm

  Darren -

  Beyond any liability issues with the school funding Taps again, the most obvious concern I would have there would be that it would end up getting dominated by a small group of people, similar to complaints I have heard voiced about soco recently. At that point, it really would cease to be a place where tons of different people mingle, and instead is dominated by a small subset of the campus population, in effect becoming another instance of self-segregation. Furthermore, I wonder if perhaps the general social atmosphere at the college was different when there were regular Taps? If your major vehicle for meeting people today were at parties, you would miss out on a fairly large part of the student body.

  Also, in addressing the idea of mixing up where people sit in val, an issue there seems to be the different seating arrangements in the different parts. West is almost entirely small tables, while there are numerous large tables in the annex. These large tables are nearly always occupied by athletic teams, and are a significant barrier to mingling with different groups. It seems much more appealing for non-athletes to sit with friends from a sports team when they do not have to worry about suddenly being swallowed up by the entire team at a table for 20 people. Why not just break up all of the long tables, and force people to sit in smaller, more approachable groups? I don’t think that would be a complete solution (and would definitely irritate a lot of people) but it would be a step in the right direction.

• 16 caravan70 (dpshupe92) // May 8, 2008 at 2:57 am

  Ben -

  West used to be the place where guys like Dan Geist would walk in with a bottle of tequila and hold “Mexican Coffee” days on a Sunday morning. It was sort of the artsy wing of Valentine.

  Why would Tap “end up getting dominated by a small group of people”? You stick a keg of beer behind the bar and serve cups to anyone who wants one. Not a difficult or unpleasant proposition, in my view. And who wouldn’t come? Maybe a few extreme introverts.

  I don’t see a problem with breaking up the long tables. I do think all of this “campus improvement” simply makes the campus more elitist and reinforces stereotypes. College students should be subjected to a little hardship, otherwise they don’t get a glimpse of how real people live, work, and struggle. When I walk into a dorm and see kids pecking away on a laptop in a mahogany-lined room, I wonder if they’ve ever had to experience anything more troubling than a lack of Top Ramen.

You must log in to post a comment.