<p>Beating a dead horse with my friend hawkette, but for an SEC student, the biggest (only?) negative about going to Vanderbilt is the sports scene. Ugh. The same for Northwestern in the Big Ten, and Rice to a student from the state of Texas.
Prepare to be made fun of by your peers.
And Notre Dame? World-class ribbing.</p>
<p>Danas, I'll take a bad football year over the dismal graduation rates of SEC teams anyday. Even in years where ND won the National Championship, they've had perfect graduation rates. And let's not forget that they hold the most national championshps of any school. And the most All-Americans. And seven Heisman Trophy winners. </p>
<p>Vanderbilt has a terrific sports scene & its low standings in the SEC have more to do with high academic standards than anything else. I have no info on the sports scene at Rice or Northwestern, but I do know that they are all consistently in the top ten for graduation rates & are certainly excellent academic institutions.</p>
<p>danas,
Compared to what goes on at U Florida, U Georgia, et al in the SEC, I think that Vandy will certainly suffer in the comparisons of sports programs (although basketball and baseball are certainly peers). The best that Vanderbilt football can hope for on the field in the SEC is mediocrity and even that is often a stretch. But the games are still probably a heckuva lot of fun with a big tailgate scene and lots of student participation. Now, if you want to compare Vandy football to Duke's, I think that Commodore fans will have the chance for the last laugh. </p>
<p>As for Northwestern, they have had some decent football results including a bowl game last year. And Rice's baseball made the College World Series this spring. </p>
<p>For the Fighting Irish, they actually had a lot of good results last year and the stadium is still packed for all home games. Lots of fun still to be had by students at ND sporting events.</p>
<p>and danas, let me add that I am now officially jumping on the bandwagon for the Georgia Bulldogs (and I'm trying to find a way to add them to my best colleges group of tops in academics/social life/athletic life :) ). See you at TWLOCP.</p>
<p>As someone mentioned upthread, many athletic departments are completely self-funded. Every dollar they are spending was generated by them. </p>
<p>At Ohio State, football and men's basketball bring in enough money to cover the other 34 varsity sports that operate in the red (scarlet).</p>
<p>I couldn't help noticing that the top-10 biggest spenders haven't exactly been prolific in their athletic achievement recently, given the size of those expenditures (with the exception perhaps being Florida, and maybe OSU). In fact, UCLA, USC, and Stanford, which are the 3 winningest athletic programs in the country, aren't even in the top-10.</p>
<p>Food for thought at least...</p>
<p>VC, I assume you talking about their football teams not being great lately? Because many of the top ten are perennial contenders in other sports & have won (or at least made the finals) national championships.</p>
<p>I'm not surprised Tennessee is #1. Peyton Manning went there. He got scholarships from tons of schools. There was a program on tv showing how he had a file cabinet full of offers from colleges.</p>
<p>Son was high div. I and was recruited by both Ivy league and schools in the upper tier of their sport, but not the top ten teams in the country. The Ivy league coaches had to make the same phone calls, fly to the same tournaments, and sit right next to the non Ivy coaches who were recruiting my son as well. Recruiting is expensive and there is an overlap of high Div. 1 athletes and Ivy league schools. Now perhaps an elite BB player who is a "one and done" won't choose Harvard due to a lack of exposure and level of play; but there are plenty of talented athletes who do not necessarily plan to be professionals who choose an Ivy league school for the opportunities that come along with it. As one Ivy League coach told my son, "Don't think of the next four years, think of the next forty years when choosing your college. Our athlete alumni make an average of $XXX,XXX.00 per year." It was a good point.</p>
<p>bessie,
No argument with what you are saying, but Colgate and several others who are playing Division I sports generally, but only Division I-AA football like the Ivies, seem to have much lower costs. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the same claims about the 40-year benefits of an Ivy education could also be made by several colleges that compete at the highest national levels academically AND athletically, including Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame. </p>
<p>If anybody has access to a fuller listing of schools and their recruiting spending numbers, please post.</p>
<p>I will lob in a different view of how competitive Ivy athletic programs are...
and also a defense of the value of athletics at any level at any school....</p>
<p>within their own IVY league, the competition is fierce....these schools are constantly touting any and all wins they have against one another....whether it is womens fencing or male swimming or whatever..... some of their recruiting is to ensure they are not at the bottom of the IVY heap..... they all know who is winning the Hep meet....heck, Yale and Harvard compete with Oxford and Cambridge in track....still...... there are LONG time competitive traditions and to that population, being #1 in the Ivy league is big time stuff. </p>
<p>It is a huge decision for a talented athlete to make....whether to choose a top athletic program or a world class education, it is rare to get BOTH in one school. I think Stanford is the top of the heap for this winning combination. My gut tells me that kids who envision playing "professionally" will choose the top athletic program offer over an Ivy......whereas a kid who is very good and also interested in the longer term, will more closely look at the Ivy carrot. </p>
<p>It is kind of funny how lately a lot of the Olympic fencers are Ivy kids...
and I know of a few Ivy BB players that are hoping to play in Europe.... but it is a rare event to hear of an Ivy athlete on ESPN.....I can't prove it one way or another, it is just my impression, living with sons who turn on ESPN before they start breakfast!!</p>
<p>The value of athletics? What amazes me is how almost no one is crediting athletic programs as helping to instill a love of staying active in life? Or at a minimum, helping to foster active behaviors. With obesity as a major problem for Americans.....perhaps the athletic funding is not enough???? All the education in the world doesn't seem to stop the couch potato syndrome...... I would love to see a study that measures weight gain for folks who work from home vs those in traditional office settings. </p>
<p>Athletics is so easy to measure, critique, evaluate, judge, etc etc... look at all the attention Obama's recent basket got.... Jon Stewart even showed a McCain ad that made fun of Obama's time in the gym, but it cut away from the basket shot before it was nothing but net!! </p>
<p>My husband and I will go to HS athletic events without a child participating in it....for instance, we go and watch hockey...we have gone to BB games and tennis matches....without our kids on those teams.... we go because we know someone or because the teams are GOOD. The same is true of college and I sat next to an alum at an IVY football game....who was a classmate of President Bush 41.....he goes to the Yale/Penn game EVERY year...and had since he graduated....he meets one of his suitemates at the game and that is just something they do. Notre Dame built a stadium that holds 100,000 people for goodness sake. Humans like sport.....and it is okay to like it..... the real key is to partake in sport too..... I definitely feel that young gals today are MUCH more involved in sports than my peers....I was the only gal in my immediate circle of friends in college who was an athlete..... yes, I had teammates, but my real friends were not from the team. I think it is wonderful that more gals are doing sports in college...and beyond. And I do think athletic recruiting budgets are not out of line with overall budgets. </p>
<p>I really wish people would stop generalizing that all athletes bring down academic scores....as much as I wish folks would stop assuming geeks can't play sports. It is 2008.... while there are some limits to overall abilities, top athletes will tell you what makes them the best is practice....and what top academics will tell you makes them the best is that they read and study. It is all work...... its all HARD!! Maybe we pay more for athletics because it is a diversion for all the worker bees!!</p>
<p>Hope the above makes sense to someone besides me!!</p>
<p>^i agree with everything you say. Since i was small i used to be fat and ive always tried to lose some weight but never could, but eventually my love for sports pushed me enough to lose the weight. I was borderline obese but then i started working really hard in football and wrestling and began working out hard and now i have a very muscular build and im about average weight.</p>
<p>Maineparent,
Thanks for your post and please accept my apologies if my words implied that Ivy athletics aren’t a good experience for the student-athletes. My point here and elsewhere is that the athletic scene at the Ivy colleges for students and for student-athletes is different (on the field and in the general environment at the games) from what you will find at some of the other top academic colleges. </p>
<p>A few thoughts on your post:</p>
<ol>
<li> I agree that the intra-Ivy competitions are passionate affairs for the athletes. I also have little doubt that the same can be said about the great majority of minor conferences throughout the country.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>And I have zero doubt that it can be said about major conferences like the Pac 10, ACC, Big 10 and SEC. For these conferences, my impression is that the intensity on the field is several gears higher than in the Ivies and that passion may even be surpassed by the student and general fan enthusiasm for the games and the event. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I greatly value the athletic life part of the undergraduate college experience and promote this frequently. IMO, it can be great, great fun for all students, fan and non-fan, as it brings a school together on several levels and connects the student/alum to the school on a regular basis far into the future. People in the Northeast don’t have this tradition/exposure and I really don’t think that they get it. But I compare the athletic scene at schools like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame to the Ivy colleges and IMO, it’s not close as the major Division I schools offer a far more vibrant environment and nationally relevant contests.</p></li>
<li><p>Great academics and great athletics CAN mix. I concur that folks unfairly take shots at all of the Division I scholarship-granting schools for being athletic factories, implying that there is often little ethical or academic underpinning in the admittance of these students. In many cases, this is sadly true, but it certainly not at some of the nation’s top academic colleges, including Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame. Their student-athletes graduate, sometimes at a higher rate than the general student population, and still find time to compete at the highest athletic levels and on the biggest stages in the country.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>My conclusion is that, for many, many students, the greatness and the fun associated with athletic life is a major and positive differentiator for top academic colleges like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame (and somewhat at Northwestern and Rice).</p>
<p>Nice post, hawkette, I agree with everything you wrote. Just keep in mind that the student bodies of the Ivies are becoming more and more geographically diverse, and bringing with them an attitude about college sports that can be quite different from those from the Northeast.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People in the Northeast don’t have this tradition/exposure...
[/quote]
I agree. When visiting relatives in South Carolina I am stunned by the sea of orange shirts, flags, and banners touting Clemson. Even with the recent rise of Rutgers football, we don't have anywhere near the level of statewide support for NJ college teams.</p>
<p>Do people even realize that Athletic Departments run on their own separate budget? Apparently not, considering the "OMG what a waste of money" type of responses.</p>
<p>I think its because here in the Northeast people watch and support professional teams way more than college teams. Especially compared to states in the south and Midwest</p>
<p>StickerShock at least you have Rutgers, here in NY we dont have any college football teams that we really support. I mean you do have Syracuse but its upstate and many people in NY forget about Syracuse. Kind of how if you ask a NYer what NFL teams are in NY he'll most likely just say the Jets and Giants while completely ignoring the Bills</p>
<p>And it's especially odd that New Yorkers would forget the one team that actually PLAYS in new York!</p>
<p>I went to a SUNY school. So pathetic. My s goes to Penn State. Went to a couple of home games. What a blast. We fly the flag outside our house. Hey, I know they're no great shakes but they're a top 25 team. So it's the Eagles, the Phils, the sixers, and now for us...the Nittany Lions. What fun!</p>
<p>Whatever one may think of these high profile athletic programs, the argument that they are a source of cash to their universities is generally false. There was a nice treatment of this issue in "The University in the Market Place" authored by the former president of Harvard. The vast majority of colleges and universities subsidize their athletic programs rather than the other way around. Only a handful provide a net contribution back to their university. Maybe they are worth it on other grounds, but they cannot be justified based on their financial contribution.</p>