<p>Well so far despite billions of dollars they have cured neither cancer nor Aids. At least sports has entertainment value and gets our minds off of cancer and Aids.</p>
<p>Parent of Ivy Hopeful with all your talk about academics it sounds like we should already have cured AIDS and cancer. I'm talking about worth in money, right here and right now. What we're basically arguing over is whether eliminating or removing sports would lead to a more academic environment - and I would say that answer is no. While it would sure put a smile on a few peoples faces to have 99% pencil-neck nerds at top schools, this will not be the case for the forseeable future.</p>
<p>TheMK99: How can we find a cure for anything with our Fed. Govt Policies say BIG NO TO STEM CELL RESEARCH.</p>
<p>Our Elite Universities policy say spend Millions on Sports but not on research.</p>
<p>And our public says we are better off with cheap thrills/entertainment than deep thinking research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When a Stanford graduate open "Google" and "Yahoo", they not only make themselves rich but also make thousands of employees and millions of investers rich.</p>
<p>When a Simpson or Kobey Bryant become rich What they do is anyone guess.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Kobe didnt go to college...</p>
<p>Who says I'm against Sports at Universities? I'm against admissions based on sports.
There should be admission based on sports as the rule is at the High School Level. It should be same at the University level too.</p>
<p>Students who really are not far from others at the University will still be playing in the sports team.</p>
<p>If there is no difference in the profile of a sports person and non sports person at a University then why a separate admissions.</p>
<p>Most disagree with you. We Americans like our college sports. Wisconsin spends $900 Million on research and $70 million on sports--all generated by the sports themselves. It's a fine system</p>
<p>As I said, it's a business. Universities can admit as they please. Whether it's 'fair' or not, it's not changing.</p>
<p>One, sports programs make rich people (some of the time) and these people then give a lot of money to the school. Two, besides this they create a region of devoted fans (I know I don't root for a college team to win at research) who also like to give a lot of money to the school. And three, they generate a huge amount of income for the school through ticket sales etc.</p>
<p>Where does a good portion of this money go? Into sports scholarships, and into the school itself to improve the academics of the school.</p>
<p>In an ideal world a school would be able to sustain itself on intelect alone, but in the real world money comes from somewhere, in lots of cases this is sports and to get good sports you need good athletes. They might take spots from "deserving" students, but that small loss becomes the gain of the many many students admitted, who (by the way) are the kids a school should look after. Honestly, I would be offended if my school didn't try and make itself the best, and this is how many schools do it.</p>
<p>POIH-</p>
<p>Only at some schools are admissions seperate. Stanford, for instance, has a special early read program for athletes.</p>
<p>At the Ivies, you can only get 'support', and not all athletes with support get in. It's not quite the scandal you imagine it to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When a Stanford graduate open "Google" and "Yahoo", they not only make themselves rich but also make thousands of employees and millions of investers rich.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesn't Stanford have either the most student ahtletes or D1 programs in D1? While they are extremely proud and deservedly so of their academic accomplishments, they defintely are as proud of their number of Sears Cup trophies, acknowledging the top athletic program in the country.</p>
<p>At The Ohio State University, their athletic program is separate and solely fully funded by the revenues generated from its revenue generating sports and private contrubutions. With over $100 million annually in gross revenues, it can afford to spend a few bucks on some decent coaching. It also allows it to fully fund many of its non revenue generating sports, such as the one my D participates in. Graduating with a double major in the spring of 08' with honors, I'm grateful to tOSU athletics program and Title IX for her unique opportunity. Get outside of the cash cows of D1 football and basketball and their are so many student athletes who are performing exceptionally, equally in the classroom and on the field. </p>
<p>Hey Hawkette, my d will be looking for a job soon!</p>
<p>Parent of Ivy Leauge Hope, you really are pathetic. Anything for your daughter to get into an Ivy school. I feel bad for your daughter to have such an obsessive parent like you.</p>
<p>Colleges will do what they want, if Princeton decides to accept half their class as athletes, Im fine with it as long as they're not complete meatheads.</p>
<p>"When a Stanford graduate open "Google" and "Yahoo", they not only make themselves rich but also make thousands of employees and millions of investers rich." </p>
<p>so...why does that say anything against sports? There are people like that that don't go to the top-notch or even graduate from college.</p>
<p>Having worked in the field for many years and seen many off-profile special cases routed through the admissions process, I have struggled with the ethics of special case admissions. The bottom line becomes ... benefit to the institution and its students. What if enrolling the student means a large donation which will improve the institution and the lives of its students in some significant way? What if enrolling the student builds a winning athletic team that improves the quality of extracurricular life of the school, that increases alum support? What if enrolling a significantly talented and famous student brings national attention to the school? Especially when the student's profile is not that far off from the institutional profile, it seems reasonable to admit these students.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are cases when the student's profile is so far off the institutional profile that academic success is unlikely. There are cases, for example, when athletic ability is the only consideration and the academic records are so abysmal that admission cannot possibly be legitimately offered . In these cases, it seems unethical to offer admission, both for the other applicants and also because it means the institution is exploiting that applicant for institutional gain. Even so, if the academic commitment of the applicant has been negligible up until the point of admission, perhaps the applicant is exploiting the institution as well in the hopes of obtaining an opportunity to create a career in professional sports. These kinds of cases play out as purely business transactions in an academic environment, and that tension between business and academics is where the ethical questions emerge. For those of us who love education and have devoted their lives to the promotion of education, these kinds of untenable academic decisions, although they make sense as business transactions, challenge our values. These decisions, often times, are also out of the hands of the admissions officers.</p>
<p>The OP is talking about how Top Universities are recruiting athletes left and right. Stanford and Northwestern are two schools that come to mind where athletes have to meet higher academic standards than they would at "lower" schools. I'm sure the Ivy League schools are the same way. And the "Top Schools" that you are talking about are not the top sports programs, although good schools, the powerhouses of college sports USC, Florida, Texas, tOSU are not considered top schools.</p>
<p>I really don't know what the vendetta is against sports, as each team has a maximum number of students that can play on a team.</p>
<p>My son was an athletic recruit and used his sport to help him with admissions at highly selective colleges. I respect him more for his discipline and dedication to his training that he showed in high school than I would have if he had taken 3 SAT prep courses and had straight A s. His academics were strong, but the athletic tip was a big help.
He did fine freshman year in college (well, at least with respect to grades) and I don't believe he "took the space of someone more deserving". </p>
<p>ParentofIvy- I, too, feel sorry for you and your daughter. By the way, my son doesn't think the Ivy schools (especially his) provide the kind of undergraduate education that is worth the money paid, so you might want to look around a little.</p>
<p>I really don't know how I feel about this topic. When my kids were in elementary/middle at a private prep there were the few moms who absolutely always had their eyes on the prize. Their kids played sports and practised so relentlessly because mom wanted them in elite schools. Should be no skin off my back right? Well, except that things like homework, term papers, science fairs and after school things like clubs had become too much for these kids so the school started cutting back on them.(Hey, even middle schools want to feel good about their teams...and a winning team brings needed money)</p>
<p>My own kids had the opportunities to use sports as a venue to an ivy future. They fence beautifully. We did compete, but at some point you start to realize that if the kid is serious(read parent), than you have to hire a coach to scream and belittle your child for hours each day, cut out those other things that might just make them future inventors, creators, artists or businessmen. Things like piano, art classes, goofy down times where they can just go hang out and daydream. You have to cut out the sheer fun of just learning a skill/activity for the fun of it.</p>
<p>In the end we chose daydreaming. The kids still fence. They also hold two black belts. They also play piano. Along the way we resisted the urge to take these past times and make them 'the competitive hook to get into college'. We also homeschooled from 6th grade on because the push in school wasn't to learn but rather to get into the 'best' school. It's not that those kids weren't bright, but they were definitely learning an anti intellectualism that bothered us. And further, my kids school experience even at that young age had become all about the sport's team.</p>
<p>In the end, the kids with the pushy moms mostly succeeded. The kids with their athletic prowess are considered future leaders.(Read investment houses will hire them for bragging rights) On the other hand, we didn't do so bad either. Son chose between an ivy or Chicago. He went with the better fit for him, Chicago(Though he dearly loved the other). I have no idea what he'll eventually become, but I do know that freeing him from the athletic ratrace was the first step in his journey. Does it bother me that some of those recruited kids haven't read a book for enjoyment since the 7th grade? Hey, it's not up to me who gets admitted, higher ed is not one size fits all.(It's not even about scholarly pursuit, in Harvard's hay day intellectuals were fairly suspect, you definitely didn't want too many of them. And if I'm not mistaken...that's why the ivy league was formed. Keep the decadent riff raff out.) And if those kids take seats from someone more 'deserving'? It's not going to hurt the rejected kid. In the end it's still about an education one way or another.(It's rather ironic that you see sports programs as hurting America's future, a long ago Harvard president once pointed to Chicago as an example of what happens when you only let intellectuals in...he felt that because of this, Chicago was never going to be relevant to America. Kinda amusing when you consider Chicago's influence in law, economics, literary criticism and sciences. It's also amusing that you share Harvard's disdain of Chicago) </p>
<p>POIH, in the past you've talked about prestige. How you covet the shiny gold ring. What you should understand is that the athlete has been a valued commodity in training for years and years. They're a sure thing. They can be molded into an investment banker or a politician. The intellectual kid on the other hand may become rich and a big donor or they may become a writer or famous internet personality who loves to skewer the school that created him:)</p>
<p>What if the Ivy League demanded every applicant is an athlete? The quality of the student body wouldnt change. They would still be as accomplished as they are now. The mix of qualities athletes bring would just be a little different. There are enough athletes with great grades, scores and other outside activities across the country to fill every available slot ten times over.</p>
<p>I wish the original poster and a few others on this thread were parents at my daughters high school. Think of their horror. The best math student the school ever produced was premier soccer player. And then she went off to a southern LAC they had never heard of. Worse this years best math student is another athlete, a lacrosse player. Headed to Colorado School of Mines another school they havent heard of.</p>
<p>Parentofbear, LOL.</p>
<p>Other points to bear in mind;</p>
<p>Sports is quite important to the Ivy League member, and their alumni want successful athletic programs, anchored by the concept of academic excellence. For example, Harvard maintains the largest varsity sports and intermural program in the nation. That's right, Haaa-vahd!!!</p>
<p>Don't forget Title IX. Schools need the $$ that big revenue sports garner, in order to provide balance for womens sports and non-revenue activities. And that's fine with me.</p>
<p>Just for fun and historical context:</p>
<p>College sports are fun to watch. Having fun makes me happy. Being happy is the most important goal I have in life.</p>
<p>So yeah...college sports should stay the way they are.</p>