<p>
[quote]
If you really believe these universities (indeed, any Division 1 place) offer the same academic support to "regular" students, then more power to you. I won't argue the point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Harvard (which is Div. 1) offers athletes and non-athletes the same academic support.</p>
<p>tsdad, I hear you. Before I had a child who was a top athlete, I didn't fully understand the mental, physical and emotional commitment it takes to persevere and excel in a sport--and D's only in high school! Now that I understand, if D decides to pursue athletics in college, we will definitely be looking for a school which will provide lots of support. There are always those super-kids who can do it all well and effortlessly (their parents frequent this board, lol), but some people forget that despite their talent, elite athletes are not equipped with special powers or longer days. If a school is making money on sports and enhancing their athletic reputation because of their athletes, then it's nice if that school takes some responsibility for helping the kids fulfuill all their academic obligations given that athletic participation often interferes with classes, exams, etc.</p>
<p>D recently completed 3 weeks of championship level events. It meant stress and very long hours away from home and the books. Guess what? Her grades took a big hit during those weeks. Some days she left school at 1:30 PM and didn't get home until midnight. D would never ask for special treatment, but it would have been really nice if a teacher had noticed and offered an extension or had postponed a test for her. Some kids make a habit of staying home from school the day after a late night, but D can't do that with the kind of classses she's taking. Nor would she regardless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I attended a big 10 university where the athletes had little contact with the rest of the student body, had little overlap in terms of classes
.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can concur that at some universities and in some sports, the student-athlete is basically majoring in his/her sport. However, I think your comment is, in most cases, the exception and not the rule. My S is an athlete (non-revenue sport) at a Big 10 university. As an athlete that trains year round and an engineering major, he takes the same classes as all the other engineering students in his major. I can safely say that there are no such courses as Differential Equations for Athletes or Strength of Materials for Athletes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
and received tremendous academic support denied to regular students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, athletes do receive academic support. At Ss school, first semester freshmen are required to attend study hall a minimum number of hours per week. After the first semester, study hall becomes optional as long as the student-athlete maintains a set GPA. The university also provides tutors, if requested by the student-athlete as well as dedicated study areas and computer labs. However, there are similar resources available to regular students. The only difference that I have observed is that, for many non-introductory courses, a regular student would have to pay for a tutor. Another benefit athletes receive is early registration. This is provided to allow the student-athlete to schedule all their required courses around their practice schedule. </p>
<p>When athletes travel, they can be away from the classroom for up to four days (or more). It is up to THEM to make sure they turn in their travel absence form, complete their assignments, get any help they may need to catch up, and schedule make up exams for those missed. It definitely adds complications to an already complicated schedule. </p>
<p>I know there are comments made that athletes get preferential treatment. However, many of those making the comments dont realize the sacrifice these young adults make. Many give up most of their social time as well as fall break, spring break, most of their holiday break and summer vacation. In some sports, it is almost impossible to have a summer job because of training requirements.</p>
<p>I really do believe that a strong athletic program enhances a university. It certainly doesn't detract from the experience that non-sports fans have, so I don't quite understand the resentment some posters seem to have.</p>
<p>My daughter graduated from Rice. She had an awesome 4 years. Baseball is really the only decent team and the school is really proud of the team and its success. I think Vanderbilt offers a better "sports" experience than Rice- perhaps one of the best of any top academic school. As a Nashville resident now, I am enjoying the top teams that come to play Vandy and the success of Vandy at a number of sports. I'm not saying this is a reason to choose Vanderbilt over Rice, but it is something I have definitely noticed.</p>
<p>My son was a recruited Ivy athlete. His sport is three seasons, although he has been injured since he arrived and has not participated in his sport at all. The kids on the team are dedicated to their sport AND to their academics.</p>
<p>newmassdad,
I am having a hard time understanding your objection to Harvard's effort to improve its athletic life. If I am reading your comments correctly, I believe that your attitude that high academics and high athletic achievement are incompatible is inaccurate. Do you think that the institutional integrity and the academic experience is truly lacking at places like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame,??? These schools all field teams that are nationally competitive in at least one of the major sports of football, basketball and/or baseball. </p>
<p>The fact is that all of these colleges offer an athletic scene that Harvard and the other Ivies have, to date, not been able to compete with. You and your daughter may not care much about this, but I don't think your personal lack of interest needs to manifest itself with a disdainful view that tars all major sport-playing Division I colleges as athletic factories. A lot of folks (students, parents, alumni, even some school employees) enjoy these experiences which can add a lot to the school spirit and the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>I also think a sub-forum would be a great idea. We have lots of questions and do not expect to receive guidance from our high school or coaches.</p>
<p>For a sport like cross-country or track, how important do you all think it is for the athlete to attend post-season meets such as Footlocker, Nike Nationals, etc.? Track is not exactly like a team sport where a recruiter will want to watch a kid play in the context of a game, and there are already race times on record for the student that can be used for assessment. On the other hand, if the athlete does well, it seems that this will give him or her national exposure, his name will show up on all the track websites, and that might attract the attention of college coaches. Also, it seems to be just another step in developing oneself as an athlete--seeking the best competition.</p>
<p>D's coaches, however, always discourage her from doing these meets, because it interferes with their new season training program (which all the average athletes will be following.) Her season would go longer than everyone else's and to sustain her peak will require different training. Also, they want her to peak for the state meets that put a feather in their own cap and aren't concerned about her individual career. We have already bucked them several times, and they've gotten testy. Just not sure if it's worth doing it again. Thoughts?</p>
<p>TheGFG- It is helpful, but not essential, to go to the national meets like Footlocker. If you can place high at Footlocker, you are obviously a top national recruit. However, there is an understanding by college coaches that these meets and beyond the runners' normal peak and that they can be a real zoo. My son (a running recruit) never did particularly well at Footlocker. It IS important to have times on some recognized courses for cross country, though. That's the real benefit of the national CC meets. Track is track, and times are pretty objective. Coaches are interested in what kind of mileage the runner has been doing- is he/she running well on low mileage and will really improve with higher college level mileage OR (some coaches) has the kid tapped out already with 90 mile weeks.</p>
<p>NJlaxfan169 Is correct regarding the 210. It goes deeper than that apparently. I was told that it also varies by sport, so that among non revenue sports some sports are required to have higher SAT's for example, than others. That is they rank them (e.g., fencing, soccer, lacrosse, etc.). I am not suggesting this is the ranking because I don't know.</p>
<p>Regarding TheGFG's question, I echo MomofWildChild's comment.</p>
<p>From my D's experience in track and xc, Footlocker and Nike Nationals were extremely helpful, but not imperative. Coaches understand times (more relevant for track than xc), which makes it possible to get recruited without high-profile races. For my D, Nike track and xc definitly put her on national radar. For high-caliber track athletes in general, especially from rural areas, it does help to run against stiffer competition, if nothing else to see whether you like to compete at that level. This can help sort out whether you want to run at an Ivy -- and, if so, which one (they all have different approaches).</p>
<p>Back to the original subject of this thread, I agree with hawkette that athletics and academics need not be mutually exclusive. It's all a matter of degree. Many schools adjust standards -- and perhaps should -- to attract stellar performers, not just in athletics but in art, music etc. to achieve a fuller, more enriched student body. The question concerns the extent to which the admissions office "adjusts" the bar. In my view, it's a mistake to admit students who can't compete in the existing academic environment. It's not easy for anyone, much less a time-strapped athlete.</p>
<p>bump!</p>
<p>A sobering article about athletic scholarships in the NY Times:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th</a></p>
<p>Do the average scholarship amounts seem to fit with your experience and that of folks you know? I'm thinking D's college list needs to be altered if $2000 is all we can expect, lol.</p>
<p>"Varsity athletes" is too broad a term to be useful in talking about the impact of athletics at Harvard, as some teams (e.g. cross-country) have the same academic index and grades as the college as a whole. I think football and hockey have traditionally been the sports with the lowest overall AI and the most students whose academic credentials are substantially below those of their peers; it seems like basketball is trying to join the group. It's true that almost all of these students graduate, but personally wish that Harvard would put more emphasis on the scholar part of scholar-athlete, and field weaker but smarter teams.</p>
<p>Scholarship amounts depend on the sport. Men's lacrosse is the sport I am familiar with. Per NCAA regs, Men's lax can offer 12.6 scholarship equivalents. That means 12.6 scholarships spread among the 40 or so guys on the team. That's a maximum -- some d1 schools offer no men's lacrosse athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>There's no rule that says the money has to be evenly distributed ... so one kid could conceivably get a full ride, and another only a 15% of the COA.</p>
<p>AS far as I was concerned, when the school on the other side of the country dangled a "scholarship", my feeling was "big whoop ... that's just a few plane tickets" in the great scheme of things.</p>
<p>My son is an athlete at an Ivy on a very successful team where he receives good academic support, great athletic support, but no scholarships.</p>
<p>Just keep in mind that there are NO scholarships for athletes at the Ivy's.</p>
<p>As far as the AI and the individual athletes - tho the AI number for some may be a bit on the low side - they are still pretty smart athletes in order to be at an Ivy - by no means dumbies at all.</p>
<p>Here is Harvard's current basketball team roster. Looking at their backgrounds you will see that most, if not every player was a member of NHS, or honor roll or recipient of an academic achievement award in high school. It supports what JeepMOM said, these students are by no means dumbies. </p>
<p>M</a> Basketball - Roster - GoCrimson.com - Official Web Site of Harvard University Athletics</p>
<p>One that I'm familiar with is Andrew Pusar, from Seton Hall Prep. It's a great h.s., and he earned honors every single semester. Also named Essex county scholar athlete of the year, which is an enormous accomplishment. </p>
<p>Now, I don't follow Harvard hoops, and the top students might be "swimmies," as Tom Wolf calls them. But it's unlikely Harvard is bringing in dopes to fill the roster. What IS a problem, however, is the NCAA recruiting violations that Harvard's coach has been accused of commiting.</p>
<p>ninos- I assume your daughter was a DI athlete. Do you know if the same level of competition is necessary to get recruited by the more competitive DIII programs in track/cross (Williams, Middlebury, etc.)? I go to an extremely small school and don't get many opportunities to compete on a high level, but my times would be competitive within those conferences.</p>
<p>Williams has a great program and attracts some strong runners. If your times are competitive with the high school times of their recent recruits, contact the coach!</p>
<p>Philoglossia: One doesn't need to compete in high-profile national meets to get recruited at competitive D-III programs. In fact, you don't necessarily need it for D-I programs, but it helps (if you do well, that's when they start contacting you).</p>
<p>It makes total sense to contact coaches; they are very responsive to times in track, and performance in state and regional meets in cross country. Williams, Middlebury and Amherst all have great running programs -- and they DO recruit. Coaches at those programs seem personable and usually love to engage in dialogue. They'll let you know if performance times are in the ballpark (they may also be on team web sites, though less common). Coaches at competitive D-III schools like to say their programs are comparable to Ivies (D-I) -- and in a sense they are. The programs really do vary. If you are a junior, now is a great time to contact coaches and think about options (in my opinion).</p>
<p>Do NOT let a possibly lower level high school program hinder the individual's pursuit of athletics in college if the student athlete seems to have the right "pieces"; D-I or any other level. Be the advocate and market yourself - contact the coaches. Visit the coaches on campus if possible and find out what they want to know or see in order to be get excited about a particular athlete. Lots of athletes make it onto college teams through "the back door".</p>
<p>Not sure whether this is the appropriate forum, but a post a while back by ninos made me think there could be some helpful feedback here. </p>
<p>My D is considering attending a post-season track meet (NON), both for the experience and challenge of competing in a national-level meet, and also because she's a HS junior and the atmosphere might give her a better idea of what level of competition she would like to be part of at the college level. She has only ever competed at the local level in track, but is having a strong season. Her HS season ends a few weeks before NON, and she would have to attend without a coach (only with a parent). She wouldn't mind training on her own after track season ends. The question is: how worthwhile is NON (for experience, college recruiting, etc), and would it be awkward to go without team or coach support?</p>