<p>Many schools that are big in sports are great in academics too. </p>
<p>To name a few:
Penn State, UMichigan, UTexas-Austin, UFlorida, USC, Notre Dame, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, etc. etc. </p>
<p>Look at UVA and their popularity in Lacrosse.</p>
<p>Ivy Leagues are also big in sports too:
Cornell(Wrestling, Basketball, Lacrosse), Brown(Football), Harvard(Basketball). There definitely are more but these are the ones I’m aware with.</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>Okay, so this is your point, hawkette, one that you have made numerous times in numerous threads. I guess what I don’t understand is why you feel the compulsion to make it over and over again. It’s not like Stanford, Duke etc. are unknown schools that you are bringing to the attention of students who might never have heard of them. It’s also not as if any significant analysis is needed to make the point, since (i) it’s your opinion and (ii) I doubt that most of the kids applying to these schools are unaware of the sports scenes at these schools. </p>
<p>My problem with what you’re doing (and of course, you’ll accuse me of trying to shut you down because of my Ivy biases, which is your typical response to anyone who disagrees with you), is it’s no different than the high school students who start these incessant threads on “which school is most prestigious” or “what schools are equal to the Ivies” or things of that nature. Intrinsically, I don’t think these are very valuable–rather they just lead to arguments in which students praise their own schools and diss other schools. Since i assume you’re not in high school (although sometimes I wonder), I don’t understand why you want to add to this sort of conversation.</p>
<p>There are any number of wonderful schools in the US. Some have amazing sports teams, some have great weather, some are in wonderful college towns, some are gorgeous, some have terrific engineering departments, some have an intense undergraduate focus, some have wonderful dance and theater, some have a terrific wrestling team, others excel at basketball and I could go on and on and on. No one size fits all, yet many people would be happy at many different schools. Am I glad I went to Princeton? Absolutely, I thought it was an amazing and incredible academic and social experience that changed my life for the better. Would I have been happy at Duke? I’m sure I would have been. Do I want to make Princeton into Duke or vice versa? No, why would I. </p>
<p>If you want to post about how vibrant Wake Forest’s athletic scene is or how many people attended the big game at Duke, I think that’s fine. But, if you want to post how Princeton or Yale would be far better schools if they only emulated schools with big-time athletics, then you won’t get my agreement, no matter how many threads you start or how many times you repeat your opinion.</p>
<p>Coureur,
Decades and decades?? Very funny. And it doesnt bother me at all that there are Div I schools without a strong athletic life. LOL. Heck, I advocate for places like Wash U/Emory/W&M/LACs all the time and theyre not sports superpowers. </p>
<p>Re this thread, theres certainly new readership every year on CC and probably it somewhat turns over every few months. Furthermore, schools (like Harvard) adjust their approaches and things change, eg, Harvard building a nationally relevant basketball team is a change. </p>
<p>As for how this affects the quality of student body, Harvard and many of the Ivies make admission adjustments with hockey and even minor sports like lacrosse or crew or squash. Whats different about basketball? </p>
<p>If I were a prospective student, Id like the fact that Harvard decided to install lights and host a night football game after 100+ years of doing it another way. That change expanded attendance, made it more of an event and probably was more fun for current students and alumni. Whats wrong with having a little fun and creating a little campus buzz? </p>
<p>IMO Harvard has made some intelligent moves that improved the social life of some students/alums and I just dont see whats so darn awful about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Let me ask you a simple question, are you sticking by your claim that athletically, Brown belongs in the same group of schools such as NYU, Caltech and MIT? Really? You are talking about a school that fields 37 Varsity teams and has been listed by USNWR as one of the 20 best scholar athlete schools in the nation, has had National Championship teams recently visit the White House (Brown’s Rowing Team), etc.</p>
<p>Because if you do, I’ve got plenty more to say on this subject. </p>
<p>One of the things I noticed is that you differentiate between Ivy schools – i.e. pointing out Brown vs., say, Dartmouth. Now perhaps Brown has a more laid back reputation and Dartmouth has a strong Greek tradition and therefore, for the casual observer, you might easily come to such a lazy conclusion. And yet, the current Directors Cup ranking has Brown nearly 20 spots ahead of Dartmouth.</p>
<p>Even according to your own definition of “what is relevant” being football or basketball – let’s take football, the last time Dartmouth won the Ivy title was 14 years ago and since then under Phil Estes, Brown has claimed the title 3 times. The point isn’t that Brown is “better” than Dartmouth. The point is your claim about Brown athletics in general.</p>
<p>For those who follow Ivy sports closely (which I do), your claim about Brown is completely off base. For someone who generally offers objective and informed advice, respectfully, you got this one wrong.</p>
<p>Need to mention again, Cornell beat Harvard 86-50 last night. Not even close!!!</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You are dodging the question, Hawkette. I repeat: Harvard has also apparently decided to recruit and admit basketball players that are below the school’s own academic standards in order get more talented players. Do YOU think that is a good thing?</p>
<p>Coureur,
No need to limit your question to just basketball and just to Harvard. This extends to all Ivy sports and all Ivy colleges.</p>
<p>The following statistics are acceptable to create an Academic Index of 171 which is the Ivy threshold:</p>
<p>570 SAT Math
570 SAT Critical Reading
570 SAT II
570 SAT II
570 SAT II</p>
<p>Class ranking between 20% and 30%</p>
<p>Obviously, these numbers are way off the current numbers at all of the Ivies. </p>
<p>Do I think that these numbers are acceptable? Yes. If they’re good enough for these schools right now, then I have no problem with them recruiting basketball players that meet the academic requirements. </p>
<p>I would agree, however, that if the recruits were not meeting these standards, then they should not be admitted.</p>
<p>
For the benefit of those new readers, let’s also review how hawkette’s preferred schools did in the latest NCAA Public Recognition Awards, which are given to honor those Division I athletic teams who display “top academic performance”. </p>
<p>First the Ivy League:</p>
<p>28 Yale
21 Brown
21 Dartmouth
19 Penn
18 Harvard
18 Princeton
10 Columbia - Barnard
9 Cornell</p>
<p>And now for the schools which hawkette believes offer “the best combinations of great academics, great social life, great athletic life”:</p>
<p>14 Notre Dame
12 Duke
11 Stanford
7 Rice
5 Northwestern
3 Vanderbilt</p>
<p>Not too impressive, by Ivy standards. But year after year, the same pattern holds. And year after year, the Ivies continue to burnish their reputation as the top Division I league for academics.</p>
<p>hawkette believes that the Ivy League should compromise its academic standards, as her preferred schools do, to admit better athletes. But it won’t happen. The Ivies have the top academic brand-name in the world (second place goes to “Oxbridge”) – and they have it precisely because everyone knows that they don’t compromise.</p>
<p>^^^ great post Corbett.</p>
<p>Snippet from the press release:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Geez, Brown with 21 teams listed. Not too shabby.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because they don’t compromise? Lets not be naive now, they compromise big time.</p>
<p>Very silly post. </p>
<p>And the arrogance and hypocrisy are…well, let’s just say they’re stereotypic and unsurprising. </p>
<p>Memo to Corbett: The Ivies don’t have a monopoly on excellent academics. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame compare very well. Or do you dispute that? </p>
<p>Or is it too personally unpalatable (or politically incorrect) to state that these “athletic factories” are academic peers to the “uncompromising” Ivies? </p>
<p>What is it with you people? The premier school of the Ivy Leagues is leading in this effort to improve the athletic life at their college. I point this out and support it and, based on your reaction, you’d have thought that I was advocating that Harvard morph into Syracuse.</p>
<p>Academic excellence and a good athletic life can co-exist. Harvard seems to understand this. Maybe someday you will too.</p>
<p>People who love sports love to talk about sports. Why do the rest of you care? Just don’t read the threads!</p>
<p>Corbett’s point is that there is a clear difference between the academic performance of athletes in the Ivy League versus athletes at other schools that have stellar academics overall and stronger athletic programs. He/she is making the connection between their stronger athletic programs and their, potentially, academically weaker athletes.</p>
<p>I don’t know why you hate on the Ivy athletic life or care about it at all in the first place. The point that people perpetually make in these threads is that there is a market for colleges out there and that there are plenty of places to choose that have academics that compare with a different kind of athletic life. Whatever your priority or interest is, as a student, you can choose. Most of the Ivy folk who come into these threads come into tell you that they chose these schools in spite of, or sometimes because of, the athletic life there versus other peers.</p>
<p>Isn’t it wonderful we all get to choose?</p>
<p>modest,
I don’t think that the data supports corbett’s argument. Consider a non-major sport like women’s lacrosse. It’s played by many of the Ivies and many of the great academics/social life/athletic life schools. Here’s their performance on the NCAA-published Academic Progress Rates:</p>
<p>Women’s Lacrosse APR , College</p>
<p>1000 , Dartmouth
1000 , U Penn
1000 , Princeton
998 , Northwestern (National Champion)
998 , Brown
997 , Stanford
997 , Vanderbilt
997 , Notre Dame
995 , Harvard
993 , Columbia
991 , Yale
990 , Duke
990 , Cornell</p>
<p>na , Rice</p>
<p>985 , Nat’l Avg for Division I</p>
<p>As for the college selection process, you’re right that it is wonderful that we get to choose. I’m pointing out some quality of life differences that might be consequential to the undergraduate choice for some students and alumni.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You are still dodging the question. I’m not asking you about other sports or Ivy League standards. You started this thread about how wonderful it is that HARVARD is enjoying BASKETBALL success, so let’s talk about Harvard’s basketball players and coaches. </p>
<p>The New York Times article linked in post #9 offers evidence that Harvard has been recruiting players that are not up to Harvard’s own academic standards and that the Harvard coaches have behaved unethically and may have violated NCAA rules in the the recruiting of these players. They did this in order to get more talented players than they have had in the past. So I ask you once again, do you think this is a good thing?</p>
<p>Silly me. When I read the title, I wa sure this thread was going to be about the recently released U.S. Fencing Coaches Association (USFCA) 2010 early season poll:</p>
<p>Men
<p>Women
<p>Instead, people here seem to be focusing on spectator sports. Go figure.</p>
<p>Who knew Penn State and Notre Dame were so good at fencing?!</p>
<p>
Memo to hawkette: Sorry, hawkette, but your schools simply don’t compare very well, in terms of academic performance by athletes. The NCAA Academic Recognition stats speak for themselves. Vanderbilt, with three academically exemplary NCAA Division I athletic teams, does not compare favorably to Yale with 28.</p>
<p>It’s true that the Ivy League does not have a monopoly on athletes with excellent academic performance. However, their toughest competition, as a league, is with the Patriot League (in Division I) or NESCAC and UAA (in Division III).</p>
<p>
But realistically, does the vibrant campus sports life of the “hawkette league” schools revolve around women’s lacrosse?</p>
<p>
The Ivy League has the highest academic standards for athletes in NCAA Division I. The NCAA’s Academic Recognition Awards prove it, year after year. </p>
<p>So, relative to NCAA Division I academic standards, there is no compromise. </p>
<p>Now, it’s true that there are compromises for Ivy athletes, relative to the standards for Ivy non-athletes. You might even be able to argue that Ivy athletes are compromised relative to NCAA Division III academic standards (although these are inapplicable, since the Ivies are DI). But it doesn’t matter, because those aren’t the comparisons of interest here. </p>
<p>The comparison here is Ivy academic standards for athletes vs. those for athletes at other NCAA Division I schools (hawkette’s in particular). And the Ivy standards are the highest in Division I. That’s not a compromise.</p>