<p>When you play a team sport, you are learning cooperation, coordination, competition, dexterity. Even in a more individualized sport such as swimming or track, you are many times competing against yourself but if you PR that's great. It's a quick measurement of success and it is character-building. Whether you are an Olympic caliber swimmer like Katie Ziegler who STILL swims for her high school as well as World events, or a child who will never make it off the jv levels but will swim her hardest for the school and will be happy getting a PR rather than even a 6th place, athletic competition is a good thing.</p>
<p>And for D3 schools like my own alma mater, we have our own athletic leagues to compete against other D3 schools. Obviously not the same level of play as a D1 competition but for the players and school supporters, equally exciting.</p>
<p>Mackinaw, I am very familiar with the historical rankings and with I-dad original interpretation. It is not worth rehashing the discussion about the validity of this statistic. It has been beaten to death in many threads on CC. The original reports and the purported conclusions presented on CC are quite different, especially since the obvious limitations and narrow scope are purposefully ignored. </p>
<p>On an unrelated subject, you may want to check the background and history of the debate program at the Claremont Colleges.</p>
<p>In fairness, CMC is not really a traditional liberal arts college. For example, it doesn't even have its own science departments...and per capita PhD production is significantly driven by science majors. </p>
<p>CMC is a specialty college, with a very strong focus on business, law, and political career paths and dominantly featuring Econ and Government majors. So, saying that CMC doesn't produce a huge per capita percentage of PhDs is like saying that Harvey Mudd doesn't produce many humanities majors. Neither would be expected to.</p>
<p>I actually find the concept of CMC quite attractive...just as I do the concept at Harvey Mudd. Basically, CMC offers top-notch university-sized programs with both depth and breadth in a limited number of related fields, but offers them in the context of an LAC-sized environment. It is not intended to be a full-service, all things to all students, college. But, if your interests lie in one of CMC's specialties, it has a lot to offer. I think it's quite an innovative twist on higher education.</p>
<p>Right (but Swat and Reed tend to rank high on those PhD rates across the the main social sciences and humanities, as well as the sciences).It's also like saying that a kid who isn't mainly preprofessionally oriented would probably prefer Pomona to CMC. That was my original point, although I used the term "cerebral" to describe the prevailing mentality. By that I didn't mean smart, but rather an interest in ideas more than in action; thinking more than doing. This is, of course, an abstraction, but to paraphrase whatever Supreme Court justice that was who was, however, referring to obscenity, "I know intellectuality when I see it." I see more of it at some colleges than at others.</p>
<p>I agree with most of Motherdear's points. One point I haven't seen is that most varsity sports are "team" sports. Being on a team, learning how to function on a team, how to be with people like you and not like you on a team is huge. Not very often in life are you not involved in some activity or job that doesn't require being able to function in or on a team. I'm not a huge proponent of sports + school, but I can see how being on teams has added a dimension to my kids that can't be bestowed by parents.</p>
<p>xiggi, just in case no one else covered it - - I don't think the Ivies offer scholarships to their recruited athletes.</p>
<p>amazon -- my S who is both an athlete and a pianist. The traits required for both pursuits are surprisingly similar. Endurance, self-discipline, passion, individualism...but his sport requires a much more torturous schedule and exposure to the elements, although it pays handsomely with the daily endorphin rush and the six-pack. </p>
<p>His sport also requires a level of dedication that would make it impossible for him to perform at the level to which he aspires and party on the weekends, so a benefit of his athletic endeavors for me, as a parent, has been his choice to swear off drugs and alcohol. I don't know if that's standard for music students or not. Back when I was his age and playing three instruments, I was just too naive to know that other people were drinking and doing drugs, but I guess that worked, too...</p>
<p>I'm thrilled that he does both, although, as I have posted elsewhere, I wish he had more hours in his day.</p>
<p>Dizzymom, one of the main attributes of the Ivy League is, of course, to preclude its members to offer athletic scholarships. My comment could have made clearer by using an "or" as opposed to the weak "and". The comment about the ability to offer scholarships was meant to relate to the "other highly selective schools that have very strong national sports team."</p>
<p>All of the traits which are fostered or evidenced by participation in sports (except for fitness) could also be acquired in other activities. Most schools require lots of group projects just for this purpose. Sports in colleges cost money. By forcing everyone to pay for these sports and fancy fitness centers we're pricing kids out of elite schools. At least there should be an alternative - no-sports, lower-priced schools. And most high school varsity athletes are spending at least 15 hours a week at their sport. If you are a sports zealot go for it, but for your kid of average athletic ability and zeal I think it's time that could better be spent elsewhere - reading, working, volunteering or how about sleeping?</p>
<p>I know the Ivy league does not offer athletic scholarship with the possible exception of its Div 1 hockey recruits. However I have often wondered if they were able to sweeten their need based aid packages to their Div 3 recruited athletes?? If with more money than the EFC would mandate, then with no loan or workstudy money.</p>
<p>I just read that at my son's college the average gpa of varsity athletes is 0.06 higher than the university average of 3.04. The women's field hockey team tops the list with an avg gpa of 3.46! It too is a Div 3 college with Div 1 men's and woman's hockey.</p>
<p>ALL Ivy athletes are DI. I'm not sure what you mean by
"I have often wondered if they were able to sweeten their need based aid packages to their Div 3 recruited athletes??"</p>
<p>"All of the traits which are fostered or evidenced by participation in sports (except for fitness) could also be acquired in other activities. Most schools require lots of group projects just for this purpose. Sports in colleges cost money. By forcing everyone to pay for these sports and fancy fitness centers we're pricing kids out of elite schools. At least there should be an alternative - no-sports, lower-priced schools. And most high school varsity athletes are spending at least 15 hours a week at their sport. If you are a sports zealot go for it, but for your kid of average athletic ability and zeal I think it's time that could better be spent elsewhere - reading, working, volunteering or how about sleeping?"</p>
<p>Working together on a group project and playing on a team sport are very different. On the field, you don't have time to rationalize a decision. Cooperation becomes much more instinctive when you play soccer, field hockey, etc.</p>
<p>We all have to pay for things for which we don't necessarily benefit. When we pay taxes or tuition or whatever, we don't get to pick and choose the programs we want to support.</p>
<p>When I go to college in the fall, I am not going to join every club and organization available through Student Activities. Yet I do not resent the fact that they are partially funded through my SA fees. I am not going to benefit from the highest tech computer research lab, because I am not going be a CS major. I will however use the gym if nothing else to keep in shape for my own health and well-being. Maybe my roommate won't, but she'll take advantage of a different aspect of our college.</p>
<p>As long as this thread has morphed into the sports dominance at some schools....</p>
<p>I'd like to agree w/ Amazon. The same traits fostered in sports CAN be found in many other activities. Theatre is but one example, musical theatre even moreso. Cooperation is imperitive. You must learn to work with a team, "think on your feet", go with the flow -- and even get plenty of exercise if dancing is involved! In many HS theatre productions, your skills are stretched. Actors often help create sets, costumes, sell tickets, produce programs, sell ads, etc. The time consumed is just as draining as in many sports. </p>
<p>While there are a very few "recruited" theatre students, it in no way compares to the hype I see in sports. At our HS. at least half of the awards given on "awards day" go to academic athletes. I have not seen one go to an academic thespian or musician or artist. (They have one art award for the "best" art student, but that is a far cry from the number ofacademic/ athletic awards.)</p>
<p>I think we as a society have forgotten to balance our praise. The athletes deserve accolades. It is hard work. It promotes teamwork. But, it is just one of many skills and gifts that our students can bring to the world. If we forget to value those other skills, we will lose them.</p>
<p>It is well documented, the journal points out, that since 1980 the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled-for adolescents, the rate has tripled-and weight-related conditions formerly seen primarily in adults are increasingly being diagnosed in children.</p>
<p>Why would anyone argue that there are many ways to develop positive and valuable traits? What's interesting is that I don't think you see the parents of athletes denigrating music or theatre programs, yet the reverse seems to be considered fair game.</p>
<p>The cost of sports? Some of them actually bring in revenue, which is a nagging annoyance to all of us who would like to see better pianos in the practice rooms and more funds allocated for theatre productions. The reality is that sports have a broader appeal than other programs, and a school's reputation is thus more broadly enhanced by successful sports programs, which not only help in recruiting students, but faculty as well. There's power in success, even if -- and to some people, especially if it's on the football field or basketball court. At some level, even a university is a business and businesses have to be successful to remain viable.</p>
<p>Like any other area, however, the athletic departments also have to reach out for private donations to maintain equipment and facilities. We have a Div I athlete and have contributed significantly to the program, just as we would if our S ended up as a music major. Do what you can to help make things better where you are instead of complaining about what someone else has.</p>
<p>You could always send your children to colleges where athletics aren't valued. I am always surprised that people who abhor athletics continue to flock to the schools where those traditions are so deeply revered. Could it be that there is more of a correlation than we think between sports and overall excellence?</p>
<p>Dizzy, I do agree with you. I think sports (like many ECs) can foster excellence, but also do represent a kind of culture. For my very creative son who has not engaged in sports, applications went to Vassar and Wesleyan but not Amherst and Williams. I admire scholar-athletes enormously and think they have the qualities you suggest, but I thought: Why push my kid into a high-athlete culture when he can be in the high-art culture where he fits best?</p>
<p>So we are one family that did NOT flock to these schools despite their excellence. I suspect many others are of the same frame of mind.</p>
<p>Many people don't realize that Williams actually has a wonderful art, music, dance and theater scene, at least as well represented and funded as sports. It's true that a lot of kids are involved in sports or outdoorsy activities, but it's also true that a lot of kids are involved in the arts -- often the same kids in both. I would put Williams in the same category as Wesleyan and Vassar as far as access to the arts, though I wouldn't include Amherst or Swarthmore in that group.</p>
<p>From the Williams Record about the prospective class of 2010. (Sorry I'm not able to post the link for some reason.)</p>
<p>"In addition to academic talents, the applicants were also rated on extracurricular achievements. Two hundred of the accepted students were tagged by the admissions department as having a top rating in music, theater, dance, art or writing. The admission office also predicts that 176 of the admitted students will participate in a varsity sport."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reality is that sports have a broader appeal than other programs, and a school's reputation is thus more broadly enhanced by successful sports programs
[/quote]
If you say "George Mason" in California, chances are good somebody in the room has heard of the school. Emory not so much. When we traveled back east, we were hard-pressed to find anyone who'd heard of any of the Claremont colleges, but all knew about Pepperdine. I'd like to think that people look a little deeper when picking a college, and they do, but name-recognition is more important than most people like to admit. D1 sports definitely helps with name recognition. If Wash U had D1 sports, they would not have to send out so much junk to prospective students to get the name of the school fixed in their minds.</p>
<p>"If Wash U had D1 sports, they would not have to send out so much junk to prospective students to get the name of the school fixed in their minds."</p>
<p>Now THERE is a good argument for DI status right there! Save a few trees by Wash U cutting back on mailings!</p>