Athletes are transferring from many colleges though, not just from Ivy’s. All of BC’s (or BU’s I can never keep them straight) seniors transferred so now they have a freshman point guard playing the whole game, and only two juniors - who are the oldest on the team. So transferring isn’t an Ivy issue.
1 Like
I admit to reading this article and really not understanding. You get need based financial aid and you are complaining that you don’t also get merit aid and somehow this harms URM’s the most? Didn’t the need based aid just go up at these schools so that if your family earns less than $90K or is it now $120K you go at no cost?
I fully do not understand the concept of trying to force a school to give more $$ in the least fair way (merit would be based on institutional needs - whatever the school needs at the time is going to get the merit money). How is need based aid not the absolutely most fair way to distribute aid?
3 Likes
not sure I necessarily disagree with some of your points. I linked to the Litan article more for the historical context and to demonstrate that these claims didn’t come from nowhere and only from athletes, but were predicted by prominent antitrust scholars even before the exemption expired.
Whether or not his views of what could be accomplished with the need+ approach are correct isn’t really the point to me. (Although it’s hard to know in advance where true competition would lead).
The issue is whether, in agreeing to exclude merit-based financial aid, these schools have engaged in anticompetitive practices.
One can agree that they have and still not support individual schools offering merit-based aid.
I’m a strong supporter of need-based aid but I also recognize that collusion in the past significantly limited need-based aid in the Ivy League. Indeed, it was only when these schools were forced to stop colluding on aid packages in the 1990s that we saw the explosion of generous need-based aid at the wealthiest schools.
That, in turn, forced other schools to compete on the basis of need. Brown can’t compete with Princeton across the board on need-based aid. But they will match Princeton aid packages for students admitted to both. For athletic recruits, they will match Princeton’s formula during the recruiting process for athletes being recruited at both schools.
So, I don’t really know what would happen if the Ivy agreement dropped the commitment to only offer aid on the basis of need. Schools would be open to use merit in the way Litan describes. I don’t know whether they would or not. I suspect not.
oh, I understand that his article doesn’t represent your opinion, I just don’t understand his article. I don’t understand how a school, that could fill its freshman class twice over (or more, I have no idea) with “qualified kids” should be expected to compete for some sub group of kid or be accused of anticompetitive practices. I also think it is odd since half the school pays full price and might be just as qualified, or more qualified, than kids who are receiving financial aid.
Part of this is that I do not understand anti-trust laws as they apply to academic institutions. So it is a bizarre concept for me to begin with.
1 Like
Yes, they are NOW transferring, because of the transfer rules now (it wasn’t very common in the past because of the requirement to sit out for a year). I don’t believe it was very common for Ivy athletes to transfer. But now they can, and if they see an opportunity, and can get athletic money and maybe even merit more, and a chance at a national championship, well…
IMO the Ivy athletes are more in the ‘pool’ now, treated like student athletes at other schools, recruited by other coaches. Some of the transfers are students that graduated from an Ivy but still have (usually covid) eligibility, but not always. The Ivies have a strong pull for some athletes, but I think some may spend 2 years at Dartmouth and think “Hey, playing golf at Duke is a pretty good deal too” or “it’s a lot warmer at USC and this coach is not my favorite” and maybe the money doesn’t hurt.
1 Like
What %age of athletes at the Ivies get need based aid? Are they also hoping to be able to stack need based with athletic scholarships if the Brown suit is successful?
1 Like
Generally in the neighborhood of 50%-60% receive need based aid. I don’t know what the plaintiffs are hoping for, I said this above but I can’t imagine any court can require a school to offer merit/athletic aid. Worst case is the Ivy League couldn’t state they prohibit such aid in their Ivy Manual/other governing documents. Then, each school would say we have decided on our own to offer need based aid only.
Yes, no way a court can require any college or group of colleges to offer merit aid. But a court can enrich the attorneys for price-fixing. (which is what the case is all about)
"I don’t understand how a school, that could fill its freshman class twice over (or more, I have no idea) with “qualified kids” should be expected to compete for some sub group of kid or be accused of anticompetitive practices. "
That is not relevant to the Anti-Trust act.
“Are they also hoping to be able to stack need based with athletic scholarships if the Brown suit is successful?”
Stacking is certainly possible, but that doesn’t necessarily mean full ride. For example, Harvard may want to recruit more hockey players with an athletic grant of say, $1,000, on top of any need-based aid. Yale might give $500 to its lacrosse teams. Brown could spread the max ncaa amount to its track and field. Dartmouth to its ski team.
Just bcos teh NCAA allows a max on the amount of schollies per sport, doesn’t mean a college has to use that amount.
Exactly. Many D1 schools don’t fully fund many sports, and some don’t provide any athletic scholarships at all for certain sports, like Georgetown, which was mentioned above (but there are more!)
The money coming out of endorsements is flowing mostly to college basketball and football players. There are twins in women’s Miami basketball tomorrow that are making tons of money. Some kids are making nothing on a team and others are becoming rich. Potentially crazy dymamics on a team and for teamwork.
1 Like
They are making that from NIL, not from a scholarships from the school. The schools can (and do) give up to the COA (and that’s why the COA were raised significantly when the schools could start giving a stipend in around 2016). Basketball is a head count sport, so those twins are getting COA and the rest is coming from endorsement, Instagram, TikTok, etc. Olivia Dunne, a gymnast, was making $1M/yr before she even started college. The QB from a Texas hs gave up his senior year to make money, went to Ohio State for a hot minute, and then transferred for a better deal. With NIL, the top athletes are controlling the money now.
I actually think the Ivies will offer full athletic scholarships when the floodgates are opened. Why not attract the best lacrosse or hockey players even if their families can afford to be full pay? Some might decide that it is a better decision to go to Duke or Stanford or Notre Dame if it can save their families a few dollars. Why not attract the best quarterback whose family makes about $150k so wouldn’t get full FA at Yale but can get a full ride at other D1 schools? For a few dollars, Yale can have him. Is Vandy or Syracuse or UMich not a good education, a top education, at a better price?
If there is a player who can get full FA, I’m sure the coach will gladly take the need based aid and use the athletic aid on another player - just like coaches at other D1 schools do. Funding athletic scholarships is not a big deal for the Ivy schools. Now that boosters can give money, I bet they have alums who would fund a player on crew or the defensive line.
I was kind of pissed that my daughter got less in athletic money because she was getting more in merit aid, both from the school and from the state, than another student with lower grades and stats; the coach was trying to balance things out but I thought that was at my daughter’s expense. It all worked out, but still…
I cannot speak for the other ivies-- and cannot even speak for the entire alumni population at Brown. But my cohort (the idealistic, protest everything 1970’s) would be up in arms at the idea of pulling resources away from no loan/need based aid for every student who needs it and into athletic scholarships. It took over a decade to move the needle on financial aid to become need blind (the U was need aware until not that long ago). It took Ruth Simmons- a compelling leader and fantastic fund raiser and president-- most of her entire tenure to put funding and supporting First Generation college students front and center as a strategic initiative. President Paxton is as visionary and idealistic as Simmons was (although not a black woman, and without her personal story). I’ve heard her speak many times- I don’t recall a word about athletes and their needs for scholarships. Building up the U’s biotech footprint? The U’s commitment to the city of Providence? The med school and various centers of excellence in the sciences? Absolutely.
Current students and future students? Perhaps this is what they want. Coaches? Sure. But my generation- which is where the money is coming from right now-- would see any shift of need based aid towards something else as a major step backwards for the university. And I suspect the faculty would agree.
4 Likes
I don’t think the Ivy League schools will want to change their position and start giving out merit money for academics. It is hard to imagine that they will give merit money for athletics but not academics. On top of the optics, athletic scholarships will come with the need to either reduce need-based money or eliminate teams, at least for some of the Ivys. Sure, the endowments are huge, but they got that way by not spending them down.
1 Like
That never kept a lawsuit from being filed…and often succeeding. 
2 Likes