Harvard offers the most varsity sports (42) in the country.
Here are its list of some of its non-revenue sports: fencing, field hockey, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, heavyweight rowing, lightweight rowing, sailing, skiing, softball, squash, and water polo.
Participants of these sports typically come from a small subset of zip codes in this country, which are coincidentally probably the same zip codes that its wealthy donors come from.
In comparison, college sports heavyweights like Alabama, Texas, and Oregon only offer 16, 21, and 18 varsity teams, respectively. Their Athletics Offices could easily afford to add more sports to their program, considering how much money their revenue sports teams generate. They probably donât offer the varsity sports that Harvard does because very few people from those states play those sports. Could it also be that their alumni donor base is also different than Harvardâs and thatâs another reason why those sports arenât offered?
The NCAA D1 required minimum is 14 teams, so a school like Alabama is scraping the bottom.
I think the less internationally known Ivies benefit from maximizing their association with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Public global recognition beyond informed academics and researchers is desirable. Full participation in the Ivy League conference is one way to promote that.
Stanfordâs research excellence is celebrated by those in academia abroad, but it also gains positive publicity from its Olympic athletes, top D1 football rivalries, and NFL players.
Challenging for athletic supremacy doesnât hurt nationally either, so winning as many banners and trophies across the spectrum of sports may explain why less spectated ones remain funded and recruit top athletic prospects.
If college sport paraphernalia can expand beyond Harvard sweatshirts abroad, and judging from the NBAâs popularity in China, there is an appetite in the Far East for such merchandise and American pop culture. Sportsâ participation and especially victories can contribute to a schoolâs brand in frankly a somewhat glamorous way, so why not go there?
Japan must think the US is doing something right. Although our higher education system has been attracting foreign students for some time, other nations have been refining and investing in theirs to challenge that dominance.
Iâm reopening this and asking users to refrain from debate, which is against Forum Rules. All users agree to rules and terms of service when they sign up on CC. There is a handy link to the Terms of Service in the link Iâve included here. Thanks for your cooperation.
Lots of beautiful people you mention. Iâve actually heard of many of them. That was a fun exercise, right? Poor Dartmouth and Cornell. Maybe after another couple of hundred years, they will produce a graduate that makes your list. LOL
Everyone is capable of looking their best. To many, this means taking care of oneself physically and emotionally, and presenting well. In aggregate, students at the most selective schools choose to focus more on academics. Thatâs fine, but it is a choice they make. The student body at less selective schools will present better because they focus more time on that.
Iâm not suggesting that the admissions offices at selective schools have a âhot or notâ whiteboard assisting their decisions. But the appeal of athletes is undoubtedly a factor in the societal support of athletics. You donât even need to leave this forum to witness fawning over Olympic athletes. Other examples are plentiful.
So, to your question, yes, they need to recruit high school athletes for their appeal.
My sonâs university had their annual 24-hour fundraiser that alumni and current students donate to. They raised $1M. Over $170k went to athletics. The next closest recipient was the business school at $75k. There were hundreds of funds one could donate to, across all departments and programs at the school. Can you think of anything other than sports that brings a wider cross section of the campus community together?
According to the university, Purdue sends appeals to: Purdue alumni, faculty, staff, retirees, students, parents, and friends. Last year they received 25K gifts totaling over $52 million. Crazy amount in just 24 hours. Not sure who compromises the biggest group of donors.
It is the appeal of fame and fortune, not âgood looksâ. Good looking people are lining around the block to get into places like Harvard. They donât need to choose athletes for that, when they have movies stars and models applying.
Some athletes are there because they have potential to become famous Olympians and such, but most of them are there because they come from wealthy families who will donate a lot, and the athletic hook allows Ivies to lower the academic standards for these kids. Being wealthy helps kids in their academics, but, of you want the REALLY wealthy, you need to give them a bit more. That is why MIT Has 61% from the top 20%, which isnât that much less than Harvardâs 67%. However, MIT has around 5.7% from the top 1%, while Harvard has 15%. That is some extra 150 kids from the very wealthiest families in the USA every year.
[aside]
PS. While the NYT article talks about the percent by income, they do not talk about the percent that come from the families with most wealth. The differences are even larger there.
The top 1% by income is around $600,000 a years, versus the median income of around $65,000. So the top 1% make a bit less than 10X the median.
However, the top 1% by wealth have $11,099,166, while the median is $121,700. So the top 1% have 90X as much wealth as the median.
The Ivies arenât looking to get the top 1% by income, they want the top 1% by wealth. I am also certain that the differences between the Ivies and MIT (as a college which isnât focused on donations) in the percent of kids from families of the top 1% by wealth is much larger than what we see for the top 1% by income.
[/aside]
I agree with your points. But some niche sports donât move the needle at all when it comes to increasing international brand recognition. If you go overseas wearing a Harvard Rugby, Lacrosse, or Squash sweatshirt, I suspect people would quickly recognize the word âHarvard,â but then ask, âWhat is rugby/lacrosse/squash?â Football and basketball are the only 2 college sports which might have a significant international interest.
In terms of marketability and salability? Probably the same as in America - close to zero.
If a person is going to buy a shirt and they have no connection with Harvard or the sport, they will either buy a âpopularâ sport or will buy a generic Harvard shirt.
If I understand your claim correctly, I donât think itâs accurate. (Although I certainly agree that looks have zero to do with athletic recruiting policies).
First off, standards are not lower for the vast majority of Ivy athletes. For a very few, to fill positional needs, yes the scores and grades can be lower. Those spots are limited by conference agreement. It probably isnât the rich kids from prep schools getting those spots.
Second, I donât think thereâs much correlation between wealth and supported slots for athletes. The majority of supported recruits at Ivies arenât in the prep school sports but rather in sports like football, track and field, baseball, basketball, soccer. Not so much fencing and squash. Coaches in those sports (and frankly in fencing also) are recruiting talent not wealth. And for quite a few of the recruits in equivalency sports, the Ivies make sense because of the great financial aid. I do agree that wealth opens doors at these schools but there are easier doors than the athletic one.
Regarding this thread in general, my own feeling is that the emphasis on athletics at Ivies exists for the same reason certain buildings are located where they are: because thatâs where they were built, theyâre hard to move, and people like them that way. Formal recruiting policies are necessary to prevent the very race to the bottom some people on CC seem to think is already happening, and athletes not only diversify these campuses but make them more interesting.
Ivy League conference rules require that athletes have an average academic index (a formula based on scores and grades) no more than 1 SD below the rest of the study body. Itâs my understanding that Ivy League schools typically utilize near minimum allowed range such that athletes average an AI 1 SD below other students. In short standards are ~1 SD lower for the vast majority of athletes.
Some example numbers from the Harvard lawsuit are below. The average academic rating for non-ALDC hooked kids was 2. 18% of non-ALDC received academic rating below 2 compared to 76% of athletes received a rating below 2. The vast majority of athletes were well below the non-ALDC average. The common athlete 3 academic is described as âVery good student with excellent grades and SAT and SAT Subject tests: mid-600 through low-700 scoresâ
Percent of Admits Receiving Listed Academic Rating
1 â 5% of non-ALDC, 3% LDC, ~0% Athlete
2 â 77% of non-ALDC, 75% LDC, 25% Athlete
3 â 18% of non-ALDC, 22% LDC, 61% Athlete
4 â ~0% of non-ALDC, <1% LDC, 14% Athlete
5 â 0% on non-ALDC, 0% LDC, <1% Athlete
As noted standards are reduced for Ivy League athletes as a whole, not just revenue sports. The Harvard freshman survey shows the following income by athlete vs non-athlete. Athletes average significantly higher income than non-athletes, but well short of certain other hooked groups, such as legacies. Other highly selective colleges show a similar pattern, as does the previous linked Amherst report:
Harvard Freshman Survey
Legacy â 69% >$250k Income, 1% <$80k Income
Athlete â 46% >$250k Income, 11% <$80k Income
All Students â 33% >$250k Income, 29% <$80k Income
First Gen â 5% >$250k Income, 77% <$80k Income
Amherst Report
Athlete â 4% Low Income
All Students â 23% Low Income
Non-athlete â 31% Low Income
From what I have seen at my childâs school (so small sample size), âstandards are not lower for the vast majority of Ivy athletes,â is somewhat questionable. The recruited athletes do meet the GPA threshold and perhaps take their SATs a few years earlier (which accounts for lower scores), however, the rigor of their course load for the remaining 10th-12th grade years is night and day. For most of the non-recruited athletes, the recruited athlete load is heavenly and a walk in the park (at least at our school).
