I am talking about artistic students who are not majoring in their art, but bring their talents to campus in addition to academic qualifications.
My point was not directed to you but to the thread in general.
1 Like
The common denominator is that sports were the original hook in American academia. The colonial colleges evolved from religious sponsorship to wealthy (mostly menâs) colleges largely because of the popularity of a handful of spectator sports, including football, baseball and crew. Generations later, one of the linchpin arguments in support of diversity in college admissions is that this is not new .
The original point of this thread was to point out that the top academic universities in this country overwhelmingly support varsity athletics. Most of these programs never achieve any significant athletic accomplishment and no obvious financial gain. Many are punching significantly above their weight class with their athletic teams. Why?
Schools are spending tens of millions of dollars each year supporting their programs. ( I have no idea how much of the costs are offset by donations). Thatâs a considerable annual expense. How can they justify the cost without a real tangible benefit? For every organization, it usually boils down to money. Have they figured out they are still financially ahead due to indirect benefit despite the cost?
Yet people have pointed out there are tangible benefits, including but not limited to: increased alum donations sometimes focused on sports facilities but not always, enhanced name brand recognition, and monetary benefits that accrue to the surrounding community during events. Lots of sources for that data with simple google searches.
3 Likes
And what about accomplished athletes that decide not to play their sport in college? Is there evidence that admissions standards are lowered for them?
And for those majoring in their artistic area, I can think of some colleges that lower academic standards for them. And that is fine - I see no reason for the dance major to take Real Analysis, unless they want to.
Publicity and name recognition are a soft benefit, which is harder to measure.
Whereâs the hard benefit, the $$$ the university receives that it attributes came as a result of their support of the athletics program? For a school like Stanford, is it $100 million a year where itâs a wash relative to how much to spend on their athletics program? Could it be even a higher multiplier?
I am comparing apples to applesâŠathletes who do not major in their sport but receive hooks for their expected extracurricular activity, which they may or may not even participate in once on campus, to artists who arenât given that benefit.
A number of Ivy League schools plus Stanford, Duke, and U Chicago have ballet companies now, but artistic supplements do not carry the same weight as recruitment. Perhaps if such schools could hold competitions amongst themselves, that would change. ; )
Subjectively judged activities pose greater difficulties than do sport competitions, but they do exist.
I donât know how the schools measure this impact, but I am sure the ones with large athletic programs do, and I doubt the tangible benefits are hard to measure. Itâs possible to also quantitatively estimate indirect benefits.
My experience is that the admissions advantage is extended to the athletes that the school wants to play on the team. For D1 schools, recruits
submit academic materials to the admissions office for a âpre-readââ to get a response. The best outcome is a âlikelyâ letter. For some sports, the âpre-readâ occurs over 1 year before applications are submitted by regular applicants to the school. Although it is admittedly a small sample size, I am not aware of any athlete who got likely letters who werenât accepted by the school when their formal
application was submitted.
How do companies measure goodwill as a capital (intangible) asset on their balance sheets?
Here come the CFOâs and/or CPAâs out of the woodwork.
1 Like
You misinterpret what I was trying to say.
I believe all donations to any university are tracked
by who gave the donation and the reason how that donation came about.
Some donations come from direct solicitation.
Some donations result from a donorâs relationship and/or interaction with various administrators and faculty.
Some donations come about or are facilitated by social events such as sports activities (Harvard-Yale game)
Some donations come about because of existing and pre-existing relationships with athletics teams
The last 2 scenarios are examples where the universityâs support for athletics caused a direct financial windfall. I am hypothesizing that those sums could be considerable (and under-appreciated by the public at large) and a strong motivation to continue financially draining sports activities.
You misinterpret me as well. There are benefits that cannot be as easily measured as say donations.
How do you measure prestige, as one example? How do you measure the benefit to community or the intangibles?
For example, I used to take my kids to the Stanford soccer games. After each home game, the teams would meet, sign autographs and take pics with the little kids. My D still has a picture of her and Kelly OâHara, who plays for the USWNT. How do you measure goodwill like that?
2 Likes
I guess I donât quite see that as âapples to applesâ. I realize that an athlete can bail on the sport once they get to campus, though I have seen very few (if any) D1 athletes who do so immediately - such that they used the sport just to get on campus.
Some do later drop their sport, after a season or two. Sometimes they drop the sport so they can concentrate on academics, sometimes an injury or personal reasons, but I think it is rare to abandon a sport the moment they step on campus.
1 Like
Yes. The publicity, good-will, reputation boost, application boost, increased campus diversity, and improved campus culture are all valuable benefits that accrue from supporting varsity athletics.
However, I am skeptical that all of the schools would unconditionally support an annual
financial drain if those are the ONLY benefits they are receiving.
I am suggesting that the financial benefits are understated, and thatâs the primary motivation why top academic schools keep spending money maintaining their athletic programs when they really donât need to.
And as a result, athletes are more valuable to these schools than what they superficially appear to be.
How do you fill all the restaurants and hotels in Canal Park in Duluth in frigid northern MInnesota in January? Itâs not the ice fishing or snowmobiling or the snowboarding at the hill outside of town â itâs a Division 1 hockey game at Amsoil arena.
I have had to stay an hour up the freeway from Eugene in OR while there on business during U of ORegon sporting events because that was the closest available room.
There are all sorts of tangibles and intangibles that impact the school and school brand and sense of community.
I canât think of anything else that draws numbers of alumni back to campus and the community like a big game. Alumni from many various academic programs at that university.
It creates ties back to some of these schools. Fun and food and fresh air and someone to cheer for and a villain too in the opponents/rivals⊠Brings people together. Some of it is hard to quantify but has substantial impact.
4 Likes
Included in my comparison is the fact that athletes do not major in their sport. You compared these to artists who major in their art.
There are many students, like athletes, who contribute their talents throughout their time on campus while pursuing academic fields. The benefits they bring to campus life may be difficult to quantify, which may explain why they are at a comparative disadvantage in admissions, but they certainly add a valuable dimension.
Thereâs motivation and money. Sounds like they need to then.
I should add that I recognize how varsity athletes are distinguished and rewarded differently from club athletes, but students who are commensurately talented in other ways cannot differentiate themselves like that. Even organizations that require competitive audition for inclusion retain just the status of club level.
I wouldnât say so. For example, at Amherst, almost 1/3 of the student body participates in varsity sports. However, Amherst only recruits 67 athletes each year (NESCAC rules), which is around 15%-16% of the incoming class (but 1/3 of the ED acceptances). That would mean that more than 1/2 of the varsity athletes are walk-ons.
At larger NESCACs the proportion of walk-ons are probably higher, since the number of recruits that are allowed to a NESCAC is determined by the number of varsity teams, not the size of the college. Amherst is on the smaller side for a NESCAC.
PS. based on the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis, a government website, NESCAC athletics are either cost neutral (expenditures are equal to revenue generated), or generate net revenue for the college.