<p>Wow… I take that back… that’s very interesting. Thanks!</p>
<p>Before we bury the NCAA DIII program, I’d like to add while intramurals and club teams are sometimes an answer to a lack of financial support for varsity, often the results (varsity athletes playing against weekend warriors) are destructive to the club and intramural environment. </p>
<p>While MIT’s womens ice hockey team was not incredibly competitive in the DIII world, there are a few players on the roster who could turn an intramural game into a game of “catch me if you can”. </p>
<p>I know while I was in college (I was not an athlete by any means), I always hated playing in an intramural league where there was one team that was made up of HS varsity athletes who would just spank the rest of the league. Many of them could have played DIII, but chose the educational opportunities of the top school I attended instead. </p>
<p>My point here is that there should be teams that play at the appropriate levels for the athletes at a given school to make the experience enjoyable for all.</p>
<p>I agree with Goalie Dad that there are a lot of HS varsity players playing club sports at larger universities. I would suggest that the club lacrosse teams at Northwestern and Wisconsin rival a lot of lower DI programs in terms of talent. But I honestly can’t imagine my son loving college in the middle of vermont with no sports to participate in or go and support. If you JUST want to go to class, go to community college as school spirit means very little. And if MIT is cutting their hockey teams, what are they going to do with their rink now?</p>
<p>rent it out they say</p>
<p>Moda,</p>
<p>Where I live rink time is at a premium, so part of the MIT equation may have been they can have a club team, with less practice time and rent out the rink. </p>
<p>When I went to Penn, yes they had Ivy League sports, but they only sports anyone I knew played where intramurals. Lots of fun. Probably better for lifetime health and fitness.</p>
<p>There is a big difference in attitude between most club/intramural athletes and varsity athletes at schools. I know that with my D, I cannot get her to discuss the idea of club/intramural hockey as an option. She is proud to represent her school and wants to play with other of a similar passion in college. </p>
<p>So as much as club/intramural teams are good for lifetime health and fitness, varsity sports are more about personal and group accomplishment. Very different motivators for very different people.</p>
<p>The good thing about DIII sports though is that most participants have more than one non-academic pursuit, where often DI athletes are singularly focused and are terribly defeated if their playing time unexpectedly comes to an end. Some DIII athletes are multi-sport athletes. Others have other non-academic pursuits they work at with a high level of intensity. Goaliegirl has identified her other non-academic pursuits, so even as her hockey career winds down, she will move on to her other interests. </p>
<p>I hope those affected at MIT have their other priorities in line so they can move on.</p>
<p>Goaliedad, </p>
<p>I guess the question is who should support Varisty athletes and why. I take the earlier point that D3 is not as expensive as D1, but it still costs something – otherwise why would the schools be eliminating. Presumably the costs end up in tuition or fees Yes, school spirit is important – but there are a variety of ways schools can get there. I have no reason to beleive that MIT didnt thoroughly consider this. If a sport doesnt have a lot of spectators, I have to question why it shouldnt be a club. I hear you Goaliedad, that people go into intramurals for different reason than varsity, but the schools have to balance a variety of issues.</p>
<p>Back to kayf
"Colleges are for education. You can join a rowing club. "</p>
<p>Ummmm, you must have never set foot on most campuses or cities outside of, perhaps, Boston, Cambridge or Oxford.</p>
<p>
Club sports at MIT can still have non-student coaches, they’re just given less money from the school to pay for them.</p>
<p>Dragon, really – there are no rowing clubs in Phila, NY Baltimore? DC? Or would there be if the colleges didnt have teams? I went to college in Phila, and my recollection, driving up the Schulkyl, was yes there were many rowing clubs. Yes, there are some in NY. Rowing is a somewhat unusual example, as one needs a fair amount of water. But it does exist. </p>
<p>But even if this isnt true, I think that colleges have to decide whether they and their students can afford the sports. If a sport does not have a lot of spectators, why should they be a varsity team, and not a club?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess that begs the question-- what is “a lot of spectators?” 100, 500, 1000, 15000?</p>
<p>OK, kayf, there are other places, but compared to the rest of the country? I actually tried to get my D1 into rowing at her west coast school, she went for cycling insted…my point was that a huge majority of colleges have no way to field a team, no place for the team to practice… it’s one of those “where do we cut” places when a school has to cut dollars…</p>
<p>Exactly, it is where do we cut –</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I ever argued with MIT’s cutting of the sports (although it is disappointing). Lots of things have to be considered in tough times.</p>
<p>And school spirit is not just measured in event attendance. There is a certain pride taken by all students in the accomplishments of their athletes, artists, musicians, etc. If I open up my university newspaper (another non-academic pursuit) and find a great article about how the orchestra had a terrific concert with {fill in well know soloist here}, I feel good that I attend classes with musicians good enough to attract such talent, whether or not I went to the concert.</p>
<p>The other argument for having high-level athletics (and other non-academic pursuits) is that this is what separates American Universities from the rest of the world’s where for the most part they train specialists with much more narrow (i.e. academic only) interests. And I think this is what makes for a more complete person and leader and in the end makes America what it is in the world - a creative powerhouse. </p>
<p>Yes, Americans study abroad to get a different perspective, but by and large more internationals come here because of our difference in our approach to education - educating the whole person.</p>
<p>Picking apart the “unnecessary” competitive athletics just because someone doesn’t value the experience is the type of thinking that will turn American higher education into trade school in time. </p>
<p>That being said, MIT having one of the largest offerings of sports out there is not in danger of becoming just another trade school.</p>
<p>I don’t really think I can add much to what goalie Dad is saying except that if you have the thinking that non-academic pursuits are not worth… umm… pursuing, you are one step away from the schools who cut arts, music and a host of other “non-essential” and fail to see how all of these things, including gym, sports, and even recess, add to the entire person. Who would ever suggest that musicians quit their instrument when they enter college? </p>
<p>Look. I realize that on CC there is a real lack of respect for the scholar athlete, but I dont understand in the least the argument that only academics are relevant to an education. Or is it that there is only disdain for sports and funding for musicians and artists and museums are worthy enough?</p>