Comprehensive Ivy League v. non-Ivy League Thread

College Search & Selection
321

<p>the_prestige,</p>

<p>Yesterday I composed a post, partly in response to your post # 304. I decided not to post for fear of inflaming the discussion. Here is I wrote:</p>

<p>The_prestige,</p>

<p>1) You posted, “You cannot have a nationally ranked powerhouse program (in the big revenue sports such as football and basketball) without getting your hands at least a little dirty.”</p>

<p>Maybe I missed it, but where are the recruiting scandals for any of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown and Wake Forest? To my knowledge, these schools operate clean programs in football, basketball, baseball, etc. while competing in the most competitive conferences in the country and they have all achieved at the very highest levels in the country in at least one of these major sports. </p>

<p>2) Re athletic scene, it’s pretty clear that the Ivy students/alumni don’t care about attending their football, basketball, baseball games. I have documented this with the attendance figures for all of the football games from this past fall (and the basketball figures so far support this conclusion). The Ivies are not close to Notre Dame, Stanford and Vanderbilt, and only Yale is close to Duke and Northwestern. </p>

<p>Here is the link to all of the data. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/389224-athletic-life-college-football-scene.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/389224-athletic-life-college-football-scene.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>3) You asked about athletic prowess on the national level, suggesting that these colleges are punching bags for the bigger state schools in their conferences. May I direct your attention to the latest Sagarin and college Coaches basketball rankings:</p>

<p>National Rankings according to Sagarin (as of December 30, 2007)</p>

<p>Rank , MEN'S DIVISION I BASKETBALL (329 colleges compete)</p>

<p>1 , U North Carolina
3 , Duke
15 , UCLA
16 , Georgetown
24 , Stanford
29 , Vanderbilt
33 , USC
40 , Notre Dame
41 , UC Berkeley
53 , U Virginia
100 , Wake Forest</p>

<p>142 , Brown
172 , U Michigan
174 , Northwestern
192 , Cornell
216 , Yale
239 , Columbia
248 , Harvard
278 , Dartmouth
281 , Princeton
287 , U Penn
306 , Rice</p>

<pre><code> 341 Division I teams are ranked
</code></pre>

<p>National Rankings voted by Coaches (as of December 24, 2007)</p>

<p>Rank , WOMEN'S DIVISION I BASKETBALL (328 colleges compete)</p>

<p>2 , Stanford
4 , U North Carolina
11 , UC Berkeley
14 , Duke
16 , Notre Dame
21 , Vanderbilt</p>

<p>4) Breadth of sports offered may be your only leg to stand on in trying to equate Ivy athletics to the athletic quality and scene at Stanford, Duke, et. But if trying to equate major college football or basketball with squash or rowing is really your argument, then I hope you are kidding. If not, all high school students who care about sports and the athletic scene at a college, please take notice. ABC Ivy has got a heckuva fencing team and you’re going to love watching that, but please let’s not talk about football, basketball, baseball. </p>

<p>5) You posted, “Give me a school that offers </p>

<p>1) top notch academics
2) top notch faculty
3) top notch student body
4) top notch facilities
5) top notch reputation
6) top notch football program
7) a shiny stadium
8) top notch booster program
9) top notch national TV deal.”</p>

<p>This actually could be a great idea for a new thread because if you want to compare the Ivy offerings on these nine metrics vs. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, then bring it on. Most, if not all, of the Ivies, will lose and by a substantial margin in some cases.</p>

322

<p>the_prestige,
With regard to your most recent post and my post #320, I withdraw my comment about conditioning. In retrospect, it was a poor choice of words. My point is that it seems awfully rare in these exchanges where you (and many Ivy affiliates) extend any credit to the many other great colleges around the country. I interpreted this in a certain way that led me to choose that description. I regret the word choice. </p>

<p>Re your characterizations of my posts and viewpoints as hypocritical and narrow-minded, I think that the record will show differently. I entered the link at post # 184 and made a number of posts that directly contradict your accusations and portrayals. </p>

<h1>199: “The difference is real and, for many students, is an important consideration in where one chooses to go for four years and for whose athletic teams one roots for for fifty years or more.”</h1>

<h1>250: “my preference is for schools that offer the premier combinations of athletics, social life and athletic life. I fully acknowledge that others may have different interests and priorities and thus properly prefer a school not on my list.”</h1>

<h1>275: “Literally millions of people love college athletics and attend major college sporting events. It won’t matter to everyone, but it will matter to many. Is it or should it be the defining aspect of undergraduate life? No, of course not, but college athletics are fun for undergraduates and for alumni and frequently are a part of how many people in our society stay in touch with their college and with their college friends”</h1>

<h1>282: “Some students may not care about athletics and the benefits that come with such a scene and will choose to go to an Ivy or to a U Chicago or some other college that does not provide this. Great choice and good luck. However, many others want to have their cake and eat it too and want that combination of great athletics and great athletic life. For these students, the colleges that offer top academics and top athletics could well be the better choice over the Ivies.”</h1>

<h1>306: “I think you will agree that college selection should be about the combination of top academics and personal fit. If a good athletic life is something that a student thinks would be nice and fun to have as part of the undergraduate experience (not to mention the lifelong connections that it often provides), then these colleges could well be the better choice.”</h1>

<h1>311: “We can measure on academic factors, student quality factors, athletic quality factors, athletic attendance factors, social life factors, weather factors, anything one thinks might be relevant to a student making a college selection.”</h1>

323

<p>Look, hawkette, apology accepted.</p>

<p>I know where you are coming from and I think you know where I am coming from -- I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I am not going to convince you of my stance, and I assure you that you are not going to convince me of yours.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, from a 50,000 foot view, you are essentially making a preference call regarding sports. Now within that narrow band in which to judge an academic institution (some would argue from an irrelevant perspective - but be that as it may -- for argument purposes) --> there are the two extremes:</p>

<p>1) The anti-sports, pro-intellectual, (perhaps liberal leaning) schools -- but elite, premier institutions nonetheless. Schools like MIT, Caltech, Chicago and many of the top tier LACs. I don't think anyone is going to argue that you are not going to get a top notch education at these schools, with top notch student bodies, faculty, facilities, resources, reputation, etc. In fact, there are likely to be a certain percentage of students who are attracted to these schools precisely because they aren't dominated by a suffocating sports scene. Again, its a matter of preference.</p>

<p>2) On the other end, you've got the unis that have very high profile sports programs. </p>

<p>and in the middle:</p>

<p>3) You have a group of schools (largely private), for example the Ivies, that have top notch academics and a reasonably active sports scene -- I argue that this is the right balance.</p>

<p>With regards to no. 2, most of them are public, and frankly, most of them (when we are talking perennial sports powerhouses) have average or below par academics. You highlight Stanford and Duke and, perhaps, Northwestern. But let's be frank, they are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to schools with high profile sports programs. You are selectively highlighting (cherry picking) the 1% and then you are using that minority view to try and paint this rosy picture of "having your cake and eating it too". Its just not a realistic or fair view.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you are taking a group of schools and lumping them together that have no affiliation with one another -- Stanford has nothing to do with Duke which has nothing to do with Northwestern. That is precisely what makes the Ivies unique. Stanford is part of the PAC-10, so by definition affiliates itself with ASU before it does Duke or NU (nothing against ASU, but they aren't exactly an academic powerhouse, are they), and so on down the list (e.g. Florida State / Miami --> ACC, etc., etc.).</p>

<p>Lastly, you ask me to come up with specific scandals for specific schools, well, frankly, there is no need. You don't need to be a genius to know that NCAA big boy sports is big business. Bowl games bring in huge revenue for each school. Big time college coaches get paid millions of dollars. Boosters have huge influence with their fat donations. Let's not forget the connection with professional level and all of that entails (agents, sponsors, etc.) And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the billion dollar business that is sports gambling. THIS IS BIG BUSINESS. There is a seedy underbelly to the shiny package that is big time college sports. Whether you want to accept that or not is not my call. But let's not pretend it doesn't exist.</p>

<p>But, as I said in the beginning, this is a personal preference. Some people love sports and want that to be a huge part of their college experience, others don't. Others would like something in the middle. Others want to go to the best academic school possible. Others really don't care at all about sports. There is plenty of room for differing opinions on the subject -- and that is exactly what they are -- OPINIONS. No one is "correct". We will just have to agree to disagree.</p>

324

<p>and why is Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Penn> NU</p>

<p>Collegeboard SAT range (the best indicator of student body strength to my knowledge)</p>

<p>Brown: 1350-1530
Columbia College: 1320-1520
Penn: 1330-1510
Dartmouth: 1350-1550</p>

<p>NU: 1320-1500</p>

<p>That seems very close to Penn and Columbia. The difference is not statistically significant.</p>

<p>Cornell: 1280-1490</p>

<p>Cornell is the only one that is below this group.</p>

325

<p>Stanford, Duke, and NU are prolly the best 3 with a significant gap between the other "top-tier" academic schools that have big sports as well.</p>

<p>Collegebound, Columbia's SAT scores are actually higher when you factor in FU Engineering (at Duke, Cornell, NU, Dartmouth, and Brown the engineers are already factored into SATs).</p>

326

<p>"When you walk into a job interview, do you think that the person doing the hiring gives a crap that the last football game you attended had 50,000 people watching it?"</p>

<p>You're out of touch if you don't think men want to talk sports. I landed a pretty coveted job in New York after an interview that was primarily about Duke bball. And the "suffocating sports scene" at my school has been really handy for ice-breaking, networking, building relationships at other jobs.</p>

327

<p>Personally I think the quality and depth of the social and community life on a campus at some schools goes far beyond sports. I cannot imagine Princeton or Dartmouth having stronger undergrad communities, yet sports are hardly the reason for the strong alumni loyalty these schools engender. Dartmouth breeds loyalty from its "big weekends" that are barely about the sports teams, and much more about the return of alumni and crazy fun traditions like the biggest bonfire on the east coast during homecoming. Dartmouth breeds loyalty from strong school led study abroad, from sophomore summer which is a class bonding experience like no other, from making reunions well planned and incredibly fun weekend long events where 75% of the class shows up. </p>

<p>Hawkette, I understand your sentiment that at most schools sports are the rallying cry and that many schools (Columbia, Harvard) miss out on this. What is remarkable about some top LACs and top Ivies is that the rallying cry is just as strong, perhaps stronger, without having a focus on sports.</p>

328

<p>The stats don't lie. The eight universities that comprise the Ivy (Athletic) League do a very good job of matching the student with the school. Six year graduation rates exceed 90% at all eight schools. More precisely, these colleges reported the following 6-Year graduation rates to the University and College Accountability Network this year:</p>

<p>Brown 94%, Columbia 94%, Cornell 92%, Dartmouth 94%, Harvard 98%, Penn 94%, Princeton 96%, Yale 96%</p>

<p>Still, a small percentage of students -- ranging from 2% at Harvard to 8% at Cornell -- either got their degree elsewhere or never graduated. I'd be interested in hearing from students who applied to an were accepted at an Ivy League university, then realized it was a poor fit and transferred to a non-Ivy to complete their degree. Why was the Ivy a poor fit for you? What type of school did you transfer to and why has this school worked for you when your original choice did not? (Yes, I realize some students may have transferred to another Ivy League university, but this thread is directed toward those who opted out of the IL)</p>

329

<p>These are among some of the highest graduation rates that you can find anywhere; the whole premise of this investigation is flawed.</p>

330

<p>I will guess a least half of he dropouts were for financial reasons. Until Harvard made its announcement three weeks ago, families at $100,000 income still had to make a financial sacrifice to send and keep their kids at the Ivys. Not enough income to pay without big loans. Many families probably realized, assuming darling daughter or son was struggling, that it didn't make sense to mortgage the future to get all the way through. I believe the Harvard dean referred to this problem as the "middle class squeeze".</p>

331

<p>I know a former co-worker who was a former Princeton student. He wanted to go to Stanford, but his father (faculty at Princeton), took ill, so he chose to stay closer to home. He realized immediately that he hated it there, was accepted for transfer to Stanford, but his father became even more seriously ill, so he transferred to Rutgers instead, where he is much, much happier.</p>

332

<p>DunninLA and arbiter213 got it pretty well in my opinion. Financial reasons are a big reason for drop outs at colleges across the board and unique situations such as the one above are going to account for a few dropouts. noobcake's point still stands though, these graduation rates are about as high as they get.</p>

333

<p>I know this person who transferred to UChicago after a year at Columbia, which was dumb coz they're kind of like the same school lol.</p>

334

<p>It should also be noted that these schools make it very hard to fail (in the general sense, not literally).</p>

335

<p>
[quote]
You're out of touch if you don't think men want to talk sports.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) You're out of touch if you think that talking about sports in and of itself is a free ticket to landing a job in the most competitive industries: investment banking, consulting, private equity / hedge funds, tech companies. Unless you were actually involved in the sport itself, there's really no relevance to bring this up during a formal interview. When I interview candidates, I care about what the candidate will bring to the table not whether he thinks Michael Jordan was the greatest clutch player in NBA history (which he was of course).</p>

<p>2) You're out of touch if you think that 100% of the hiring managers are going to be male instead of female (not to mention that this is incredibly chauvinistic thinking).</p>

<p>3) Of course men talk about sports. They talk about sex all the time too, should that be a good strategy to leverage during an interview?</p>

336

<p>Look. And this is directed to anyone.</p>

<p>Not every individual is going to be a fan of a big-time athletics program. Personally, I am, but I'm also find academics and networking potential to be of the highest importance -- which is why I'm at Duke. It's the dream combination for me -- top-notch academics and an elite sports program.</p>

<p>Having said that, I RECOGNIZE that not everyone shares my interests. Some do not like the presence of big time athletics. The same way individuals prefer LACs, the same way individuals prefer research universities -- everyone has a PREFERENCE. </p>

<p>Given this, people should go to wherever the hell they want, and there is no need to denigrate other institutions with a different focus.</p>

337

<p>Majayiduke09, great post.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Given this, people should go to wherever the hell they want, and there is no need to denigrate other institutions with a different focus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>this is the biggest problem that i have with hawkette's stance with regards to sports. as i said, it is a personal choice for every individual. there is no need to try and paint the Ivies in an inferior light because they don't have a huge sports scene (same goes for top tier schools such as MIT or Caltech or Chicago).</p>

<p>for an example, why do schools such as Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown always top the rankings in categories such as "Quality of Life" and "Happiest Students" in the annual Princeton Review rankings? </p>

<p>if students at Dartmouth or Brown or Princeton felt that they had this big missing hole in their college experience, then why do those schools always seem to have the most content student bodies (and alumni)? --> with extremely high alumni giving rates? Obviously, things seem to be working pretty well there.</p>

<p>as I said, if you want to go to a school that is totally dominated by its sports scene, all the power to you -- go for it. But its just not for everyone. Students who end up enrolling in MIT or Caltech or Chicago are some of the absolute best in the nation. Are they stupid? Don't they know that they won't be doing beer bongs at the big game's tailgate party? Perhaps, and this may just be crazy talk, just perhaps, its just not that important to them -- and perhaps, they might find other ways to have a fulfilling college experience without a huge sports scene.</p>

338

<p>No one should get defensive. It was pointed out in the OP what the 6-Year graduation rates are. They are indeed among the highest in the nation if not THE highest. They ain't perfect, however. Some people who chose an Ivy later regretted the decision. It might be instructional to those who are contemplating choice right about now to hear from others' experiences. At the very least it couldn't hurt.</p>

339

<p>I'm not really sure who got defensive? It's just important to realize that graduation rates indicate only that: graduation rates. You need to be able to step back and think about all the factors that influence such things.</p>

340

<p>^ What do you mean?</p>