Fabulous Academics…and Fun! Excitement! Drama!

College Search & Selection
81

<p>hawkette,</p>

<p>my point was a very simple one: that those highly recruited athletes that get wooed into the big time money sports (football, basketball, baseball) are hardly there for the academics. they don't fit the average profile of the students at the schools you mention (Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Michigan, etc.) </p>

<p>they are there to win games. period. at least acknowledge this fact that is so painfully obvious.</p>

<p>i knew a friend of mine who went to Michigan who told me that the elite star athletes (those that are headed for the Pros) are considered god-like on campus. it was the worst kept secret that people did their work for them. i'm talking about that kind of selling-out that, at the margin, can tarnish a school's academic reputation.</p>

82

<p>monydad,</p>

<p>Part of what hawkette referred to is the scale and prevalence of that atmosphere. The games between Ivies are almost never televised. You really have to attend the games in person to feel the excitement you mentioned. Also, other than the rivalry games, most Ivy games have very low attendence. I don't blame them; there's nothing too glorious about beating another Ivy team anyway. On the other hand, students at Northwestern, Duke, or Stanford, Florida...etc, can watch part of those games on TV while studying in their rooms. Besides the rivalry games, they also have other big games against powerhouses that can be more exciting than rivalry games. Stanford's rivalry is Cal but beating Cal in basketball didn't excite Stanford fans as much as beating Duke (few years ago; don't remember the year but it was the last second shot by Casey Jacobson that got the win). It's exciting to see major media outlets covering the athletics of your school. You just don't get that at Ivies but then people that go to Ivies probably don't care about that kind of fun anyway.</p>

<p>You said you had attended major conference games but then you weren't affiliated with any of those schools. So that's not a fair comparison.</p>

83

<p>To the Yale poster a few pages back: I actually wasn't in the stadium for the first 3 minutes. I wandered in during the 3rd quarter and found some nice seats at the 50 yard line. (by the way, I went to Yale, so this was not meant to be an anti-Yale statement) On the contrary, I quite enjoyed the alumni functions outside.</p>

84

<p>prestige,
I think you statement about recruiting practices has more validity when applied to the top state Us that are also top ranked. However, I doubt that at Stanford/Duke/Northwestern/Vanderbilt/Rice/even Notre Dame, you will find a severe dropoff. For starters, none of these but ND is a football power.</p>

<p>I will also say that we all know multiple examples of Ivies cutting corners in order to accept football or hockey players. I don't know about the God part and the student worship, but the academic index is not the highest threshhold in the world for a student to achieve. </p>

<p>I understand your comment as it applies to the full world of collegiate athletics, but as it applies to this handful of schools, I think you are making an unfair and incorrect judgment. </p>

<p>IMO there are two major differences between these schools and the Ivy schools:</p>

<p>1) They have a more successful athletic program as measured by the breadth of their results on the national athletic stage. That is the Directors Cup standings and the gap is pretty large. </p>

<p>2) For the major sports (football, basketball and baseball somewhat), these schools-Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame offer a much bigger scene with games that have consequences on the national scene. The venues are much larger than the Ivy League, the fan numbers and interest is much higher, the level of play is significantly better and, best of all to me, the fun scene around these events is far, far bigger than anything the Ivies can offer. Any one can enjoy that scene-sports fan or not. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that these are all top ranked academic universities that can provide a scene and an atmosphere that the Ivies cannot. I have seen sporting events at both these schools and the Ivies and there is not much comparison.</p>

85

<p>"The games between Ivies are almost never televised. You really have to attend the games in person to feel the excitement you mentioned. "</p>

<p>That's absolutely true, and can definitely impact you as an alumnus; much harder to follow the school/ sport. Partiucalarly since the sports they're good at are more esoteric in the first place. Still, as a student fan who attends the game you can still get somewhat of a fix. Definitely different as an alum though, I'll grant you that.</p>

<p>"Also, other than the rivalry games, most Ivy games have very low attendence"</p>

<p>At Cornell when I was there this was not true for hockey, the rink was always sold out. Everything else, basically didn't matter there. Who cares if the stadium if full for football, or javelin throwing, or other minor sports.</p>

<p>Lacrosse had decent crowds too.</p>

<p>"but then people that go to Ivies probably don't care about that kind of fun anyway."</p>

<p>Some people care at least a little but far less than the general population I would agree.</p>

<p>"you weren't affiliated with any of those schools. So that's not a fair comparison."</p>

<p>Sorry , but this is the best I can do; fairest I can be. I can't help it, I didn't attend those schools. Is hawkette affiliated with Cornell, when he/she/it defintively pronounces that experience as inadequate? Is that pronouncement more fair?</p>

<p>"For selective LAC'S at Div1 level, Holy Cross and Bucknell have a strong basketball rivalry with the chance to go to the NCAA'S(Holy Cross won in 2007) . On A Div3 level-Amherst-Williams football game is fantastic. "</p>

<p>Yeah see that's the kind of thing I'm saying. Fans find their own rivalries and sports to have a good time where they are. As needs be. Not just where the players are pre-professional.</p>

86

<p>Getting back to this late--I have not been to a Cornell hockey game, but it's known around here that everything Michigan hockey fans do in the stands, they learned it from Cornell. Michigan Hockey is an incredibly good time, if a little rowdy and, ahem, foul-mouthed. Thanks to the cheers and crowd involvement it's very engaging. I assume Cornell is the same only more so.</p>

87

<p>Russ, I have been to Ivy League football games and to Big 10 football games. There is as much alumni activity going on at both beforfe and after tha game, but as you pointed out, the main difference is that during game time, the alums actually fill the stadium and watch the game.</p>

<p>Hoedown, I have been to Michigan and Cornell Hockey games. Both have excellent game-time atmospheres.</p>

88

<p>State School! State School!</p>

89

<p>Russ: It just seemed like a different experience from what I've had, but perhaps only the student sections are full (either that or the game you went to was a blowout). At both the Princeton and Harvard games this year, the student section of the stadium, at least, was quite crowded by the second quarter.</p>

90

<p>"...I have been to Michigan and Cornell Hockey games. Both have excellent game-time atmospheres."</p>

<p>Maybe some of the other perennial hockey powerhouses, like Denver U or Colorado College, also provide a great fan experience. In which case many students at these schools are also probably quite happy with the degree of "fan experience" available to them. These schools are probably as accomplished at their chosen sport of excellence as some of the others cited are in theirs, and for all I know the fans may be into it just as much as these other fans are.</p>

91

<p>monydad,
Re your earlier references to Cornell and Vanderbilt. I went to neither nor did any of my family members (though I admit a fondness for and familiarity with many non-Ivies around the country that IMO are underrated generally and definitely here on CC). I have been to Ithaca and have some appreciation for the school, its size and the beauty (and cold) of its setting. I have also been to Nashville and seen the beauty (and much warmer temps) of that campus as well. The two schools are physically about as different as can be and the athletic venues are night and day. But the kids at these two schools are excellent, both are terrific academic schools and undergraduate students can have a fabulous experience at either and find great success in life graduating from either. </p>

<p>Please don't interpret my comments as a direct knock on Cornell or any of the Ivies. I am trying to express positive, distinctive thoughts on Vanderbilt and the others and contrasting their athletic offerings and ambiance with the Ivy League schools. As this plays into the social life of a school and the ongoing, lifelong connection to a school, for some students, this can be a deciding factor in the college search process and an important plus for the non-Ivy schools.</p>

92

<p>My use of Cornell, when I attended, was only illustrative. My point was merely that Fun Excitement Drama can be found elsewhere, beyond thinly disguised minor league programs of the major sports, in sufficient amount to satisfy many student fans. I agree that there are differences with repect to facility of ongoing alumni engagement. Yet I remain of the belief that students at a number of different schools, in various divisions,can get their fan fix, and sufficient Fun Excitement Drama to satisfy most fans during college. Sometimes in different sports. Because I experienced it myself.</p>

93

<p>
[quote]
beyond thinly disguised minor league programs of the major sports

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well said. that's exactly what some of the big time NCAA programs are.</p>

94

<p>Doesn't make them any less fun to watch.</p>

95

<p>monydad and prestige,
Not sure why you feel the need to describe the athletic programs of Stanford/Duke/Northwestern/Vanderbilt et al as "thinly disguised minor league programs of the major sports." These schools do it the right way and they deserve a LOT better than that.</p>

<p>These are schools of the highest academic quality with student bodies the equal of the Ivies. They also happen to offer an undergraduate experience that may be considerably more attractive to some students than what you might find at any of the Ivies.</p>

96

<p>.. and then again, a number of those same students might find, if they went there, that the experience actually was not considerably more attractive.</p>

<p>I'd like to see the SAT scores of the Duke starting 5, just out of curiosity. Any guesses? Frankly I doubt they deserve "a LOT better than that". But that's not my main point, in any event.</p>

97

<p>Different students want different things, simple as that. One requirement for me was a good 1-A football team. It's just something thats in my blood that I have to have. To someone else it could be the least important thing in the world.</p>

98

<p>graduation rates of men's basketball players (from NCAA)</p>

<p>Stanford 69%
Northwestern 40%
Duke 50%
vanderbilt 67%
Notre Dame 53%
USC 38%
Boston College 50%
Georgetown 47%</p>

<p>Michigan 60%
Wisconsin 60%
UCLA 38%
Penn State 53%
Texas 30%
Illinois 64%
UNC 50%
UVA 62%</p>

99

<p>moneydad, Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have the same quality academics as most Ivies (Stanford all of them), but also have athletics.</p>

<p>You can avoid something like athletics when it exists, but you can't find athletics if it doesn't exist. Just having the option is good.</p>

100

<p>refer to #43</p>

<p>but yes, more options are good. IF it's true they can be avoided; if their influence does not permeate the campus. Otherwise they can be bad for certain students. For instance my D1 would not accept a free ride to state U because of the perceived rah-rah attitude that she felt permeated throughout, which she disliked. Indicated to her that she did not share many values with the majority of students who attended there.</p>

<p>and its MONY. Not money.</p>

<p>No money left, after next year anyway.</p>