I agree generally with both of you, It is the I guess the implied linkage that recruiting in the NESCAC/Ivy is somehow “taking” spots that should go to low SES kids that I disagree with.
May I point out that athletic prowess is a form of achievement? Accomplished athletes have discipline and experience in setting and achieving goals at a very high level. They aren’t some lower order of being! Of course the universities need to be sure the athletes can handle the academics.
Sure. But the great violinist or singer or computer programmer (also achievers) still needs a 35 ACT to get in. Star athletes can get in with much lower stats.
Which is why the Ivies (to their credit) have the AI system. By definition, the AI system allows the athlete population as a whole to have lower stats than the overall student population does. The AI system quantifies exactly how much lower is allowed. Athletes don’t have to be equal to the student population – they only have to be “representative” of the overall definition. With “representative” being defined as one standard deviation lower.
There’s no AI system needed for musicians, singers or programmers. It is what it is.
Let’s be honest, there is no AI system for musicians and singers because it is unlikely schools would bend the rules to get a better theater troupe or band.
Exactly. No one ever knows, sees or cares if the glee club stinks.
But folks do notice if the football team loses 50-0. Even in the Ivy and NESCAC leagues which are no revenue/light attendance/small time as far as college sports go.
Also, those schools wouldn’t bend the rules to award athletic accomplishment in a sport the school doesn’t sponsor. Being a great cricket player gets treated the same as a great violinist; being a great quarterback is a completely different thing.
Some schools are very proud of and promote things like a capella groups and orchestras and such.
I am not sure why ability to play a game is valued so much more than ability to play an instrument, but there it is.
I think you are looking at it backwards. It’s supply and demand. There are plenty of high quality musicians that have the average or better academic profile for Princeton but not as many high quality football players with the required profile. If they needed to make exceptions to fill the Orchestra they would like they do for any under represented category.
I would suggest it’s partly about alumni engagement - they like to see the football team (and other teams) win. They tend to be less concerned about the state of the arts on campus, I find.
Because far more people are willing to gather and pay to see a football game or basketball game than to see someone playing an instrument.
That is not even remotely true for the vast majority of sports, @hebegebe . I have never attended a college fencing/tennis/squash/polo/etc etc match but I’d bet money there are very few spectators there.
I live near a D3 college and let me tell you even the stands for football and LAX are basically empty but for a group of parents who live close enough to come and a handful of friends of the athletes. And those are the BIG sports at this school.
OTOH, I have been to totally sold-out music and theatrical performances. Had to buy tickets early or we wouldn’t have been able to go.
It isn’t about attendance. Since most Ivy League sports matches are attended by tiny crowds. Kids often are watched by fewer people in college than they were in high school.
Simple reason. There’s no scoreboard at the glee club concert. This quote is from a Haverford trustee:
“In sports, people keep score. If Haverford gives a music concert, no one scores it a C-minus. But if you play a basketball game and lose, 87-42, everybody sees that in the newspaper the next day. There’s no way around it. Your peers, your faculty, your students and your alumni all know the score. You lost, 87-42.”
If schools did not recruit athletes, then they’d lose every game. You can’t have that – you have to be at least somewhat competitive. But the C minus glee club still sounds pretty good and pleases the crowd. Which is going to be massive as compared to the crowd at a XC meet or field hockey game.
But no one knows or cares if the Swarthmore glee club is better.
Speaking as a parent of an athlete at Princeton and a thespian/musician at Vassar, I think there are a couple things here. First, the sports where the Ivys, including Princeton, are bending standards beyond the general run of the class (assuming we can agree that one standard deviation above and below the mean is the normal distribution for admission) are sports that are all drawing more alumni/general interest than pretty much any other extra curricular on campus. The sports everybody complains about are football, basketball. hockey and maybe lax. In all the years I have been following recruiting, I don’t think I have ever heard of a crew kid, fencer, squash or field hockey player get offered a likely letter with anything other than stats you would assume to be competitive for admission generally. And yes, I am sure there is some example of a true Olympic level talent runner or swimmer getting in with relatively low stats, but that is not only a singular talent but very rare if it happens at all.
Second, I think people generally underestimate how high of an athletic hurdle kids who get likely letters have to clear. Even in football, while the talent generally is nowhere close to P5 level, you are talking about kids whose skills put them in the top couple percent of the million or so kids playing in high school. And those are the normal kids on the team. The kids who are benefiting from real admissions help are generally P5 level players, so well within the top one/two percent of high school players. My guess is that a tenor that the Whiffenpoofs really want with similar level talents is likewise provided consideration by admissions. There is just no quantifiable data on this point. As an example of what I mean, my daughter is a talented thespian, and in my unbiased opinion should have won a Tony for at least one of the three leads she had in high school performances, if not for one of her many featured roles in community theater. But I have no idea how talented she is compared to all of the other theater gerks who applied to Vassar last year. On the other hand, my son had the opportunity to test himself against other athletes vying for spots at Princeton at camps and I can confidently state that while he was fortunate to receive a likely letter as a fourth band kid, if his academics put him in the lowest bands he would not have received one.
Disagree. If the entire league, say NESCAC or Ivy, stops recruiting then no one has the advantage.
This plays out in club sports like Ultimate and in some cases Crew, already.
I would agree that if all schools in a conference stopped recruiting, they’d all in principle be equally bad. But a lot of Ivy alums (including, I suspect, many generous ones) and students don’t want to attend football games where both teams might lose to a talented high school team. They also like it when the basketball team gets past the first round in March Madness, when the hockey team goes to the Frozen Four and the crew team (and yes, they do recruit oarsmen) wins the national championship, all of which have happened recently with Ivy teams. Precisely because these schools are bound by the AI, they feel able to write off other schools as athletic departments with colleges attached and feel proud of themselves. And I don’t mean to neglect women’s sports - fans love them too, and are proud when team members go to the Olympics (which also happened recently).
I would suggest, too, that another aspect of this debate is being neglected: that a proportionally large number of Ivy student athletes go on to become quite successful - notably in finance. This point was brought out by former Princeton president Bill Bowen in his book (with James Shulman) called “The Game of Life” (as quoted by Malcolm Gladwell in his very insightful essay, “Getting In” (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/10/getting-in))
These schools want some number of people like that, who are going to become successful, reflect positively on the school, be able to donate generously and provide a leg up to future graduates - as distinct from brilliant scientific researchers and all the other kinds of people that the Ivies will be proud to have as alums. The Ivies are all about educating future leaders and increasing their power and reach across society. Sports and athletes are an important part of that.
“I would suggest, too, that another aspect of this debate is being neglected: that a proportionally large number of Ivy student athletes go on to become quite successful - notably in finance.”
Not so much anymore. Today the geeks/quants are more in demand on Wall Street than the jocks.
Wall Street has changed a lot over time, no doubt there are - and will be - fewer human bond traders, and those who remain will be more quantitative. For so long as there are human equity traders and bond and equity salespeople, though - and investment bankers, especially - there will be places on Wall Street where Ivy League athletes will be well positioned to be successful. I think the article more or less acknowledges this.
This is larger trend that extends beyond the university. The US has been transitioning for years into more a meritocracy, rather than an historically elite group of people for whom powerful and wealthy classmate families / connections defined the politics, industry, and elite of this country. It seems most of the Ivies and elite schools today (with the highest endowments) market themselves as meeting the financial need of students they accept need-blind. Maybe they vary in the percentage of accepted students who are qualifying Pell Grant students, but this will continue.
The trend may have reversed, though not necessarily everywhere. Also, while Princeton and some peer schools may still be moving away from inherited-wealth elitism, it has not up to now moved as far away from inherited-wealth elitism as some other universities have (based on percentage on Pell and percentage without financial aid).
Fixed it for you.
If they are giving 100% tuition to all families making under $180k a year, how do they justify charging ANYONE full price?
Sorry, it is more than redistribution of wealth, it is price-gouging. The richest institutions pay more in management fees for their endowments than they do in direct aid. The richest institutions should lower their tuition rates. Period. It is unconscionable.
In that scenario, where Princeton at full price costs LESS than say, Colgate or Bucknell or Norte Dame or any of hundreds of small, private schools of decent status, they would be forced to think twice before building a rock wall or aquatic center. And don’t even start with the “where is that?” Schools, which also charge roughly the same. College tuition at ALL privates is WAY too high. Someone should try competing on PRICE, not amenities. I’m not paying the same for a Toyota as I would for a BMW. Why should college be any different?
In fact, in what other situation does a “kid” say “I’d like to purchase this product. How much does it cost?” And the answer is “That depends, how much does your Daddy make? Did he put any money into a retirement account last year? Because you know, saving for retirement is a CHOICE, and you wouldn’t expect us to pick up the cost of that, would you?” (An actual conversation with the FA officer at Cornell)… I am revolted, and we revolted. Chose a great state school. One small middle finger to the Ivies.