<p>Would it not be better to stop spending so much money on varsity sports, endeavors that serve little purpose, and simply have intramurals for those that seem somehow compelled to engage in athletic activities? Isn't athletic competition anti-intellectual and thereby anathema to a quality education?</p>
<p>Works for Reed College. You might want to ask over there:</p>
<p>Athletic competition anti-intellectual? Skipping over all the obvious quotes from centuries of philosphers, poets, etc., take a look at this (since you posted here under Swarthmore): Athletics</a> News Blog Archive Fifty Swarthmore Athletes Named to Centennial Academic Honor Roll</p>
<p>325 Centennial athletes made that list overall. In addition to Swarthmore, the Centennial conference includes Haverford, Johns Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Dickinson, Bryn Mawr, Franklin & Marshall, Gettysburg, Washington College, Ursinus, and McDaniel.</p>
<p>You can find the same sorts of stats at plenty of top schools/conferences - and several others where maintaining a 3.4 is not an easy job, whether you're playing a varsity sport or not.</p>
<p>Anathema to a quality education? Eh, I don't think so.</p>
<p>Here's an interesting Time Magazine article on the efforts of Swarthmore's President regarding athletics and academics:</p>
<p>Going</a> Concern - TIME</p>
<p>And if you are really interested in Swarthmore athletics, you have to start with the December 2000 decision to end football and to allocate of 15% of the admissions slots to varsity athletes. </p>
<p>Here is the most recently available annual update from the athletics commitee:</p>
<p>Of note are the stats for recruited athletes.</p>
<p>For the class of 2008 that just graduated, there were 257 names on the list of recruited athletes submitted by the athletics dept to the admissions office. This list is assembed after signficant communication between coaches and recruits so it would not include recruits who have no interest in Swarthmore or recruits where the coaches have said, "forget it, I have no prayer of getting you accepted here". The list is further limited to ony those recruits who submitted a complete application.</p>
<p>Of the 257 recruited athletes, the admissions office deemed 201 to be "admissable" to Swarthmore without athletic consideration.</p>
<p>150 of the recruited athletes were accepted by Swarthmore, 100 with athletic consideration, 50 without.</p>
<p>71 of the recruited athletes enrolled at Swarthmore, 55 with athletic consideration (15% of freshman slots), 16 without.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Maybe you're just putting some facts out there for people to read? I think some more context might help.</p>
<p>In case anybody taking a leisurely look at the Time article misses this, Frank Aydelotte pulled Swarthmore out of "big time athletics" (believe it or not, they'd been a significant football powerhouse), meaning pretty much what we now call DI, not out of varsity/intercollegiate athletics. He was always proud of the athletic involvement of his students. His ideas corresponded very closely with what became the DIII level of the NCAA - sports to a degree, some call it. :) Varsity athletics as competitive but fun, not as a job.</p>
<p>Re the report from the athletic committee, do you know their (not the world at large, but this committee's) definition of a recruited athlete? It's possible that they use the term fairly loosely. I'd be interested in knowing, if you have a definition from them.</p>
<p>And the dismantling of the football program in 2000 (football was not the only sport lost, either) certainly matters, but I don't know if it's really the place to start learning about Swarthmore athletics. Swarthmore played football for 122 years - years which included its rise to the top group of LACs. The change made a lot of alumni furious (and others, like me, honestly sad), but I think at this point most people would agree it didn't actually, ultimately, change the fundamental character of the school. (My apologies to certain friends and others who may not in fact agree.)</p>
<p>Swarthmore is not an athletic powerhouse, though some teams have decades-long traditions of strength and some are turning heads (in a positive way :)) afresh. But it has always valued the scholar-athlete tradition. Those who casually say that "there's not much interest in sports at Swat" might be surprised to take a look at the attendance figures for home games in a few different sports. It's not a rah-rah school, but lots of kids play varsity sports, and their friends support them.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to make any point. Just putting some reading material on the coffee table.</p>
<p>Simply responding to a Williams College parent troll poster with some links to informative stuff about Swarthmore athletics if anyone is interested in reading it. I'm, personally, not really that interested. I don't have any particular thoughts on Swarthmore athletics one way or another except that I think the school has their priorities about right and the decision to ditch football was brilliant, long overdue, and courageous in way that most colleges could never consider. Simply put, it is absurd for a small coed liberal arts colleges to field a varsity football team, and I say that as one of the most rabid football fans you'll ever meet. The numbers just don't make any sense.</p>
<p>BTW, what Aydellotte pullled Swarthmore out of was more than just "big time athletics". It was literally professional sports where stars like Tiny Maxwell would be paid by alumni to play for the University of Chicago for a few years and then hired away by alumni to come play for Swarthmore for a few years. It was a period of wretched excess that led to the NCAA trying to reign it in...although the NCAA has evolved into the biggest promoter of wretched excess, having lost all control of intercollegiate sports again, IMO.</p>
<p>I posted the Time article mostly in spirit of "there's nothing new under the sun". Most debates regarding colleges have already been battled out many times before. I also posted it because Aydellotte is a name future Swatties and their parents might like to know. He had a signficant impact on both Swarthmore and higher education with the first honors program in the United States. He's more responsible for Swarthmore being Swarthmore than anyone I can think of...perhaps along with Lucretia Mott.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Re the report from the athletic committee, do you know their (not the world at large, but this committee's) definition of a recruited athlete? It's possible that they use the term fairly loosely. I'd be interested in knowing, if you have a definition from them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that's in the report. It actually presents a grading scale of 1 thru 4 for ranking athletic impact. The Swarthmore definition is pretty much the same as detailed in similar reports from other LACs, such as Williams. A "recruit" is a prospective student given an "athletic tag" by the athletic department as a likely (presumed 4-year) contributor to a varsity sports team. It can include recruits that get help (a "tip") from the athletic department and those that don't (because their academic qualifications are so high, they don't need it).</p>
<p>Regarding football. It was dead at Swarthmore no matter what the angry alums thought. President Bloom was this close to having to forfeit several football games because he didn't have enough football players on the team to safely play a game. Austrian can jump up and down til he's blue in the face, the fact remains that 700 male students plus Swarthmore's academic standards plus Swarthmore's diversity priority make fielding a football team impossible in today's NCAA Div III. The small elite LACs that continue to do so are just fooling themselves. They are all paying a price for having to have 1 out of every 10 male students on the football team and 30% of every freshman class reserved for varsity athletes (a fact they hide).</p>
<p>Dartmouth's admissions dean had the nerve to tell the truth about football recruiting undermining Darthmouth's admissions process. He got run out of town on the rails by the alumni. And, Dartmouth has a heck of lot more men in each first year class than a small liberal arts college.</p>
<p>The reason I think the 2000 decision is important is understanding the priorities and tradeoffs that are dictated by only 365 slots in each freshman class. I don't think it's possible to consider LAC athletics without accounting for the most scarce resource: admissions slots.</p>
<p>As coffee table reading matter, it works. Thanks for posting it. </p>
<p>And I agree 100% with this:
[quote]
the school has their priorities about right
[/quote]
and with the notion that Frank Aydelotte is key to understanding Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Not sure if you're responding as though I said that I thought football should stay, but just in case, I'll clarify: What I said is that the end of football at Swat made me sad. It's possible to feel sad about the end of something, especially something with a strong sentimental hold and a long tradition, and still recognize that when all was said and done, it needed to end.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's possible to feel sad about the end of something, especially something with a strong sentimental hold and a long tradition, and still recognize that when all was said and done, it needed to end.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, no. I understood where you were coming from. I'm sure most Swat alums and everyone else connected with the school were sad to see the football program go. Swatties can grasp both the value of something and the hard cold truth that the numbers simply don't work. Reserving 30% of each first year class at Swarthmore for recruited athletes would have consequences on admissions and the campus culture that would make Swarthmore unrecognizable. And, the football team would still lose.</p>
<p>Swarthmore was just ahead of its time. All of the small colleges are wrestling with the same numbers. That's why DIV III is about to explode. It was supposed to be a student-athlete walk-on division.</p>
<p>You seem to imply that varsity athletic programs result in reduced intellectual excellence. Taken to it's conclusion and recognizing that most successful basketball, football, and baseball programs for example have large minority representations, are you suggesting then that increased numbers of minorities lead to a decline in academic excellence or is this only true if they happen to be athletes? I am trying to understand your agenda as evidenced by comments like "That's why DIV III is about to explode." What evidence do you have to back that forcast and why would you like to see that occur? And please tone down the troll nonsense...you seem to assume a right to post as an insider on more than one thread yet feel others need to "stay in the kitchen where they belong". If varsity athletics are in fact as you state a negative to the learning process then that issue is relevant to any school and to those trying to select a school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Taken to it's conclusion and recognizing that most successful basketball, football, and baseball programs for example have large minority representations, are you suggesting then that increased numbers of minorities lead to a decline in academic excellence or is this only true if they happen to be athletes?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a false representation of Div III sports.</p>
<p>The Swarthmore study I linked as well as the recent Williams College self study on diversity looked at this issue. Additionally, Jean Doleac's senior thesis on economic diversity at Williams looked at the "soc-ec tag" in admissions and recruited athletes. The Swarthmore report even surveyed peer colleges to confirm. Athletics at small elite liberal arts colleges are ovewhelmingly white with much less diversity, both enthnic and socio-economic than the overall student body. That's exactly what Swarthmore's board was talking about in 2000 when they said that Swarthmore's diversity priorities in admissions made keeping the football program problematic. If you reserve 20 or 30 slots out of 175 male slots for recruited white football players, it makes your diversity targets virtually impossible to hit and have anything left over. Remember, Swarthmore is incredibly diverse with 44% students of color and/or international students. An average first year class only includes 200 white US citizens. Does Swarthmore really want more than half of the white students on campus to be recruited athletes? What impact does that have on the campus culture? What impact does it have on socio-economic diversity?</p>
<p>The numbers become even more challenging for a school with very high academic standards when both football and diversity goals require the admission of lower band applicants. When you have median SATs of 1450 and only 365 first year students, there are only so many low band slots. You can either use them for football OR you can use them for diversity and the other 21 teams. It's a zero sum game.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am trying to understand your agenda as evidenced by comments like "That's why DIV III is about to explode." What evidence do you have to back that forcast and why would you like to see that occur?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is some background on the looming split in NCAA Div III sports that will answer your questions:</p>
<p>New York Times
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/sports/othersports/13ncaa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/sports/othersports/13ncaa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
“The status quo in Division III is not a workable option,” said John Fry, the chairman of the Division III President’s Council and the president of Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania. “We must have fundamental change in the structure of the division. The tent has been stretched far enough.”</p>
<p>Fry said examples of how the division might be reorganized would be revealed later this year for debate at the next national meeting, in January. A vote deciding how, or whether, to split the division would follow in January 2009.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Inside Higher Education
Reforming</a> Reform :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, Views and Jobs</p>
<p>ESPN
ESPN</a> - NCAA surveys Division III members about possible split into fourth division - College Sports</p>
<p>
[quote]
And please tone down the troll nonsense...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are welcome to troll. I refered to you to Reed for a college that follows what you were suggesting in your original troll post.</p>
<p>icantfindaname, I don't see anybody posting anything that says either
[quote]
varsity athletic programs result in reduced intellectual excellence
[/quote]
or this
[quote]
varsity athletics are in fact . . . a negative to the learning process
[/quote]
, with the possible exception of you.</p>
<p>What is it you want to say that you feel would be helpful to students trying to make choices?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If varsity athletics are in fact as you state a negative to the learning process
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't state that.</p>
<p>I certainly don't see varsity athletics as a negative to the learning process at Swarthmore. Just the opposite, in fact. The varsity athletes are "Swatties first" and fully integrated into the very learning intensive culture of the school.</p>
<p>Is it possible for athletics to swamp the campus culture and have a detrimental impact? Sure. It's something that small colleges have to pay close attention to because such extraordinarily high percentages of a small school enrollment may be varsity athletes. When you have close to 40% of your male students on varsity athletic teams (as is the case at some of Swarthmore's peer schools), you have to be careful that you don't turn into "a Nike Camp with enrichment classes". </p>
<p>The same would be true if you had 40% of your students in the orchestra. Then, you would run the risk of becoming an Interlochen Camp with enrichment classes.</p>
<p>"When you have close to 40% of your male students on varsity athletic teams (as is the case at some of Swarthmore's peer schools), you have to be careful that you don't turn into "a Nike Camp with enrichment classes"."</p>
<p>Certainly could be an issue which leads back to my original point. Williams and Amherst which have struck the perfect blend of both should continue in athletics at the varsity level. They can excel in both. Swarthmore would be better served to eliminate varsity sports and stick to academics.</p>
<p>Yes. Amherst and Williams certainly place a very high priority on varsity athletics, an emphasis that is fundamental to their campus cultures. I often say that Williams is the Duke of the liberal arts world.</p>
<p>Both have appointed ad hoc faculty committees in recent years to evaluate both the current impact of their athletic emphasis and the proper role of varsity sports in their campus priorities. The difference between Swarthmore's committee and those at Amherst/Williams is that Swarthmore's committee (and board of managers) actually did something after studying the problem.</p>
<p>The recent overhaul of the housing system at Williams was, in part, an attempt to deal with a bifurcated athlete versus non-athlete culture on campus. Amherst is dealing with the same kind of ad hoc segregation as well according to articles in their school paper in recent years. </p>
<p>The very heavy binge drinking at both schools is related to the high percentages of white male varsity athletes. The recent Williams report on alcohol abuse identified the male athletic teams as a center of heavy alcohol use on campus.</p>
<p>Interesteddad: I don't think Williams is the Duke of the liberal arts world. I can't debate your statistics on athletes, but I can debate the ambience of the campus culture.</p>
<p>S just came in and insisted that he does not feel an athletic atmosphere on campus, that kids are Brown-like Obama supporters (he wasn't -- he was a Hillary supported, but I'm just reporting) and the arts plays a huge role on campus. </p>
<p>His friends are all across the spectrum but very very few are popped collar preppy. They listen to classic rock, watch foreign movies and discuss Kant.</p>
<p>They are not as political a bunch as Swat and Wes and sometimes S does miss that, but he likes the mountains and the very laid back atmosphere along with the very challenging academics. The music and theater scenes are prominent, too.</p>
<p>myth:</p>
<p>You son sounds like he is reporting from what would have been known as an "Odd Quad" perspective: the music and art scene dating back to the days of Billy Flynn. I have always believed, and the surveys strongly suggest, that Williams is two campus cultures sharing a college. That's what the brouhaha over the housing changes was all about.</p>
<p>BTW, Williams has never been popped collar preppy. Neither have the NE prep schools. You do, however, see a frightening number of backwards baseball caps in the campus photos.</p>
<p>Yeah, they're a pet peeve of mine, but my students wear them all the time, the backwards baseball caps, that is.</p>
<p>I think your analysis is probably correct. For whatever reason, Williams is the school S chose and he is doing well there and is happy. Beyond that, I am sure some of your analysis is correct and perhaps a bit disappointing to me, but it's his college experience and his choice.</p>
<p>For some weird reason, his two best friends in HS were athletes, football players, 6'1" or 6"2" and he's the same height as Tom Cruise, the way Cruise describes it, 5'8" with his hair fluffed up. He is also incredibly politically radical but he doesn't like in your face politics. I don't mean to be so personal on your Swarthmore thread -- just musing. I'll stop.</p>
<p>Interesteddad: Congratulations on your daughter's successes and graduation. My D is a rising senior and I am looking forward to that, I think.</p>