<p>Pizzagirl, there’s evidence to the contrary. I believe Princeton and Dartmouth have among the highest alumni giving rates and that the rest of the ivies also rank high.</p>
<p>I work in a male dominated industry among many extreme sports fans. Yet most of them happily went to an ivy, happily give big bucks to them and talk with great fondness about the college experiences they hope their kids get to repeat. I really don’t think it has occurred to them that those schools are where they should get their sports too.</p>
<p>I also don’t get the whole concept that big sports are an important aspect of a college experience, it was hard enough choosing what to do without them and my 3 kids at schools without them certainly do not seem to need anything else to keep them busy and happy. </p>
<p>The post that shocked me most in my time on CC was one from a parent who listed reasons their child should consider in choosing a school and a major one was availability of tickets for big games.</p>
<p>I continue to think that you mischaracterize Northwestern and that it’s not at the Stanford/Duke/Notre Dame level when it comes to the campus getting caught up in big time spectator sports, their recent bowl appearances and women’s lacrosse showings notwithstanding. </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether you or the author of the WSJ article believe that it would be great if the Ivies improved their athletic life. It matters a) what their students think, b) what their alums think and c) whether the adminstration believes that their lack of the type of athletic life you prefer is a drawback in terms of their ability to attract the kinds of students that they want. I have no evidence to believe that the current students at Ivies are substantially unhappier than students at S/D/ND. I have no evidence to believe that the Ivy alums regret not going to football powerhouse schools or are jealous in retrospect of the S/D/ND types of experiences. I have no evidence that the Ivies have a problem attracting quality applicants.</p>
<p>Right now, students have choices. Those students who want to experience the Stanford/Duke/ND type of atmosphere can apply there. Those students who don’t, can apply to the Ivies and similarly situated colleges. What’s the problem? Why is there benefit in making these schools one-size-fits-all? </p>
<p>Big-time spectator sport athletics are qualitatively different from any other activity that a campus might offer, because part of what you tout as “fun” is the fact that it can unify / bring together / involve the entire campus in cheering for a team. That’s different from, say, an art museum on campus, where those students who enjoy art can go visit and the students who don’t never have to step foot inside and all’s well. The all-encompassing-ness of big-time spectator sports celebrations is not neutral, but actually off-putting to those who don’t enjoy it. </p>
<p>And there is a self-image thing going on. I don’t mind being part of a campus that has a nice art museum, or great theater programs, whether or not I’m personally into art or theater, because those things are part of the life of the mind, IMO. I do mind being part of a campus that gets all riled up over a pigskin being tossed around a field, because that’s not part of the life of the mind and it’s not the mission of the college. Physical wellness is certainly important, but that’s achieved by ensuring that students themselves have opportunities for physical recreation through intramural sports and the like, not spectator sports. </p>
<p>And I’m not sure why you say that I’m enforcing complete censorship of arguments that I disagree with; you and I are equally free to post and share our opinions, of course.</p>
<p>“USC is a major college football power that regularly competes for national titles.”</p>
<p>Goody for them. Who cares? </p>
<p>“By contrast, top academic institutions like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt have probably never been close to a national football title, but they still are able to present a very agreeable and fun athletic life and I don’t remember reading anything along the lines of the USC article. What’s wrong with the Ivies choosing to follow their practices and create something that might have appeal to a certain element of their student bodies and alumni?”</p>
<p>Because they don’t want to. Why isn’t that good enough for you? Why does it bother you so that many top students don’t feel that they’re missing out because their college experiences didn’t include tailgating at nationally relevant / televised games?</p>
<p>You’re the one who’s afraid, Hawkette- you have this fear that somewhere, some student might “miss out” on the fun of tailgating and wouldn’t that be just awful.</p>
<p>pgirl,
Much fairer and well-articulated presentation of your position in # 42, but sorry you had to return to snarkiness again in following posts. We disagree. I’m okay with that, but don’t appreciate the tone of some of your posts. I remain of the view that a strong athletic life is a major positive for a college campus. I certainly don’t see it as an off-putting experience. Heck, from what I’ve observed, the biggest academic nerds are often the ones having the most fun at the sporting events at places like Stanford, Duke, Vandy, etc.</p>
<p>BTW, I agree with you on Northwestern and think that they have less vibrant of an athletic life as those at Stanford, Duke, Vandy, Notre Dame. I originally didn’t include them and was upbraided by a Northwestern alum (I think it was k&s) for whom sports was a fun part of his experience and who saw Northwestern’s offerings as on par with the others. So, I started including Northwestern. I guess I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.</p>
<p>Hawkette- of course you don’t see it as an off-putting experience. You enjoy that particular experience! You personally find a stadium of 40,000 all excitedly cheering on the nationally relevant and televised Big Championship Game more fun than the stadium of 5,000 who are enjoying a game but aren’t horribly invested in the results! I don’t think you can ever truly understand that for some of us on this thread, whether we are Ivy alums or similar-school alums, an atmosphere where the Big Game dominates campus life and where scores and rivalries are taken seriously (as opposed to in a light-hearted, friendly manner) are negatives. Honest.</p>
<p>That’s not the point. Your contention is that college games are far more exciting because they are about pride. Well, games about pride are clearly not always superior to professional games. Then point then shifts to skill, and if you watch college games for skill, clearly it’s better to watch professional games. And really, if the sort of national pride and fervor that international games incite in both the fans and its players don’t surpass the college game atmosphere, I would request that you watch some more professional games.</p>
<p>And really, if you don’t watch sports for the skill displayed, you’re not really watching the sport at all. The sport then becomes merely an excuse for you and your friends to get drunk along with everybody else. Which is fine and all, but I find it hypocritical that one would support sports without actually being much of a sports fan. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not in my experience. Mainly because MOST people don’t go to school with big time sports. And really, if a major part of somebody’s social life revolves around watching somebody else throw a ball around, then I would question the desirability of such a situation. Now, if they actually play the sport a lot it would be better, but if they merely participate as a spectator then it’s just… sad. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I grew up around a European-style soccer scene. I think professional games like those are far more exciting than college games, both in skill and in spirit.</p>
<p>Besides, I question the need for athletics in college if all it does is to give people an excuse to party. I can find plenty of excuses to party, many of which are much more interesting than “one dude threw a ball farther than another dude”, and all requiring way less funding to be diverted from the university budget. But hey, if people have fun with it they should do it, but to raise money for this sort of thing in the middle of a recession is insulting to the academic mission of any school. </p>
<p>I find LAN partying into the wee hours of the morning to be a lot of fun, way more fun than a college sports game, but it’s not like I go around and demand that colleges give people money to support LAN parties, or demand that it is included in the list of experiences every college grad should have, mainly since I know not everybody has my tastes. Hell, how would you feel if you were a student and people only wanted to talk about how to frag people in counter strike? Well now you can imagine how I feel when I walk around the campus and people can only talk about the latest touchdown or football injury. If every school had a big time sports program that everybody’s obsessed about, where would I go to school?</p>
<p>You pick the one bad apple of the 50,000 people in attendance at the game (assuming it was a football game). Although if you are talking about Duke fans, I’m sure only about 4,000 were in attendance and 3,995 of them were bad apples. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You obviously haven’t experienced UNC-Duke, Penn State-Michigan, Army-Navy or any of the other insane rivalries out there. Students, much like soldiers in combat, are bound by their hatred of a common enemy. And it is really enjoyable. </p>
<p>No one is saying that the Ivy League schools NEED huge sports programs. We’re saying that for many students, big-time sports programs are an integral part of the college environment, and that it is possible to have big-time football and basketball teams while maintaining excellent academic recognition.</p>
<p>I think many people would agree with me that college sports are superior to many pro sports because the athletes exhibit an equal amount of passion as they do skill. Yes, the basketball players in the NBA are typically more skilled than those in the NCAA, but who cares when the play every night and aren’t typically too invested in the outcome of the game? Most people find college basketball, a sport in which every game matters and the rivalries are intense, to be vastly superior to the NBA. </p>
<p>And if it is just skill we are supposed to be looking at, why do the Final Four and BCS Bowl Games generate more viewers than the Olympics, which typically don’t do too well when they air?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sad? Hardly. Why do you think ESPN exists? College is about more than just studying, and spectator sports provide people with a tremendous opportunity to socialize, enjoy themselves, celebrate and take pride in their institution. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you obviously aren’t a football fan. That is fine. But plenty of college students and alumni are, which is why colleges are so heavily invested in these programs. And big-time sports programs often GIVE more money to the university than they take away. UNC’s basketball team alone earned $26 million for the university in 2008, much of which was allocated to academic scholarships. In this economic climate, it would be irresponsible for schools to get rid of programs that actually EARN them money. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To each his own. That is the great thing about going to college in this country; you can choose a school that makes you happy.</p>
<p>pgirl,
Now I think you’re just being mean. Of course I understand that the larger athletic scenes that I enjoy aren’t automatically of value to everyone else. Oh, let me count the number of times that I have conceded this. However, that does not change the fact that SOME students and alums might consider an improved athletic life as additive to their Ivy undergraduate and subsequent alumni experience. </p>
<p>The universe of Ivy students/alumni that I have known has been much more open-minded on this subject than you. Their major hangup is that they want to be sure that nothing happens (a la USC) that would impugn their academic reputation. Virtually all agree that Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc. are quality academic institutions and their athletic programs don’t diminish their institutional reputations. They know that Harvard will still be Harvard, even if their basketball program successfully achieves prominence on the level of a Duke…and even if some of their students and alumni actually enjoy the atmosphere and being a factor on the national scene.</p>
<p>I care because I find skillful playing to be an artform to be appreciated. And really, I don’t particularly watch the NBA, but I dare you to find college games with more intense rivalries than, say, Old Firm, River Plate-Boca Juniors, AC-Inter and etc. Until college games annually result in people dying, there’s no comparison between the fervor in the professional games I watch and college games. And that’s not even getting into international games. I was in Greece in 2002 while the Euro cup was being contested. Suffice to say that if you bottled up all the excitement in college games in the US in a year, it would be half the size of what Greece had for that brief period. And personally, I find the lack of skill in most college games rather painful. </p>
<p>But that’s getting off topic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why is Miley Cyrus so popular when good music is supposed to be popular? What should be appreciated isn’t necessarily reality. But the point of contention remains that sports games should have their play emphasized, not hype and circumstance. Or at least, that’s my view on the matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course college is about more than studying, I just didn’t realize that social life in college is little more than watching sports and getting drunk. I mean, do you not find the fact that some people’s social lives revolve around watching other people play ball sad? It’s the exact same thing as a person whose social life revolves around watching TV, or playing WOW. </p>
<p>Social life can include a lot of things, I just don’t think is desirable to have it revolve around ESPN or other forms of spectating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t the point. Obviously nobody is in favor of shutting down good programs. The question of this topic was about investing so that your sports program can approach that of UNC, when the vast majority of college programs lose money, much less earn them. If your program is profitable, there is no need to raise money, is there?</p>
<p>And while I’m not necessarily an American football fan, as a sports fan who watches many games, I don’t use them as excuses to get drunk. In fact, I usually remain sober so I don’t miss any of the action, unlike most of my friends around. I’m rather questioning the need to spend money on sports program if, at the end of the day for many people, it’s just a very expensive excuse to drink. If people actually did watch the sport for the sport, then that’s another issue entirely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good that you agree. But people should really stop advertising big time sports programs. If you guys agree not to push such programs on schools that don’t want them, we’d stop getting cranky.</p>
<p>The question is that of opportunity cost. The sort of investment needed to make Harvard basketball top level is investment that can’t be used elsewhere. I would wager that ivies are filled with people who would rather have that money go to places other than athletics.</p>
<p>Cuse, I guess the idea of “bonding together over hatred of a common enemy” just seems so pointless and stupid. What did Illinois or Michigan or any other Big 10 school do to be my “enemy”? They are schools my school played in football. It was light hearted rivalry at most and I see absolutely no reason to take it any more seriously than that.</p>
<p>And hawkette, I don’t see how I’m being mean. You say that the world of Ivy students/alumni are open to this, but apparently they’re not iinterested enough to pressure the schools to do anything about it. And at least on cc, everytime you post this, a bunch of Ivy alums come forth and say no, they’re just fine with how things are and they don’t want things to change. I think this great movement of Ivy alums who crave big time spectator sports is your projection of what you wish there was.</p>
<p>I guess it is difficult to explain. Most people who go to schools that participate in these rivalries would understand, though. It is pretty hard to put into words the emotions that myself and many of my fellow Tar Heels felt when, for example, Duke’s Gerald Henderson socked Tyler Hansbrough in the face during garbage time in a basketball game. The UNC-Duke rivalry (and other big-time rivalries out there) makes Chapel Hill a particularly exciting place to be on gameday, though. Like I said, it is hard to explain, and if you don’t care about sports too much, you probably won’t feel it. If you went to UNC or Duke, though, I’m confident that you would know what I was talking about by the end of your freshman year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, I won’t disagree that European soccer rivalries are CRAZY and that nothing we have here in the states can really compete with them. As far as our sporting events go, however, college rivalries are much better than the rivalries you get in the NFL or NBA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that they go hand in hand. After all, not many people get fired up over a team that they know won’t be competitive!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, a college students social life shouldn’t revolve around sports, and even at big-time sports schools from Sunday-Friday it typically doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that you can’t go wild for the football game on Saturday, though. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess there is a difference between advertising and pushing. It is natural to be proud of your team (any team) when they enjoy athletic success. At the same time, it is probably unreasonable to push sports on people who chose to go to a school that doesn’t have big-time sports programs.</p>
<p>Ray,
I think you are right in your presentation about the seriousness with which many non-American sporting fans take their sporting matches. Thank God that that kind of looney toons is not what goes on in college sports in America. What I am talking about is a very, very far cry from what you are describing. </p>
<p>Athletic life at places like Stanford, Duke, et al are social experiences that involve the campus and the students, but also have a positive effect on the community and the extended college “family.” There frequently is an alcohol aspect to it (certainly for football), but the athletic scene surrounding a major college sporting event is so, so much more than this. </p>
<p>These games (usually football, but sometimes it’s basketball or baseball) provide a great opportunity for socializing and, to me, that is far more interesting and of more lasting value than the sporting results. The vast majority of folks at these events view college sports as entertainment and a regular chance to get together with classmates, friends, former classmates, family members, faculty/staff, others in the community, etc and share a common experience with many thousands of others who also share a passion for their college. My experience has been that the major college athletic events can be a wonderful social catalyst which often creates enormous excitement and positive enthusiasm on a college campus.</p>
<p>" well, i guess it’s not the same for people who aren’t sports fans."</p>
<p>Hey, I like sports.</p>
<p>I just don’t care if my alma mater is nationally prominent in football and basketball. I understand that it isn’t likely to be, I agree with the reasons, so I’m not at all disappointed.</p>
<p>I get my fix in those sports from other sources (pros), and when my school is making noises in some other sports I watch the matches when I can. and that’s fine with me.</p>
<p>Quite possibly I would. However, that doesn’t mean that I’ve missed out because I haven’t.</p>
<p>I could talk about my very-much-enjoyed-and-valued Greek experience, but I wouldn’t suggest that those who didn’t want to go Greek or who deliberately chose schools without a Greek system “missed out” and isn’t-that-a-shame. </p>
<p>I trust people to know what has appeal to them and what doesn’t. It’s not that difficult to figure out whether you’re the kind of person who would enjoy a big spectator sports scene (and if so, to build that into your criteria for choosing colleges), or not.</p>
<p>We ask high schoolers on here all the time, “So, what do you prefer? Large campus vs small, city vs suburban vs rural, this part of the country vs that part of the country.” Most people have some general ideas or preferences. Sure, it’s possible that the kid who doesn’t think he’d like or value a big spectator sports scene really would if only he were placed into it and got to see it up close and personal – but it’s just as likely that the kid who doesn’t think he’d like a school in a rural area really would like it. But we don’t spend a lot of energy worrying that kids who say they prefer schools in cities are missing out on rural life, so I don’t know why we would spend a lot of energy worry that kids who say they prefer schools without a big spectator sports scene are missing out on the fun of tailgating.</p>
<p>“The vast majority of folks at these events view college sports as entertainment and a regular chance to get together with classmates, friends, former classmates, family members, faculty/staff, others in the community, etc and share a common experience with many thousands of others who also share a passion for their college.”</p>
<p>How do you know that? Really. How do you know that half of them aren’t there because, well, it’s something to do on a nice fall day, or their friend had tickets and asked them to come, or whatever? How do you know that they’re all just having the times of their lives and they’d be sorely saddened if they didn’t have college football to experience? How do you know that they’re putting any grand meaning into it or that they care whether the game is televised / nationally relevant or not? </p>
<p>And if it’s about socializing, I still don’t see what the national-relevance or size of the crowd has to do with socializing. YK, whether there are 5,000 or 50,000 people in the stadium, I really can only talk to, at most, the handful of people around me. I don’t see why the socializing is supposedly better the more filled the stadium or the more winning the team. Frankly, a losing team can be just as much of a source of socialization in the shared misery. Just ask Cubs fans, ha ha.</p>
<p>Is this kind of participation in major Big 10 sports really enhancing Northwestern’s reputation? Or could it do better, as a university. if it reallocated its resources in other directions? The obvious comparison is with Northwestern’s neighbor, the University of Chicago, which made the decision to walk away from the Big 10 many years ago – and which enjoys a higher US News ranking today. </p>
<p>Incidentally, Northwestern has just appointed a new president. Curiously enough, they tapped the president of Williams College – a school that happens to have a reputation for combining high academic standards with athletic success, though not in a way that would impress hawkette. It’s obviously premature to evaluate his policies, but it does seem possible that the new pres might be open to reconsidering certain aspects of Northwestern’s current athletic culture.</p>