<p>I read with interest this WSJ article re Ivy League sports, Can</a> the Ivy League Fix Its Sports Teams? - WSJ.com, and I would like to see readers' comments. It is worth noting that when it comes to sports in general, the league's schools field lots of teams (I think that Harvard has 41 sports teams, which is significantly larger than most (if not all) of the state universities), some of the teams are extremely competitive (top 10-20 in the country), but none of these teams are in the 3 major sports of football, basketball and baseball. </p>
<p>So, should the league "fix" its formulas to enhance the results of some of its teams?</p>
<p>How about if they “fix” the teams by stopping admitting unqualified athletes, and letting the qualified admits, many of whom are athletes, play?</p>
<p>In the Ivy League, all students have their “Academic Index” calculated (convert SATs, SAT Subject Tests, and GPAs each to 200-800 scales and add the scores together). The composite Academic Index of the roster of any sport has to be within a half a standard deviation of the Academic Index of the university student body. So there is a minor leniency given to top athletes (as, no doubt, there are for top musicians, writers, etc.), but not to the point of admitting student-athletes who are “unqualified.”</p>
<p>Compare that policy to Division I-A schools such as Duke, where the basketball players and up to a third of the football team need only to meet the NCAA minimum to be admitted. And don’t think that Division III “non-scholarship” schools are the ideal. Their coaches recruit and get special exemptions for top athletes too, and while they don’t award “athletic” scholarships, it’s amazing how many seven-footers merit “leadership” or “service” grants-in-aid.</p>
<p>On the contrary. If all the Ivies stopped admitting unqualified students in hockey, football and basketball, then the qualified students who play those sports, of which there are many, would be able to make the team. Ivy teams wouldn’t be able to beat athletic powerhouses, but so what? The schools would still be competitive among themselves. Ivy League schools are supposed to be educational institutions, not minor league sports teams.</p>
<p>Average SAT scores (Math plus Reading) of recruited athletes in hockey, men’s basket ball and football at Ivies are 165 points lower than for the rest of students. You may call this a small difference. I do not.</p>
<p>If they are graduating, then they are not unqualified. The Ivy League schools have very high APRs across the board.</p>
<p>When 40,000 people pay to watch 80 Harvard/Yale pre laws take the LSAT and see who scores better, maybe the football will go. Until then, they will probably stay.</p>
<p>Are you going to make the argument that Duke should stop admitting basketball players below the curve? Because the Duke bball players are far inferior students compared to their Ivy League counterparts. Do you think the Duke alumni want to get rid of their basketball team in favor of admitting more qualified students? I doubt it.</p>
<p>Duke is essentially an academic equal to the Ivy League, so I think it is fair to include them in this discussion.</p>
<p>IMHO, we should be more worried about the other schools who do the school work for the athletes, and have other people take their SAT because apparently they cannot score a 700, or whatever the ridiculously low NCAA minimum is.</p>
<p>165 SAT points below the average at Ivy League schools is still at about the 95th percentile nationally. It’s fair to say they’re lower, but hardly fair to label them “unqualified.”</p>
OK, less academically qualified. But I have to say, I’ve never been that persuaded by graduation rates like this. What kind of help do athletes need to graduate, and what kind of majors and courses do they take?</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang is right about one thing, I think: if the Harvard and Yale football teams were made up entirely of walk-ons, there would be essentially no difference in the football rivalry except for the level of play on the field–and hardly anybody would care about that.</p>
<p>That is incorrect. The 95th percentile for the SAT is around 700, for each section. Let’s say the average for Harvard is 740 on each section (that might be high, but let’s go with it), the 97th/98th percentile. 165 points below that is a percentile around 88th-90th, a lot worse.</p>
<p>You think Harvard taking a guy with an 1150, who then goes on to fail “Environmental Risks and Disasters” is an exception? Well, maybe. But he graduated, so it’s all good.</p>
<p>Unwritten, but widely understood, rule of thumb. If you are a white kid without connections and you really want to go to one of the really elite schools then your best shot is to find a sport for which you can be recruited. They actually get some very good athletes because they have worked so hard at their sport-and their parents spent so much money- because it is their way to get to HYPS.</p>
<p>^^^^This seems to be the conventional wisdom here at CC. As long as you are a top athlete, your ticket to the Ivy League is assured.</p>
<p>But not exactly true.</p>
<p>My S’s has worked hard (he says it is like another job) to get coaches interested enough in him to watch him play. Many have come out. Many have praised his ability. They remark that he is certainly academically qualified (high test scores (above 75 percentile at HYP), high GPA and rank etc.). </p>
<p>But like many regular applicants, there are certain factors out of your control that affect your ability to be recruited. Style of play, for example, that doesn’t fit with the team. Or that they had already recruited someone like him so they can’t use him. Etc. Etc.</p>
<p>A school might need 2 players in my S’s position, and the Ivy’s recruit nationally. </p>
<p>He has remarked it would be a lot easier to simply just throw the hat for regular admission and take his chances there, and not worry about being recruited and playing at the collegiate level.</p>
<p>Personally, I think that athletic ability already counts WAY too much in Ivy admissions. However, that’s only a small part of what those who want to “fix” the Ivy League are complaining about. The Ivies have more stringent restrictions on practice hours than the NCAA does. They also don’t have “post season” play to the same extent. The Ivy football championship is decided by the record during regular season play, for example. There’s no championship game. </p>
<p>It’s still incredibly difficult to be a top athlete and a good student. Personally, I think it’s tough enough now. I think that the restrictions on practice and post-season sports are in the best interests of students.</p>