<p>I think there are a couple of different points here. I think Bay is right that if a school cares about athletics, wants to have quality sports teams, and wants to be part of the NCAA, it essentially has no choice but to create a separate admissions track for athletes. Otherwise, it simply won’t get any, because the rest of the college universe does it. If you want to change the whole thing, OK.
If the question is whether the school should value athletics enough to do those things, then this is a philosophical question upon which people can disagree. Is a football player more important than a bassoonist, or an Ultimate Frisbee champ, or a math whiz, or a poor kid from the ghetto, or a kid from Nepal, or whatever else?
I don’t care much about athletics. But I don’t see anything unfair about the actions of schools that do care about it.</p>
<p>Fair point, which is why it’s not that I think it’s “unfair” but rather than it’s stupid. It’s not “unfair” for schools to care about athletics because there is no One Right Thing that they need to care about to the exclusion of anything else – but I think it’s stupid that an area of human achievement that isn’t even related to the mission of a university gets as elevated in the admissions process as it does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard the Harvard Radcliffe Orchestra play within the last two years, and I’d say that as a whole they are slightly below the level of our regional youth symphony. (And I do NOT live in a major metropolitan area. My sister, whose D plays in the HRO, agreed that it was definitely not as good as the major metropolitan area youth symphony in which her D had previously played.) The brass was particularly weak. And a weak brass section is unfortunately always very noticeable. </p>
<p>The difference between the fencing team and the orchestra is that the latter is made up of kids who play well but were admitted for other reasons. My alma mater had a fencing team that was made up of kids who were admitted for other reasons, many if not most of whom started fencing in college. I know, I was on it. 
I think it’s fine for H or any other school to field all sorts of teams…I just think that they ought to be comprised of students who were admitted for other reasons. There is no excuse for giving X number of slots and a recruiting budget to each coach, while other endeavors, such as music, get none. I can assure you that the Dartmouth Aires have contributed FAR more to the esprit de corps of htte campus and the general enjoyment of the world and the school’s reputation than ANY athletic team, and they did it WITHOUT reserved slots for singers.</p>
<p>
People are seeing it as athletics being elevated as if it is somehow more valuable when isn’t it just that the schools have to compete for the athletes, while the bassoonists are competing for the schools? I don’t think Harvard is saying “we value football players above all else”. It’s just how things are done.</p>
<p>Bay, if you are being serious about the triviality of bassoonists and performing artists, well, I just do not know what to say!</p>
<p>Do not get me wrong. My family has benefited from all this athletic recruiting stuff, and we are very familiar with the process: H was a recruited athlete in an important sport at a tippy top (and val of his class), and D1 has walked on at a LAC after being an ODP club traveling player in her sport for 6 years. So I am no hater of sports, per se. I am just trying to understand why the process of recruiting exists in the form it does: why, and is it appropriate, or even accomplishing its original purpose, whatever that was?</p>
<p>D2 happens to be a multi-art performer, so I am going through (have just gone thru- she was just accepted SCEA to an Ivy) the process on a different path, and it has been remarkably different. The process definitely LIMITS opportunities to attain attention by an artist for his/her work and talent: on the CA, there are a set number of lines on the EC list, nowhere near enough for an active performer. An extra doc like a resume may or may not be read… No auditions or interviews or meeting with Arts Profs are allowed in most cases at the non-cpncervatory non-BFA degree schools. Media can be sent in with specifications that are quite limited, and may or may not be listened to… who knows? C’est tout!</p>
<p>Really-- plenty of pro athletes do not go to college, either!! (But I am sure you knew that…!)</p>
<p>Last, resources are just not being spent by colleges on recruiting artists the way they are for athletes. It is your opinion that these resources are less of a waste on athletes, but they are spending them there, I promise you. Yes, in some cases, a sport or two may be generating revenue, but at the Ivies and top LAC’s, that is not a remarkable phenomenon. There, one or two big rivalry games tend to attract Alums with school spirit, which can generate donations. Without sports, the Ivies and LAC’s might not have such a strong brand to rally around, but the stadiums, fields and arenas are far from over-flowing at most sporting events at the Ivies.
But why not try using performing arts events to draw Alums, too?! Many of the PA events ARE overflowing with students.</p>
<p>I know I am not going to “change your mind”, and I actually appreciate your listening to why some think the admissions processes are significant in their differences.</p>
<p>There are plenty of great schools that do not emphasize athletics nor give athletes preferential admissions (or other) treatment. I chose one of those.</p>
<p>The way I see it, a private school can do what it likes and if it’s not to my taste, I won’t apply there.</p>
<p>Musicians can always go to a conservatory if they like. There is no equivalent for a football player.</p>
<p>“But why not try using performing arts events to draw Alums, too?! Many of the PA events ARE overflowing with students.”</p>
<p>I love how performing arts is a huge draw for alums at my school. There are certain shows that alums go to, year after year, such as Waa-Mu.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, when schools have opaque holistic admissions processes, how do you really know whether some sport or music or whatever is being considered as “just another extracurricular activity” or whether they are giving some sort of exceptional preference to it (assuming that the applicant is not recruitable under the NCAA rules and methods)?</p>
<p>ucb, the athletic recruiting process is not opaque. It starts out early and separately, as desired by the coaches and depending on the budget and philosophy of the college. The process is mandated by NCAA rules, and runs ahead of early applications notifications in many ways. The Academic Index is fairly obvious when the talk between a player and coach gets going.
The coach will learn about players in numerous ways over several years (attend tournaments, hold summer sessions, etc.), then, if interested in a player, will ask about stats X months before senior year even begins. There is a talk about commitment by the coach and by the player IF the coach decides he wants the player, after he/she passes the AI screen. Once a player “commits”, then his/her name is on the list that goes to the Admissions Office in the Fall for a final review. Each coach knows how many admissions slots he/she get to recruit for upfront, which is not true of any faculty.
College administrations can and do play around with the number of recruited slots and with the recruiting budgets, by sport, in a given year, often to reflect the philosophy of the school about its sense of priority towards having winning sports teams and top athletes.
Ivies are not allowed to give out scholarships to athletes as per their NCAA rules (they are a special part of the D1 group). Nor can D3 schools, typically smaller. D1 and D2 schools are large and are allowed to give out scholarships to athletes, and certainly can build very successful sports programs with top-billed teams that sell a of of tickets and build school spirit, but can come off as having less of an emphasis on academics.</p>
<p>Ummm, no, I meant for students not being specifically recruited as athletes under NCAA rules, but whose athletic (or other) ability may be noticed in the regular admissions process.</p>
<p>
In my day, most people seemed to think the Bach Society was the better of the two orchestras. Not sure if it actually was though!</p>
<p>Funny thing about these private schools; They admit whoever they want to!! Maybe the government should get involved, perhaps some congressional hearings which would give elected officials a chance to interrogate college presidents on TV. Everyone deserves a chance to attend!</p>
<p>" . . . but I think it’s stupid that an area of human achievement that isn’t even related to the mission of a university gets as elevated in the admissions process as it does. "</p>
<p>Except that athletics are related to the mission of the university. The purpose of the university is learning, growth, maturation and preparation for success in the world. Athletics supports all of that. Education is more than what you learn in the classroom: there is what you learn in the dorm, in the lab, during internships, in the clubs and on the athletic fields.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if you accept the British upper-crust and upper-class American WASP blinkered views on education which disdained and looked upon intellectuals and intellectualism with some suspicion. </p>
<p>Most WASPs also loved athletic preferences in college admissions for not only favoring their cultural milieu and kids who were deeply socialized within it…but also because it helped keep out those who were not of their kind. In fact, that was an actual aim of Ivy admissions in the early 20th century when they worried that the flood of “undesirable elements”* would supplant kids from WASP families with deep alum and economic ties. </p>
<p>Your argument could also make a plausible case for admissions preferences for applicants who joined middle/high school JROTC units, military veterans, Boy/Girl scouting type organizations, political activist groups, volunteer service organizations which actually go out to better their local/regional communities, performing arts groups(including rock/hip-hop/rap groups), etc. </p>
<ul>
<li>I.e. Working/lower-middle class kids and immigrants/children of immigrants who weren’t socialized into the upper/upper-middle class WASP sport culture.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak with authority about all universities in Europe, but I know that in the country in which I reside there is absolutely no consideration of athletics in admissions. I would guess the same is true in most all other countries. With one daughter we went through the British admission system, and they certainly add points automatically for proven musical achievement, but I don’t really know if places like Oxbridge actively seek to fill athletic slots.</p>
<p>As much as I understand that it gives an added dimension to university life and a more “well-rounded” experience to some students, I really question whether colleges should put their limited resources into promoting sports. It’s nice to be well-rounded, but frankly in this day and age, it is probably more productive, and I dare say better for society as a whole, for kids to focus on excelling in the one area that they do best by the time they are college-age. That is if the U.S. wants to compete with the myriad of focused, high-achieving experts-to-be from across the world.</p>
<p>Of course, this means that there should be different tracks for serious athletes, musicians, artists and academics. I realize that top U.S. universities will probably never limit themselves to focusing on just academics, but the mission and current system is worth questioning.</p>
<p>If athletics are so related to the elite university mission, it’s fascinating how none of them seem to actually offer physical education as a major. (and now we are going to hear all about physical therapy and kinesiology programs, dear God)</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/lehigh-university/1254190-lehigh-presidents-guest-post-washington-posts-college-inc.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/lehigh-university/1254190-lehigh-presidents-guest-post-washington-posts-college-inc.html</a> </p>
<p>Is this a good place to add the OpEd written by the President of Lehigh, published by the Washington Post, on her time with and observations of the football team?</p>
<p>What’s missing from the discussion is the argument that the Ivies don’t do nearly enough to promote top-level athletics and school spirit, an argument made by poster Hawkette on a number of past threads.</p>
<p>The first mission of most organizations is to survive and perpetuate themselves. Another common mission is to grow and see their reputation improve. In Europe and most other countries most universities are funded virtually 100% by the state. In the U.S., private colleges and universities have to raise their own funds. For private university presidents, fund raising is perhaps the most important job. Yes, they have to provide leadership, help choose top administrators, give speeches on high minded topics, etc. But if they can’t raise the big bucks they are not successful.</p>
<p>I have not seen any empirical studies on this, but I think a common perception in university development (fund raising) offices is that former college athletes have greater school “spirit” and identification with their alma mater and thus more likely to give generously. In previous generations, at least, former football team members were felt to be more likely to go into business with the potential of making large fortunes, which could be tapped for college endowments. Even if they had plenty of school spirit, bassoonists are probably less likely to be the next Andy Grove or Goldman Sachs partner.</p>
<p>This may be more perception than reality. But in the real world, Williams does somewhat better at fund raising than Swarthmore. While academically they are both fine institutions, Williams in recent decades has had more emphasis on athletics, and Swarthmore dropped their football program more than a decade ago. Swarthmore graduates probably tend to head more towards non-profit type activities, while Williams (and Amherst) have a reputation of sending graduates into business and finance. It is harder to raise money for the new $300 million campaign if most of your graduates are university professors than if most of them are I-bankers, to make the extreme case.</p>
<p>So even if athletics are not central to the educational mission of a university per se, they may be an important component of the long-term fund raising strategy. And this is probably not only the case with private institutions. Public universities are getting less and less funding from state governments (as a percentage of their overall budget) and are thus becoming more and more like private universities. We should expect them to act more and more like private universities, and I’m sure they all have development departments, too.</p>
<p>PS this is the same argument that is sometimes given for some level of legacy preference (the original point of this thread). I’ve seen reports of some research that legacy preference does not increase alumni donations, but I’m not sure if many universities are willing to bet the ranch that telling alumni that there is no consideration given to legacy status won’t hurt fundraising.</p>