<p>FWIW-The US Naval Academy maintains varsity programs for Crew, Lacrosse, Squash and Water Polo. Do they do that to benefit the recruiting of white and/or rich kids or to retain its image as a place for the 1% ?</p>
<p>I totally agree with Pizzagirl’s post. Schools have individual cultures and the ivies like their branding. Look how well it works for them.</p>
<p>I think the US Naval Academy is in a separate category, when it comes to athletics. Part of a midshipman’s overall class rank is determined by athletics. Physical fitness seems to me to be authentically related to the mission of the service academies, in a way that it is really not at the Ivies, where physical adequacy will generally suffice.</p>
<p>"
Physical fitness seems to me to be authentically related to the mission of the service academies, in a way that it is really not at the Ivies, where physical adequacy will generally suffice. "</p>
<p>It appears there are hundreds of members of boards of directors, regents and admissions committee members who disagree with you.</p>
<p>“I think it is a bit disgraceful for Yale to drop their academic mission for the sake of having a better basketball team that almost no one in the general populace cares about. (Correct me if I’m wrong about that).”</p>
<p>You are wrong about that.</p>
<p>The Ivy League is an ATHLETIC League. Also, Yale (and its Ivy competitors) have successfully been able to maintain their academic reputations while fielding some pretty competitive teams over the years.</p>
<p>P.S. What the “general populace” thinks is not relevent.</p>
<p>This discussion about whether sports are worthwhile is silly. Of course, there is nothing wrong with schools fielding teams in as many sports as they care to fund. I simply object to back door/preferred admissions procedures for athletes. Athletics should be treated as an EC in admissions - no more or less important than any other activity. A world class fencer should get a similar tip in admissions as a world class pianist - not a likely letter and trip to the head of the line. What exactly is the point of a likely letter? To ensure that players don’t hop over to another equally prestigious school? Really? How many of them would do that? Most members of most teams at top schools would attend anyway (if they got in, that is), even without the likely letter, so why give it to them? Sure, a top player here or there may choose Stanford over Harvard, or whatever, but it won’t make much difference in the long run.</p>
<p>glido, the US Naval Academy requires midshipmen to take a “phys ed” type class every semester. I don’t think Harvard does. The rank of a midshipman at graduation depends in part on athletic performance. I think a Harvard student can graduate summa cum laude without being able to do a single pull-up. Other service academies name “Distinguished Cadets” who are (I believe) in the top 5% of the academy in academics, athletics, and military performance, each considered individually. This integrates athletics into the college experience of every student in a way that is not replicated at Harvard. Of course, athletics at Harvard is important to some students, and it is important to the groups that you named that some of the students be competitive athletes, but it’s hardly necessary for all.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that the military service academies have physical fitness requirements – the military services have physical fitness requirements for all members.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which, when you really think about it, is pretty pathetic. I believe Harvard used to have a phys ed/swimming requirement, that went away with the ADA. Considering the fitness facilities and athletic opportunities available to H students, and the issues caused by our country’s current state of “unhealth,” you’d think H students would care enough about their health to graduate in at least, single-pull-up-shape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gorillaglue, there are academic likely letters as well. How dare HYP pass over a world class pianist for “just another” brilliant kid that can’t play chopsticks! I don’t how many times people need to say that these schools are private institutions and can admit who they feel will best fill their institutional mission. BTW, my D rows at an “elite school” and in no way is it a rich, white kids sport. Her boat has AA, Asian, Hispanic and Caucasian rowers in it.</p>
<p>Bay, Cornell still has a swimming test for all freshmen, and if they don’t pass they need to take swimming as one of their 2 required phys ed classes.</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity: For those advocating that private universities can use any selection criteria they want, do you think it would be legitimate to use height (overtly) as an admissions criterion? In much the same way that athletes tend to have higher incomes, taller men have a life-long income advantage from height. So to the extent that future income is a valid rationale, deliberate selection for height could be justified. This would have disparate impact (probably) by ethnic group. Would that affect its validity, in your opinion?</p>
<p>QuantMech, I firmly believe that height should always trump any other factors for admission to any private university, job, luck in life. It goes without saying that tall men rule. Just kidding but with very tall husband, sons,in laws , all at least 6’5", it is an interesting concept.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would hope so considering the mission of the Federal military service academies is to graduate men and women who would immediately assume the role of commissioned officers responsible for leading soldiers, sailors, and airmen/women in defending our nation. Some of that may include leading them in combat in a variety of arduous conditions ranging from the frigid arctic to the hottest deserts/humid jungles on earth. </p>
<p>On the other hand, elite universities such as Harvard does not have that as one of its main missions…unless the student him/herself volunteers to join ROTC in which case he/she’ll have to conform to the same minimal physical aptitude and academic requirements. </p>
<p>Moreover, as others have noted on other threads, emphasis on sports/athleticism in Ivy admissions has been used in the past as one odious means of discriminating against certain minorities…namely the Eastern Europeans and Jews during the early 20th century.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, perhaps that is regional, but here in California, rowing does not seem to attract that many non-white people (though the women’s crew seems to have more non-white members than the men’s team):
[California</a> Golden Bears - Men’s Crew](<a href=“http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-crew/mtt/cal-m-crew-mtt.html]California”>http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-crew/mtt/cal-m-crew-mtt.html)
[California</a> Golden Bears - Women’s Crew](<a href=“http://www.calbears.com/sports/w-crew/mtt/cal-w-crew-mtt.html]California”>http://www.calbears.com/sports/w-crew/mtt/cal-w-crew-mtt.html)
This at a school whose undergraduates are only about 30% white.</p>
<p>
By “legitimate,” do you mean “legal?” If so, I’dsay yes, it would be “legitimate.” It would be stupid, though, in my opinion. I think GorilliaGlue and others believe athletic recruiting is stupid–which they are free to think, as it’s a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>
I didn’t look at every single sport for both men and women–but it looks like there are very few Asian kids on any of the teams, including tennis and swimming. Berkeley is 40% Asian. What does this mean? Does it mean that Cal is using athletic recruiting nefariously in order to admit more whites, or does it mean that Asian kids are less likely to want to play varsity sports?</p>
<p>I don’t know that it’s nefarious, but giving so many predetermined slots to athletes who are as a group, overwhelmingly white and middle to upper middle class, certainly does ensure that a big chunk of the student population looks and acts a “certain way.” A poster mentioned a while back that athletics suppresses the “odd ducks” (aka highly intelligent outlier personalities) by laying down a nice base of solid (white, middle to upper middle class) citizens. Some will argue that without athletes, these schools would become full of misfits.</p>
<p>This year, the daughter of a neighbor, (first in class, rigor beyond HS curriculum, perfect scores, etc.) was deferred at Harvard - the email did not arrive until early the next morning, so she sat up half the night clicking the “refresh,” wondering what happened. Apparently, Harvard had a problem with their mail server. She heard a rumor that only accepted students could log onto a certain page, so if you were not accepted, your log-in would not work, even if you had not received the email. She couldn’t login, so that was a hint. Classy, huh? Meanwhile, a lacrosse player at her school (who can’t shine her shoes in terms of academics or character) received a likely letter and VIP treatment weeks ago. If anyone can defend this garbage, feel free to try.</p>
<p>
As I pointed out, Berkeley is 40% Asian, and there are lots and lots of Asians in California. Why aren’t Asian athletes being recruited to Cal? There are several possible explanations for this. But what would we find if we looked at the rosters of varsity sports teams at high schools in California?</p>
<p>As for your neighbor, lots of kids were deferred, and Harvard wants some lacrosse players. Harvard values lacrosse players, because they want to have a winning lacrosse team. That’s really all there is to say about it–you certainly don’t have to like it, but that’s the explanation, and the defense.</p>
<p>It’s fine that they want lacrosse players, but why can’t they apply and go through the admissions process like everyone else? What have they done to deserve this unbelievable special treatment? At many colleges athletes are put above others, treated like VIPs - in some high schools they walk around like kings - I know of many cases where grades and transcripts are bolstered to make sure the athlete is recruitable. The system is fraught with unfairness.</p>