You have that option. Even in the US there are a few schools that don’t have high level (or expensive) sports. Go to one of those schools.
The problem is that people want the schools they are interested in to drop sports. It’s not going to happen. The Ivy League isn’t going to change for you. In fact, the Ivy League offers more sports per student than most other schools and needs a high percentage of its students to be athletes to fill those rosters. Harvard has about 35 varsity sports while the University of Texas has 18, and UT has thousands more students.
Being a college athlete made my daughter a better student. She learned to be organized, she went to bed before 10 pm (lifting at 5:30 makes for an early bed time and makes for a happy mother knowing she was studying and sleeping). Required study tables as a freshman (and if her grades ever fell) established good study habits. A fellow athlete in her Calc I class missed several classes for games, so she took really good notes and taught him the lessons, often realizing that she didn’t really understand the material and they’d work through the problems together.
Her coach knew her grades before she did. One prof reported that she’d missed class and the coach was all over her for it. Turns out she’d just gone to another section of the same course.
Maybe you think that’s babying a freshman but it was a very good college experience for her.
An article on the revenue generated this past year by college sporting events in my city - and we don’t have a college with a ranked football or basketball program within city limits, it’s just the ability to be a good host city to nearby programs:
Basketball does have a minor league. It’s the NBA G league.
I’d also imagine that most college athletes are well aware of the fact that they are not going pro. Believe it or not, most probably play in college because they love their sport and competing.
“College sports” cannot be referred to as a single entity. There are revenue sports and non-revenue sports, but thanks to an unreasonable interpretation of Title IX, they are often thought of as one.
The experience for an athlete in a revenue sport is dramatically different. Coaches make $millions, and this naturally promotes a process that puts undue pressure on stress the athletes, which often means physical and emotional abuse. And in addition to this internally-generated negativity, various expectations and pressures come from the public. The academic performance of these athletes is not in the best interests of many.
For academic performance, the NCAA and schools will focus on graduation rate or GPA as a means of promoting their product, but mention nothing about the academic concessions revenue athletes must make. Easier majors, reliance on tutors, etc. Even in the non-rev sports, Div 1 athletes get told they can’t do nursing. (!)
Non-rev athletes can be susceptible to some coaching pressures, but it’s mostly a walk in the park thanks to the revenue heist that “Entitle IX” enabled.
A better interpretation of Title IX would be to apply it only to non-rev sports. Let the revenue sports operate independently, which would include mandated wages for the athletes as opposed to the “name, image, and likeness” scam that gives the illusion that athletes are being paid. The non-rev sports would then be forced to operate as club sports rather than as charities operating from the efforts of a highly disproportionately black workforce.
I’m not as concerned with the revenue component. As others have pointed out, similar things can be said about other activities on college campuses that do not recoup costs — yet provide benefits to different members of the student body.
I’m far more concerned that we’re the only society in the world that conflates athletics with higher education. Limited university slots go to people who may or may not have been accepted if admissions were athletics-blind, squeezing out students with stronger academic credentials and diluting the quality of education received by everyone.
The inclusion of athletes does not dilute the quality of the education. What evidence do you have that it does? I’m also of the opinion that those who don’t like the system can exercise their right to choose a school in or outside the US that aligns with their preferences. Who cares what other countries do?
This Newsweek article provides a statistical table which may be of interest to readers of this topic: The 25 Schools Stocked With Jocks. Academically notable schools appear, with NESCACs, in particular, showing high percentages of varsity athletes.
The inclusion of athletes does not dilute the quality of the education. What evidence do you have that it does?
The evidence of someone who has sat in a 15-person seminar at Harvard and had his time wasted for two hours by the “contributions” of student-athletes with GPA, class ranks, and SAT scores that are well-documented as being deciles below those of the 60,000 more deserving applicants whose slots they stole.
I’m also of the opinion that those who don’t like the system can exercise their right to choose a school in or outside the US that aligns with their preferences.
As a tax payer, donor, and voter, I’m more than entitled to articulate my opinion on how higher education is structured, thanks. Beyond that, “just move if you don’t like it” is a juvenile take.
Who cares what other countries do?
Non-jingoists who find comparative analyses useful?
Which isn’t to say that athletes do not have an impact. Some schools have eliminated some sports as inconsistent with its mission. Take UChicago, for example, which once upon a time was a member of the Big10. It eliminated football. More recently, Haverford and Swarthmore eliminated their football programs as well. The admission of athletes does have an impact on the institution and the student body. It’s up to the school to decide whether that impact is desirable.
Haverford ended football in 1972 due to lack of players. Apparently they weren’t giving athletes preferential admission.
Swat ended football in 2000 due to a lack of numbers in a small LAC. With football they would have had 30% athletes and their president felt that 10-15% is a more appropriate number. They had 53 players on the 2000 team versus opponents with 75+. Without football, wrestling and badminton they could use spots to shore up the other sports.
In 1997 BU cancelled football because its chancellor wouldn’t fund a program in deficit.
In 2009 NEU cancelled football because its $4 million budget wasn’t enough to be competitive and it badly needed to upgrade its stadium, which has since been converted into a state of the art baseball stadium.
I’m not sure I’d use either word to describe the situation…the recruited athletes, after a highly competitive, well established process, earned the limited spots reserved for them.
Harvard has never (yet) received 60K applications.
I have never met a Harvard student, athlete or otherwise, who shared their HS GPA, SAT scores, or rank in any situation once on campus.
The entire argument sounds like a quote from SpongeBob, “Why, once I met this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy’s cousin…”
Or, from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off;: “My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.”
Or, from REO Speedwagon’s “Take It On The Run:” “Heard it from a friend who / Heard it from a friend who / Heard it from another you been messin’ around”
