<p>But the problem is when the girl loses her virginity at what can be perceived to be the expense of others more deserving of...something. As you can tell, the virginity-athletics analogy isn't the best and I think it would be in everyone's best interest if we just dropped it! :p</p>
<p>Well, there are a few things to consider here:
First of all, what Harvard would have to do to turn into a powerhouse like Duke or Stanford, is to spend money in recruiting great players and building wicked sports programs, stadiums, coaches, etc. The reason Reggie Bushes aren't coming to Harvard isn't only because they don't offer scholarships--I'm sure football players could qualify for the aid they need. What turns them away from Harvard is that it isn't Duke. It has a history of losing. It has a history of investing less in football than Duke and Stanford.</p>
<p>Also, I'm not sure how many students here (Princeton) would really like a high-power team. That sounds hypocritical, I know, when viewed with my last post. What I am saying is that many kids like having a "decent" football team to support, but only decent...not good enough so that others are raving about it or so that it becomes the center of campus life. That might be a difference between us and students at Duke/Stanford--and Harvard, Princeton, and Yale seem to cater to students like us...</p>
<p>TS Eliot described us once as "dandies." Those who like a taste of sports, but only a mild one.</p>
<p>Please explain that comment, Sakky's comment makes perfect sense. Why let unqualified people in and only field an average 1-AA team when you could let unqualifed people in and compete for a possible BCS bid.</p>
<p>And Texan, I guarentee if you had a team that smashed everyone, the students would be more excited.</p>
<p>Well, what I'm saying is that we couldn't compete for a BCS bid by simply providing scholarships for players. For Harvard and Princeton, it would take many changes that I don't think the university is willing to make yet. We would have to spend a lot of money on promoting athletics on our campus and on promoting our program. We would have to hire fantastic coaches. And, perhaps <em>shockingly</em> we would have to drop the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Football and Basketball are popular sports, especially in Texas :), but in the Northeast, there are very few teams I could name that are good at these sports. U Conn is one of the few that comes to mind. Princeton is good in the sports that "count" among the colleges with which we compete. We have a fantastic lacrosse team, and our crew team has been ranked quite high. </p>
<p>When I say that Princeton and Harvard students wouldn't want a program focused around athletics, I don't mean that they wouldn't want a team that smashed everyone. I don't think that they would value it as much as Duke and Stanford do, though. Places like Princeton and Harvard are somewhat of a medium between Duke/Stanford and MIT/Caltech. They go out, but they also seem a bit more stressed out than students at Stanford and Duke (this is based on my personal experience and nothing more--but most people seem to view the schools similarly, I think). I think that when we had to make choices between an excellent set of schools like HYP and Stanford, our choice came down to things like atmosphere, environment, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And, perhaps <em>shockingly</em> we would have to drop the Ivy League.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You would just have to drop the Ivy League for football and maybe a few other sports. Harvard is division 1-A for many sports. For example, the basketball champion of the Ivy League is invited to March Madness. </p>
<p>I believe that you can be in the Ivy League for certain sports and not in others. For example, UConn has been an elite Big East basketball member for many years, but didn't join Big East football until just recently (before, they were just a 1-AA football team). I also don't see what's so wrong with a team being members of various leagues for various sports. In fact, I think that's exactly what's done now. I seem to recall that in ice hockey, Harvard is a member of the ECAC league (along with some other Ivies like Princeton and Yale and non-Ivies like Colgate). </p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, what I'm saying is that we couldn't compete for a BCS bid by simply providing scholarships for players. For Harvard and Princeton, it would take many changes that I don't think the university is willing to make yet. We would have to spend a lot of money on promoting athletics on our campus and on promoting our program. We would have to hire fantastic coaches.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that it would take time. However, many schools used to seriously suck at major basketball and football and then got better over time. I remember when Stanford used to suck at basketball. Then they got really really good, earning the #1 ranking and were a major threat for the national championship. {Now, they're not that good again.} It just takes time and effort. However, I agree that it's time and effort that Harvard may not want to make, although I don't know why. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Football and Basketball are popular sports, especially in Texas , but in the Northeast, there are very few teams I could name that are good at these sports. U Conn is one of the few that comes to mind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>BC had a solid football team last year, ranked #18 and winning the MPC bowl game. Syracuse won the basketball national championship a few years ago.</p>
<p>I don't understand how the students would want a mediocre football team. Sakky and I's point is, if you're going to put effort in, then do it big. Who wants to strive to be mediocre?</p>
<p>Hardly "mediocre". Last year, Harvard had the top amateur (ie, unsalaried) football team in the country; a 40-9 record in the past 5 years.</p>
<p>Huh? Unless you are suggesting college football players are paid, your post makes no sense Byerly. Harvard isn't remotely close to being a good national team in football.</p>
<p>I think Byerly means non-scholarship. Being the best non-scholarship football team is like being the worlds tallest short person. Even DII's give scholarships. And the 40-9 record is because they play Ivies. The best 1-AA schools play 1-A schools (and win occasionally). How about Harvard steps up and plays BC?</p>
<p>I just wanna note, for the sake of fair argument, that Duke football is very bad.</p>
<p>Yeah, but Duke basketball rocks. Besides, I think that Florida State, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and Miami play a role in Duke losing. The ACC is brutal. Not exactly the Ivy League.</p>
<p>And Maryland! Go terps!</p>
<p>One of my good friends on my high school commited to Duke on football scholarship, he'll get to start so it's cool, but he won't win much</p>
<p>One other thing interesting recruiting anecdote I want to throw out there. I was actually a Harvard football recruit. I had my eyes set on there and it was my dream school. They had contacted me for tape, a unofficial summer visit, my official transcript and invited me up for a game. I talked to their recruiting coordinator and he said that I was a fine player and he would be calling me. I even had a marked application (for recruit). Well, no one ever called past that point. I wasn't mad, I was disappointed. I had gone through so much and nothing. At least Princeton had called and told me "We have two guys ahead of you because of your height, if either of them doesn't commit, you're in." Ok, so not so bad. Fast forward a couple months, I get into MIT and Harvard. I'm on my visit to MIT's CPW when I check me email. There's a walk-on invite from Harvard. I'm like "Sweet!" Not only is it generic and insincere, it is LITTERED with typos. I mean, typos every other line. I have the letter filed away for motivation purposes. So, I'm kind of bitter against Harvard football. I love the campus and people though. I mean it is the best school in the US for a reason. I was all set to go until I got my "wlak on invte."</p>
<p>My friend was similarly screwed at Yale. He had a coach visit his house for dinner, and then they disappeared. Oh well.</p>
<p>There are Ivy League rules governing the academic qualifications of varsity athletes. It's complicated, and depends on the sport, but basically, the academic index of individual players (in football) or of the entire team, averaged (hockey, baseball) must be only a certain amount worse than the school's average.</p>
<p>One of Harvard's hockey recruits is entering next year with a 1780 on the SAT. It all depends.</p>
<p>Regarding Sakky's post about development and legacy admits, that's quite simply not true. Harvard is one of the largest fiduciay entities in the world. It's endowment is twice that of any other university in the world. They could give a **** less if Daddy is going to give them a million when Oliver Barrett V gets in. In all honesty, there have to be hundreds of millions on the line. Basically, it's never happened.</p>
<p>Re: Money--</p>
<p>When I interviewed at Chicago, one of the admissions officers who was supposed to meet with me was a few minutes late. He explained that he had come from a meeting in which the officers were in the process of figuring out how to gracefully reject a girl who had bad academics but whose family had made significant financial contributions to the school. Of course, Chicago is notorious for not lowering its standards for anybody, but the point still stands: financial contributions matter, but they're not going to wipe away everything else on your record. Sakky's examples are valid, but they reflect a different era in college admissions. Harvard's acceptance rate is much lower now than it was 40-50 years ago, and admissions policies overall are less focused on political clout and St. Grottlesex.</p>
<p>By the way, does this bit from the Crimson article not make any sense to anyone else either:</p>
<p>Second, the median AI for all accepted recruited athletes must be within one standard deviation from the median for the class as a whole, which means that no more than half of accepted recruits can have an AI in the bottom 16 percent of the admitted classnot exactly the highest standard. But the thinking, says Fish, is that if you put all that time into sports, theres got to be some conscionable difference in your academics.</p>
<p>It doesnt take a perfect AI score to figure out how to exploit this system. By accepting a few students on recruit lists with very high AIs, admissions officials can artificially raise the median, enabling them to also take a number of students with AIs near the floor.</p>
<p>Um, no, not if you're using the median.</p>
<p>The system is different for football too. Football has a four band recruiting system, with each band being alloted so many slots. Band 4 is guys who have Ivy Academics and Band 1 is your guys who have ~1100.</p>
<p>"Um, no, not if you're using the median."</p>
<p>Median is even easier to exploit. Take 51 out of 100 kids with top notch academics, and 49 out of 100 with really bottom end academics. Not saying there is 100 kids, but you see what I mean?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Regarding Sakky's post about development and legacy admits, that's quite simply not true. Harvard is one of the largest fiduciay entities in the world. It's endowment is twice that of any other university in the world. They could give a **** less if Daddy is going to give them a million when Oliver Barrett V gets in. In all honesty, there have to be hundreds of millions on the line. Basically, it's never happened.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's my point exactly - it would have to be hundreds of millions, if not billions. But the point is, you could do it. Harvard admissions spots can be bought, the only question is the price. Since everybody knows this is the case, then why not auction these spots off in an open bidding process? Or at least be honest about what is happening?</p>
<p>And again, the point is that there are about 100 people in the world who can afford those spots for their kids. Maybe 50 of those will have children who go to college in the US, and maybe 25 of those (generous, because I'm asusming these kids will be smart on average) will be even close enough to Harvard's standards that they could be admitte, and not flunk out. Your example is so extreme that it's basically meaningless.</p>
<p>God, we are getting into SUCH hypotheticals here. Can we please stop this? :p</p>