<p>I have one that has an arts scholarship (but is a science major) and one that has UofM set firmly in his sights…the sports teams being a huge, huge part of his laser light focus and three generations of legacy being the second reason. It’s a great school I will be thrilled if that’s where he ends up. Whether I get to a game or not left to be seen. No one is arguing with you Denise, you are totally entitled to your opinion. Arts almost always is “cut” before sports both in K-12 and I’m sure in colleges. Colleges and Universities have wrung out about all they will be able to wring out for a long, long time in tuition/room and board from parents. Many states are tapped out and unable to continue funding the publics at the levels they have been funding and alumni are making hard decisions both because they are cautious about their financial picture but also because their offspring are being turned down in record numbers. Hard decisions are being made everywhere.</p>
<p>
Well, many (most) of our kids choose a college for a variety of attributes (see the ‘stupidest reason to reject a college’ thread). Things aren’t usually so black and white and the kid usually chooses a college based on size, location, weather, sports, beauty of the campus, and many other attributes that have little to do with academics. In my previous post I stated some choose a college because it has the big sports team and some choose a college because it doesn’t have the big sports team. I think both choices are sound. I knew one student who specifically switched out of a college without the big sports team (UCI) to go to a college that did (UCLA) because of the ‘feel’ of the campus as a result. I think probably many/most students aren’t at either extreme on the point and really don’t care that much - they don’t mind the big team but wouldn’t want to have to pay much extra for it and wouldn’t want other programs that might affect them cut in order to keep all sports intact with no impact. Besides the ‘environment’ produced by having the big sports team, there’s the point of one getting enjoyment out of their 4 years on campus by being able to participate in and play certain sports even if it’s not at the tippy top level which of course is reserved for only a handful of the students. For these students who want to play it makes sense to consider whether they’ll have a chance to play on some level of sports - just like other students consider the workout facilities, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.</p>
<p>It’s all valid.</p>
<p>Not if you are playing hockey. But if all things are considered equal and the one remaining deciding factor is hockey then I guess it could be a reason to choose a college if you are a fan. </p>
<p>I understand that sports fandom is a reason some students choose a particular college. I just do not believe it’s enough to justify keeping sports budgets intact while slicing everywhere else.</p>
<p>Having a good sports team might be one of the factors that drives someone to apply to a certain school, but especially these days, kids tend to apply to schools where they feel getting a degree gives them a reasonable chance at success. The Ivy league schools don’t have so many applications because they have a football team or whatever, they draw applications because there is the perception that going there is prestigious and (mistaken or not) gives them an advantage when they “go out there”.</p>
<p>U Cal Berkeley draws students because it is the flagship university of the U Cal system, and its programs in mathematics, engineering, business and sciences are top notch, with top notch faculty, that is widely respected. To be honest,I would be willing to bet many of those applying there might not even know they have a football team. </p>
<p>I can see all factors being equal, someone choosing a program like U Michigan because it has a great sports program as well as great athletics, but I also would be dubious if a student had a choice between a program with a great academic reputation and a no name sports program, and a school with a lesser academic reputation with a great sports program, that they would deliberately choose the one because of sports (I am not talking an athlete here, talking about a student specator), all other factors (like scholarships and such being the same). Likewise, someone might choose program A over program B because let’s say they want to competitively sail, and B doesn’t have sailing <em>shrug</em>.</p>
<p>
I agree with that. My issue was with the claim that it is an
Athletic budgets need to take a hit just like all the other programs at a university. They certainly don’t deserve protected status unless they actually generate enough revenue to support their costs.</p>
<p>wow, things got lively here.</p>
<p>let’s see, take away sports from Cal and many wouldn’t notice, you’re right that some wouldn’t notice. Do you you know that Cal students talk about 2 Cal’s? But those who do notice represent a large minority, doesn’t the minority have rights?</p>
<p>Cal will lose its backers if they lose football, you’re smokin’ crack if you think otherwise. where do you think the bulk of Cal’s private funding comes from? I’ll tell you, from a few small communities in the east bay. Lose football and Cal turns into UCSD overnight. Which means it’s no longer “flagship”</p>
<p>UCSD is an OK science school, but in pecking order it’s way down the line in quality of education (and especially in college life experience, the place is a sprawling corporate campus with no social life) from Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, Cal Tech, Pomona, and the Claremonts.</p>
<p>And UCSB, come on, it’s a mid tier party school (big party school) where serious students try to transfer out, into Davis or Cal, after their sophomore year. Give them a top football program and watch that change quickly.</p>
<p>someone said choosing a school for sports is a bad reason.</p>
<p>ha, it’s the only reason my daughter chose her school, she can learn math at any school.</p>
<p>I agree with the thought that if football is dropped at many schools the alumni donations would suffer and the academic side of the house would be much worse off than they are now dollar wise. I don’t believe that would be a wise financial move for many schools.</p>
<p>College sports are too big right now and it is not healthy. Some cuts are in order but don’t underestimate the importance of those sports to the academic fund raising side of many of these schools.</p>
<p>Academics being equal I would go to the school with the sports programs. It was simply very enjoyable for me to experience that. I know several kids who went to Stanford rather than the IVY league for that reason. I don’t think their education suffered because of that decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think U Chicago falls into this model also. It could be that CalTech and U Chicago may be two schools within top 10 range that have this approach.</p>
<p>My son, who never played sports and never watched sports in high school, and has no friend who is doing anything related to sports, joined the Rugby team at U Chicago, and enjoying it immensely. He tells us that he is learning a lot and making new friends through this team activity. So, here is the model of a true scholar athlete and indeed the sports is teaching him the kind of things that he wouldn’t otherwise learn. I bet maintaining and supporting a team like this costs very little to the university and many students can join and reap the benefit. </p>
<p>This is a vastly difference ball of wax from the big time, semi professional college sports with mega sports moguls as coaches, or elite, esoteric, and expensive sports in some top schools, or the cases of “almost professionally” recruited athletes with hefty athletic scholarships and “heavily discounted” admissions standards. </p>
<p>I do believe that in many colleges and universities, sports allure is exaggerated and overplayed. Colleges are academic institutions first. I don’t believe it’s acceptable that some colleges are graduating athletes who can barely function at a minimum level expected of a “college graduate” from that institution in terms of basic academic achievement and intellectual capabilities. Likewise, why should the investment and expenses associated with sport teams outpace the those associated with the academic matters, and why should they be exempt from any cost control measures?</p>
<p>Are you actuallly implying that schools like CalTech and UChicago would fill the needs of MOST kids?</p>
<p>I think they fill the needs of the kids who go to those schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They absolutely should NOT. </p>
<p>But, why should the expense of college outpace the expense of every single good or service in the economy by maginitudes of tens? </p>
<p>they should not.</p>
<p>
Well, clearly you don’t know enough about the schools you’re referring to.</p>
<p>*I believe there have been studies done that show when colleges garner national exposure through playoffs etc. the applications rise in the ensuing years. *</p>
<p>Yes, yes, yes.</p>
<p>For 2 reasons…national/TV exposure and those schools generally get additional revenue that gets put towards school improvements.</p>
<p>Well, for those of you so against sports, there’s always Reed. Only 5 “varsity club” sports.</p>
<p>But it surely isn’t less expensive at $51,000+/year, and it’s not a no loan school, either! Let’s have some accountability!</p>
<p>We have a great list going for the no-sports crowd all really good academic choices…Chicago, Cal Tech, UCSD, Reed…we need to start a thread and a list.</p>
<p>“Well, clearly you don’t know enough about the schools you’re referring to”</p>
<p>I know that every kid in california interested in a “public school” has ucsd as 3rd or 4th or 5th to cal and ucla, davis and ucsb. and many will often choose davis or ucsb over ucsd because ucsd is a social dead zone. And I know dozens of people who have attended over the years, and all say it was a social vacuum. I actually went on an admitted student tour a few years ago and the kid leading the tour said it’s not very social, and a lot of kids are studying on a friday night. </p>
<p>and i know academically, except for a couple narrow sciences, it’s ranked well below stanford, cal, usc, and ucla, not to mention caltech. and that the sat scores of incoming freshman is well below stanford, usc, cal.</p>
<p>unfortunately ucsd is probably the most poorly designed uc in the system, there’s no center to the school, no sense of community. And la jolla is a terrible college town.</p>
<p>I’m chuckling because UCSD was a college my number 1 wouldn’t get out of the car at so we drove past the parking around the campus loop and back out and on our way. It’s really an architectural and design disaster of a campus but a great uni for the right kids. I remember the eucalyptus was overwhelming that day and did not “add” to the campus. Gray, industrial feeling and smelly I think were my son’s words. I guess there are some great views from some of the dorms. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>
So now you not only know the specific reasons why large donors donate to schools (only because of sports of course) but you know the intentions of “every kid in California”. Your knowledge of ‘every kid in California’ apparently doesn’t include my kids who turned down UCB and USC for their respective colleges - including UCSD. You’re demonstrating your knowledge level isn’t quite what you think it is pacheight.</p>
<p>On the subject of sports spending and the benefits (or not) to a school, take a look at the last paragraph (still trying to find a link to the original report) where it says that increased spending on football and basketball doesn’t bring money into the school in terms of donations or increase academic excellance:</p>
<p>[NACUBO:</a> Knight Commission Discusses College Sports Finance Issues](<a href=“Page not Found”>http://www.nacubo.org/Business_and_Policy_Areas/Athletics_and_Auxiliaries/News/Knight_Commission_Discusses_College_Sports_Finance_Issues.html)</p>
<p>The actual report:
[Knight</a> Commission - Introduction](<a href=“Home - Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics”>Home - Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics)</p>
<p>[Gulf</a> Between College Spending on Academics, Athletics Grows - Real Time Economics - WSJ](<a href=“Gulf Between College Spending on Academics, Athletics Grows - WSJ”>Gulf Between College Spending on Academics, Athletics Grows - WSJ)</p>
<p>I haven’t waded through the whole thing, but some of the facts it unconvers are troubling:</p>
<p>1)In most of the big football and basketball programs the spending is spiraling out of control, and despite the revenue from tickets, etc, few seem to be making a profit. more importantly, the rise in spending is way out of wack compared to spending on academics, which means sports are draining budgets that could be used for athletics. </p>
<p>2)This spending is being driven by the notion that if you spend more money on football and basketball programs, that you get more money back in revenue, and like people who spent money thinking their house would increase in value to allow them to borrow and pay the bill, it is coming home to roost. </p>
<p>3)take a look at the spending per athlete and the spending per student, it is 13k per student and 4 or more times that for the average athlete…</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yeah, right. The quality of education at schools without much in the way of sports clearly cannot keep up with those football/athletic powerhouses CalTech, Pomona, and the Claremonts.</p>
<p>If anything the inclusion of CalTech, Pomona, and the Claremonts on your list of top schools proves that big time college sports are irrelevant to providing a top notch college education.</p>
<p>for some reason, my son wouldn’t get out of the car at ucsb. just couldn’t see himself there, so we did a similar ‘drive by’ like momofthreeboys and son. so funny. he also (for several of the reasons that have already been mentioned) ruled out ucsd. i must say that–for kids of color–ucsd has a major image problem. there were many kids (regardless of race) at my son’s high school who refused to apply there last year. but california’s a big state, and lots of kids eventually find a place where they feel comfortable within the uc system.</p>
<p>we’re truly fortunate to have so many good choices!</p>