Sports + Academics

College Search & Selection
101

<p>pizzagirl,
Thank you for your comments. What you are failing to appreciate is that the opportunity to attend these events-whether because you are a rabid fan (not me) or because you just want to enjoy the tailgates, parties, spectacle, the fun (like me)-is not available at all of these schools. One can have the micro experience of getting together with friends anywhere, whether it be for a football game or a women's field hockey game. But the macro experience of attending a nationally relevant game in a full stadium where the campus is energized and the excitement and enthusiasm is tangibly in the air is NOT available everywhere. And I would claim that it is a materially different experience that many would enjoy if given the opportunity to attend. </p>

<p>A key element of my argument has always been that the CHOICE is not available at all colleges. There is nothing like a Stanford/Duke/Vanderbilt/Notre Dame basketball game at any of the Ivies (only U Penn is remotely close), nothing like a Vanderbilt or Notre Dame (and soon perhaps Stanford and Duke :) ) football game at any of the Ivies. None of the Ivies have a football scene that is remotely close. </p>

<p>(I'm not commenting above on Northwestern or Rice as others, like you, might feel differently than I that these colleges offer a palpably different athletic life than is available at the Ivies and some other elites) </p>

<p>As for whether such events are the "highlight" or not of someone's college experience, I would certainly not see it in that vein. If one wants just sports, sports, sports, then Stanford, Duke et al are probably the wrong schools. These schools are about sooooooo much more than that, both inside and outside of the classroom. But the beauty of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame is that their athletic life and attending highest-level, nationally relevant events can be part of the experience if you desire. </p>

<p>The full undergraduate experience is the sum of student experiences in their four years of college and I believe strongly that prospective students should evaluate the non-classroom life as closely as they consider what they will receive in the academic realm. </p>

<p>IMO, top colleges like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame can uniquely provide a non-classroom experience that the Ivies and other elites have no ability (currently) to match and which, for some students, would enhance their overall undergraduate experience.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
The full undergraduate experience is the sum of student experiences in their four years of college and I believe strongly that prospective students should evaluate the non-classroom life as closely as they consider what they will receive in the academic realm.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't disagree with this at all, and I definitely think students should take into account personal preferences such as size of campus, urban/suburban/rural, access to arts (if so inclined), access to participatory and/or spectator athletics (if so inclined). </p>

<p>I guess I don't see any reason to believe that those evaluations aren't already currently going on. I don't think that people are applying to Harvard expecting that Harvard will deliver a 70,000-student-tailgate-campus-goes-wild football experience and are disappointed or shocked when it doesn't. I certainly see and appreciate that some people apply to Northwestern along with Ivies because they would like to see Big 10 sports, or value basketball so may favor Duke and Penn. But I don't think that Stanford, Duke, Vandy et al are suffering from any shortage of applicants relative to the Ivies. So I'm not sure why you are so concerned about this, or why you are concerned that people are not adequately factoring in the availability of nationally relevant sports. It seems to be that the people who care about it are, and the people who don't care about it, aren't ... Just like any other criteria that people might or might not care about (size of campus, urban/sub/rural, presence of Greek life, presence of arts, etc.). </p>

<p>Doesn't the market already sort out for this in terms of applications received per school? It's not as though this is information that is top-secret or requires a high cost to obtain.</p>

103

<p>"What you are failing to appreciate is that the opportunity to attend these events-whether because you are a rabid fan (not me) or because you just want to enjoy the tailgates, parties, spectacle, the fun (like me)-is not available at all of these schools."</p>

<p>That SPECIFIC type of fun may not be available but that doesn't mean that just as much fun in general isn't available at those schools. Fun's in the eye of the beholder. I daresay U Chicago students have just as much fun doing their Scavenger Hunts and other nerdy things :-) as we NU students do at Big 10 football games. I think it's quite feasible that Harvard students are having as much fun at their Harvard games as you are having at the Stanford/Duke/Notre Dame type games. Their style of fun wouldn't be fun for you, but it doesn't have to be. Maybe just as you think they're missing out on the fun of the big tailgate scene, maybe they think you're missing out on a different type of experience.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
The bowl appearance thing is a bit misleading, since in those days, only the conference champ went to a bowl (unlike today, where 6-8 teams from a conference goes bowling).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>By the mid to late 1970s, 3-4 Big Ten teams would go to a bowl game each year. However, that was irrelevant to Northwestern, who suffered through 23 consectutive losing seasons during that era.</p>

105

<p>Cal/Stanford Big Game tailgate = wine and cheese</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
By the mid to late 1970s, 3-4 Big Ten teams would go to a bowl game each year. However, that was irrelevant to Northwestern, who suffered through 23 consectutive losing seasons during that era.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I fully admit my views are colored by being part of NU during the long losing streak. I was a high school senior (admitted) when they "won" that honor (61-14 home loss to MSU), couldn't believe the abject stupidity of fellow students -- going to schools that were, let's just say, not terribly selective! -- who thought I should be "embarrassed" to go to NU because it had a bad football team @@ and my first college game ever as a freshman was the subsequent win over NIU that broke the losing streak and in which the students threw the goalposts in the lake :-)</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
I guess I don't see any reason to believe that those evaluations aren't already currently going on. I don't think that people are applying to Harvard expecting that Harvard will deliver a 70,000-student-tailgate-campus-goes-wild football experience and are disappointed or shocked when it doesn't. .... So I'm not sure why you are so concerned about this, or why you are concerned that people are not adequately factoring in the availability of nationally relevant sports. It seems to be that the people who care about it are, and the people who don't care about it, aren't ...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really agree with this. I don't perceive some worrisome gap in applicant knowledge about what's available at different colleges. Maybe some students really don't know what it's like to feel the rush of 70,000+ fans or more screaming in unison, but that's not the kind of knowledge deficit that would cause them to choose a prestige school for the "wrong" reasons.</p>

<p>I grew up in a football state, and now I live/work at a place that offers one heck of a crazy, intense, fan experience on most football saturdays. It is awesome and I loved it during grad school and still love it as an old hag of a townie. I know many of our students consider it a highlight of their undergrad years. But I wouldn't trade my undergrad experience at a small woman's college for that. Yeah, I missed out on a fairly common and treasured undergraduate weekly ritual, but I'm okay with that. I suspect a lot of students at smaller colleges/universities feel the same--whether or not they are making that judgment with the full knowledge of what it's like to scream your lungs out at a close game with 75,000 of your friends isn't a big concern.</p>

108

<p>p'girl,
I am drawing contrasts. The question is what is available at each college. </p>

<p>I daresay that nearly anything in the athletic life realm that is available at the Ivies is also available in same or similar form at Stanford, Duke et al. However, the reverse is not true. Frankly, it is pretty telling that there has been scant response about the Ivy athletic life other than weak comments that they are somehow better places because they aren't athletic factories (as if Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame are-hah!). </p>

<p>I have often framed my comparisons with the Ivies in the athletic life (which you have clearly shown doesn't carry much value for you). So, try a contrast involving something non-athletic. Someone with a passion for U Chicago could contrast their Scavenger Hunt and claim that this is an important part of their undergraduate experience and that it is a differentiating experience for their students (and I believe that it is although I believe other colleges could pretty easily replicate it if they chose to). In fact, a U Chicago fan could say that for students who might enjoy want to try this type of experience, no college does it better than U Chicago. Valid argument and nothing wrong with this approach as far as I'm concerned. </p>

<p>What I think you are doing is applying moral equivalence to the athletic/social experiences at these various colleges. I don't accept that and think that that minimizes the sometimes great campus differences that exist among these top schools and the athletic life that they offer. These differences may not be critical factors for all, or even most, students, as they go about their college searches, but there is a subset of students for whom such differences should be considered and compared. For some students, understanding and appreciating these real differences could lead to a better college choice that could substantially boost their overall undergraduate and alumni experience.</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
Yeah, I missed out on a fairly common and treasured undergraduate weekly ritual, but I'm okay with that. I suspect a lot of students at smaller colleges/universities feel the same--whether or not they are making that judgment with the full knowledge of what it's like to scream your lungs out at a close game with 75,000 of your friends isn't a big concern.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right. No student makes a judgment about going to a school with Greek life (or not) based on full knowledge what it's like to be Greek, but that's not a tragedy.</p>

<p>As for Hawkette's quote:

[quote]
What I think you are doing is applying moral equivalence to the athletic/social experiences at these various colleges. I don't accept that and think that that minimizes the sometimes great campus differences that exist among these top schools and the athletic life that they offer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>MORAL equivalence? Of course they are morally equivalent. They are just personal preferences, like chocolate and vanilla. There is nothing inherently "better" about a campus with a big spectator sports tradition, except in the eyes of those who like that kind of thing.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
Someone with a passion for U Chicago could contrast their Scavenger Hunt and claim that this is an important part of their undergraduate experience and that it is a differentiating experience for their students (and I believe that it is although I believe other colleges could pretty easily replicate it if they chose to). In fact, a U Chicago fan could say that for students who might enjoy want to try this type of experience, no college does it better than U Chicago.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's not what you say, Hawkette. What you say is the equivalent of: "Having a Scav Hunt on a campus is unique. You can't help but get caught in the excitement of finding the items, forming the teams, etc. It's a shame that so many students select colleges without giving consideration to a Scav Hunt. There's nothing like the spirit of a school with a Scav Hunt. If they only knew about Scav Hunts, I am sure that most would enjoy it and it would reflect tremendously back on their bonds with their fellow students and school." </p>

<p>Well, yeah, you CAN help but get caught in the excitement of finding the items, forming the teams, etc. Some people like it, others don't. I don't assume that Scav Hunts are so inherently appealing that to be exposed to a Scav Hunt is to love it. I can very well imagine that many (most?) students would say "Uh, ok, hope you have fun, but no thanks, I'll pass." You, however, assume that when it comes to spectator sports ... that to go to those games is to be swept away and magically love it, that you can't help but love the spectacle. And I'm asking -- why? Why do you think the big-tailgate-scene is SO powerful and compelling that it sweeps up people who don't think they're interested?</p>

111

<p>To no one’s surprise (certainly not mine), we disagree. You place no value on athletic life and thus don’t see having access to it as an advantage to any school. I have not said that one has to like sports or that one even has to partake in the athletic life, but I will firmly claim that, for many students, having it as an option is inherently superior to not having it as an option. </p>

<p>As for your scavenger hunt example, why shouldn’t a student think of this as follows: </p>

<p>“I don’t have a lot of scavenger hunts in my part of the country and they sound like they could be fun. I know that the academic experience at U Chicago is going to be first-rate, but I’m not sure how life is outside of the classroom and how it compares to other, maybe higher profile, colleges that I am considering. Maybe I’ll take a closer look at this activity and see how it improves the undergraduate life at U Chicago and forms a bond among the students….student does some investigation and confirms that the U Chicago Scavenger Hunt is great fun and it builds excellent school spirit and really adds to the enjoyment of the undergraduate experience and that alumni remain jazzed about the experience years after graduation…student compares to ZZZ Ivy college and discovers that scavenger hunts are not available or are done in a way that is not nearly as compelling an activity…student concludes that, for her, U Chicago’s scavenger hunt is an advantage that she would receive at U Chicago.”</p>

112

<p>I really appreciate hawkette's posts, and think that the athletic life/sports scene is definitely something applicants should consider, along with everything else, when looking at prospective colleges.</p>

<p>Where I grew up there was no pro football and my uni. had no football team. I did not realize what I had missed out on until I met/married my H, who along with most of his extended family, had attended a big time football univ. Yes, I enjoyed my college experience, but it really did not offer anything the entire campus could rally around as a unit either during my college years, nor as an alum. On the other hand, my H has remained tightly connected to his alma mater through its football program, it keeps him in contact with many of his college friends and acquaintances, and even his 80-year old alum mother is heavily involved in football-supporting alumni groups in her community. </p>

<p>We have a D at Harvard, and the only hesitation she had about attending involved H's sports scene. As it turns out, the Harvard-Yale game is a highlight of the school year, and the recent change to night games was a big plus for her.</p>

<p>While obviously not everyone cares, college applicants should at least be aware that a successful college sports program can offer life-time benefits to its graduates.</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
We have a D at Harvard, and the only hesitation she had about attending involved H's sports scene. As it turns out, the Harvard-Yale game is a highlight of the school year, and the recent change to night games was a big plus for her.

[/quote]

Are Ivy league games televised on NESN, or some other northeastern sports networks?</p>

<p><em>EDIT</em> Looks like they are:
NESN</a> College Sports TV Schedule - NESN (New England Sports Network)</p>

114

<p>UCB - Last Saturday while channel surfing, H was surprised to find the Harvard-Cornell game televised here on the West Coast!</p>

115

<p>^ Was it a good game, despite being "nationally irrelevant"? ;)</p>

116

<p>"To no one’s surprise (certainly not mine), we disagree. You place no value on athletic life and thus don’t see having access to it as an advantage to any school. "</p>

<p>It's not true that I place no value on athletic life. If I hadn't wanted the trappings of a "typical" college experience (Greeks, sports, etc.), I wouldn't have chosen NU. I'm just pointing out that there are many people for whom their spectator-sports-jones could be as easily satisfied with the Harvard-Yale game attended by 5,000, as the NU-Michigan game attended by 50,000. (Numbers made up for illustrative purposes, as I have no clue how many such matchups would attract.)</p>

<p>I also think that there are different cultures when it comes to college football as a spectator sport vis-a-vis pro football. Some students don't need to have their spectator-sports-jones indulged by going to their own schools' games if they rally behind a pro team, either in their hometown or new hometown. And those students may not feel that they are missing out at all as long as they are enjoying rooting for a team they have some ties to.</p>

<p>IYO, should MIT, U of Chicago, Caltech focus on developing really good spectator sports programs? One could argue that wouldn't their students enjoy watching sports, too? Is not having nat'ly relevant spectator sports a competitive disadvantage for MIT / U of Chicago / Caltech as you seem to think it is for the Ivies?</p>

117

<p>
[quote]
I'm just pointing out that there are many people for whom their spectator-sports-jones could be as easily satisfied with the Harvard-Yale game attended by 5,000, as the NU-Michigan game attended by 50,000

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I apologize for not having carefully read all of the past posts, but I did want to throw in my own son's experience. He knowingly chose a specialized engineering school without a sports scene (well, D3 wrestling) and thought it wouldn't matter to him. He was not athletic in high school, never played a sport (but was on the Dance Team), but did attend many many HS sporting events. He was the epitome of School Spirit...rah rah. We do have a family history of following nationally televised college sports (only partially based on H & my alma mater).</p>

<p>After his freshman year, his only expressed regret with his choice of school was its lack of spectator sports programs. He thinks that a comprehensive sports program is the best way to show and rally around school spirit. And it doesn't have to be on the scale of the Big Ten.</p>

118

<p>I appreciate that your son wishes he was at a school with a comprehensive spectator sports program. I'm wondering ... are there any metrics to measure school spirit by, such that one could try to correlate presence of nat'ly relevant spectator sports to actual school spirit? Attendance at games doesn't do it, because that's relative to size of school and presence or absence of pro teams in that community.<br>
If there is a metric saying that alums of Stanford/Rice/Vandy/et al are more loyal to their schools than alums of the Ivies, or LAC's without nationally relevant sporting events, or MIT/UChicago/Caltech-type schools, I'd be interested in seeing it.</p>

119

<p>Alumni giving rate would be a potential metric, but even that one has its traps with public vs. private as well as alumni giving incentives (i.e. schools that tout their legacy admission policies and yank on the wallets of alumni parents with college-bound children).</p>

<p>I would also venture to guess that we MIT/CalTech/Chicago kids aren't really the cheering types. If spectator sports were important to me, by golly, I would have chosen a school that has better sports than Chicago. But as is, sports, sports games, and the whole atmosphere bores me, and I think it's that kind of anti-cheer and anti-pride that inspired the original "Where fun comes to die" sweatshirt.</p>

<p>Funny that Scav was brought up as an analogy to spectator sports. Scav is something that a couple of kids get really really really into and the rest of us more or less ignore. The campus gets really weird for a few days and there's usually national media around to document it, and then the craziness subsides.</p>

<p>Perhaps a good metric would be amount of University gear bought and sold... only for Chicago, the unofficial self-deprecating slogan shirts vastly outperform the official gear...</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
I would also venture to guess that we MIT/CalTech/Chicago kids aren't really the cheering types. If spectator sports were important to me, by golly, I would have chosen a school that has better sports than Chicago. But as is, sports, sports games, and the whole atmosphere bores me, and I think it's that kind of anti-cheer and anti-pride that inspired the original "Where fun comes to die" sweatshirt.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would submit that just as unalove and her peers were able to accurately self-assess and say, "Hey, spectator sports aren't of interest to me personally," most other students are able to accurately self-assess and say, "Hey, nationally relevant Div 1 spectator sports are of interest to me personally ... in which case I'll explore Stanford, Duke et al ... or they're not, in which case I'll explore the Ivies ... or it's six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, in which case I'll explore both types of schools and go from there."</p>

<p>I guess I don't get Hawkette's fear that this kind of self-assessment isn't * already * taking place. I think there would be a stronger point if Stanford, Duke, Vandy, etc. had problems getting people to apply or something. I don't think they do :-)</p>