<p>do you guys think that if a school fields ncca division 1 sports programs, it would help boost its reputation in the general public? for example, would northwestern be not as known (as a good school) by the general public if it did not compete in the big 10 (like how the university of chicago is, good but no regular publicity). or do you think sports and reputation don't have a correlation?</p>
<p>I don't think sports help in the reputation of the school. But, it does help in popularity.</p>
<p>Well schools like Miami and Nebraska had great success in the 90's and their reputation hasn't really soared. In terms of popularity I think it helps but not in reputation.</p>
<p>I think it helps popularity but not true academic reputation. Unfortunately, the line between popularity and reputation becomes blurred alot of the time. This is what I think: You're going to an interview with some corporation. When they ask about your education you say A) some big sports college like, well, Clemson(for those of us on the East coast) or B) some small reputable liberal arts college like, lets say Swarthmore(in PA). To most non college seeking individuals, Clemson is much better known than Swarthmore. Because not much is known about it, it is assumed to be of a lesser value then Clemson. </p>
<p>Now, I know some will argue that "any good company would know about Swarthmore(or any small liberal arts for that matter)" but the fact is that our first job is not always with that type of company. My uncle is the owner of a many thousand person company and ask him about Bowdoin, Grinnell, Reed, or most other top LACs and he's like WTH are those??? Mention Penn State and the idea of top quality school pops into mind. My father, who has a similar position, is the same way. When I started looking at schools and was talking about some smaller LACs, he had no clue about them yet hires professionals all the time.</p>
<p>Unfortunately athletic quality has become synonymous with prestige, which is why too many schools turn down smart people in favor of athletes in the vain hope of maintaining athletic programs.</p>
<p>athletic teams are almost or just as much as part of a school as the academics are to a lot of people. they also tremendously help with alumni donations(especially the football team).
whats the difference between accepting a talented violin player and a talented athlete. i guess all people with talents are taking smart peoples spots then.</p>
<p>What's the difference between accepting a talented violin player and an athlete? Pretty much the whole process. Musicians are not recruited nearly as vigorously as athletes are... some apps have an arts supplement, which, as many adcoms admit, very rarely have any effect on the candidate's admission. On the other hand, athletes have a whole recruitment process, including videos, meetings with coaches, and even paid travelling for the candidate to visit campus. From my high school, not a single student was recruited for arts to a university; several athletes, however, were recruited, most accepted, to schools that [sorry to be judgmental] they simply did not deserve to attend. Please don't try denying it -- athletes are always looked at in a much more generous light than talented musicians are. From personal experience, I was an All-State violinist in high school, ranked in the top 2% of my class, and I got turned down from schools that athletes who got mediocre in entry level classes were recruited at. It's just a part of society -- who was more popular in high school, the school quarterback or the clarinetists? And I strongly doubt that many students who care about their college education value athletics as much as academics.</p>
<p>Isn't college about getting an education? I guess I don't see sports as a reason to go to college. Yes, maybe it can be used as a stepping stone for becoming a pro, but it seems like a waste. I know this girl who was recruited for swimming and is now a senior with no clue as to what she wants to do. She spent all of her time working, training, traveling and not studying. Thankfully it didn't cost her much money(b/c of scholarships) but she will graduate with a degree in sociology, no interest in the field, and grades that are far from stellar. </p>
<p>... IME, her time and effort helped the school better their reputation but hurt he in the long run. She feels this way too.</p>
<p>Travis, you are wrong on sports being associated with prestige. While some top schools give out athletic scholarships like Duke and Stanford, the Ivy Leagues only recruit, and don't hand out scholarships at all; as far as the Big Two college sports go, the Ivies haven't been competitive for years. Moreover, who do you think most people recognize first when it comes to prestige: MIT or Alabama/Tennessee/UConn? Please - while sports may make a college known to the average person, it does not influence the majority's opinion of its quality that much. Just because you are ****ed that athletes get an edge doesn't mean sports are taking over, or that you would have gotten in if there weren't Division I teams. The truth is that recruits make up a very small % of the college population, and although a few more people would get in if these teams didn't exist, for the most part the type of people admitted/rejected would not change.</p>
<p>That's not my point with the whole prestige thing. What I meant was that colleges recruit in order to increase athletic prestige at the potential sacrifice of academic prestige. And if it doesn't influence the opinion of quality, why bother recruiting at all? And yes, I am a bit peeved about the whole thing, thank you for informing me about that. It sucks seeing someone get something they don't deserve when you've worked your ass off for years for the same goal. College is meant to be a place of study, not of play, and I don't see how it's correct to give the opportunity for study to people who deserve it less than others.</p>
<p>"It sucks seeing someone get something they don't deserve"</p>
<p>apparently, to you, elite athletes don't work hard to achieve their level of skill? athletics show leadership, teamwork, and hard work. being a successful athlete is probably a better indicator of future success than sat scores. they worked hard to be there and showed the results, while interacting with people as a team. elite colleges will recruit athletes a little more than they will champion violin players and about the same as someone else who has showed immense success in whatever they pursued. this is because, the fact is, successful teams create more alumni support, more money, and more school spirit. people go to college for different reasons, not all purely academic.</p>
<p>to be at the level of a recruited athlete takes an immense, immense time commitment and determination as well. it's really impressive to balance academics and athletics at that level. it's fair colleges lend them a little leniancy on that situation as well. if you looked at stanford's athletic teams, you'll notice many valedvictorians and 4.0 students on them.</p>
<p>"College is meant to be a place of study, not of play,"</p>
<p>i think it depends on everyone's perspective of college though. for some, college is the time where they discover more about themselves and what their interests are, to learn and mature, to try new things, to have social networking, to enjoy life a little before the hectic real world. </p>
<p>do you guys think that by having athletic teams, schools can attract those top quality students who also want the traditional college experience rather than just one that solely concentrates on academics?</p>
<p>how about Washington University vs Michigan (for undergrad). doesnt michigan's sports teams help its prestige? as in... most average parents would want their kids going to michigan rather than Wash U, which they might have never heard of. and everyone else will understand that the kid is very smart and is envied by others for going to such a great school... while that same attention might not be given to kids who go to Wash U or chicago or even a lesser known ivy like brown.</p>
<p>i think it helps in how well known the college is, but not the prestige too much.</p>
<p>Acerockolla -- So it takes more talent and work to be an athlete than a violinist? And you would know, having been both, right? What a nice close-minded opinion that proves my point -- people tend to look more highly upon athletes than musicians when the musicians and artists dedicate practically as much time and energy to their work. I know I spent as much time working on my violin technique and preparing repertoire as most athletes spent on the field and in training rooms. Many of my fellow musicians have experienced the most intense moments of self-doubt and anxiety on their lives over their musicianship, and have overcome significant personal obstacles and have poured so much energy and time into their work that it doesn't seem fair for them to receive the short end of the straw in terms of preferences. Have you ever spoken to a competitive violinist about the intensity and focus needed to ace an audition? I honor athletes for having so much dedication and for excelling in something that I could never succeed in, having given up on sports in order to dedicate myself to music and thus growing quite unathletic over the years. </p>
<p>Musicians don't have teams? We all just shut ourselves in a closet and practice all the time? What do you think an orchestra or a band is? I have as many "teamwork" skills from working in chamber ensembles and orchestras as they have gotten from their teams, and I have dedicated as much time as they have. If anything, musicians face the addded burden of pursuing something looked at as "weird" or "dorky," especially during the middle school years, whereas athletes are glorified and looked up to as something heroic or incredible. How many pep rallies did your high school orchestra have? How many oboists were voted homecoming king? Did your high school even have an orchestra? I guess my general point that I have been dancing around is the inequality in focus given to music and to sports, and how the college recruitment system serves only to perpetuate this inequality. If preference is going to be given based on special talents, give it to every talent that is worthy.</p>
<p>kfc4u, I think any parent who cares about their child's education will actually research their potential schools instead of making a slipshod determination based on whether they've heard of it or not... I know my dad had never heard of half the schools I applied to but he visited all their sites and read about them and ended up helping me a great deal when I had to decide. And since when is envy and attention a key criterion in choosing a school? Personally, I would look up to a Wash U student more than I would to a UMich student, based solely on which school each goes to, because I feel that Wash U is a stronger school yet is often underrated because it doesn't boast the world's best damn football team [which, of course, would be key in fielding the next generation of top doctors and lawyers]. Call me irritated, call me whatever you want, but having dealt with such prejudices on a first-hand basis throughout high school, I think I have grounds to be aggravated.</p>
<p>There is also a lot less participation in violin competitions than any of the major HS sports. Being at the top against a much larger pool obviously is more attractive to a school. Basketball players have a lot of advantages over myself(XC/Track) and XC and Track are the largest participatory sports in high school. Most of the time life isn't fair and equitable, you just have to learn to deal with it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think any parent who cares about their child's education will actually research their potential schools instead of making a slipshod determination based on whether they've heard of it or not... I know my dad had never heard of half the schools I applied to but he visited all their sites and read about them and ended up helping me a great deal when I had to decide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bravo.</p>
<p>Athletics are an appealing "extra", never to be confused with the main issue. I was reconciled to having to root for Stanford if my D went there, except when they played UCLA, but their AdCom spared me that dilemma. :) </p>
<p>Instead, she's going to a school that sells a t-shirt that says "Undefeated in Football Since 1871" and that is terrific fit for her.</p>
<p>Anyone, student or parent, who bases their search based upon "schools they've heard of" or athletic reputation is going about the process in an insufficient way. There were something like 70 schools on my D's initial list and some I had never heard of and many that I had only hazy [and incorrect] ideas about what they were all about. It was like taking a course in "Colleges" to learn as much relevant information as possible.</p>
<p>To the informed, sports don't affect the reputation of a school. To the uninformed, sports = prestige. As a North Carolina student, I have ALWAYS wanted to go to Duke. Yet, when classmates ask me where I want to go to school, I inevitably get:
"Ewww! Why do you want to go to Duke? UNC has a much better basketball team! Besides, Duke's football team stinks!"
Needless to say, these remarks irk me. To informed people, however, sports do not influence a school's reputation. Sports don't always affect popularity, either. Wake Forest and Davidson have done well in competing against Duke and UNC in basketball, but they lack the popularity of either.</p>
<p>Duke, BC, Miami are all good examples of schools that had their prestige/academics helped greatly by sports.</p>
<p>I think Duke especially. Years from now, will you remember the academics of Duke, or the sports? The fact is, were going through this process RIGHT NOW so of course we're more informed than the general public, but when were adults, we won't remember the academic splendor of colgate. So when you say average American, know that that will most likely one day be you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Instead, she's going to a school that sells a t-shirt that says "Undefeated in Football Since 1871" and that is terrific fit for her.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha, Emory?</p>
<p>I personally was being recruited from schools that I had no idea how academically great they were simply because they weren't big name, DI schools. I really wanted to go to Georgetown or Wake Forest because everyone knows how great they are in their respected sports.
I ended up deciding on Davidson, because of their DI athletics and superb academics. If the coach had never recruited me, I would have never had any interest in their school, because, even though they are DI, their academic program is stronger than their athletic program.</p>