<p>I think it would be widely accepted that at most, if not almost all, universities in the US being recruited by a school's athletic team is one 'backdoor' into admissions (legacy/donor children being the other big one). These athletic recruitments often come with full scholarships and in many cases those admitted via athletic recruitment might struggle to be admitted if they applied 'normally.' It seems that such practices, especially at top schools, are limited to the USA.</p>
<p>For example, I was reading the sports page in a newspaper today and came across an article about the upcoming Boat Race in England. The 'Boat Race' is the annual Varsity match on the Thames between Oxford and Cambridge and is easily the most famous college sports matchup in the world (it gets little attention in the US, but is huge in the rest of the world and draws an estimated global TV audience of about 120 million... more than the Super Bowl). </p>
<p>Anyway, the article was highlighting the fact that one member of the Oxford team is a three time world champion and two time Olympian but wasn't on the Cambridge team because he was turned down from the academic program he applied to. The article pointed out that at Oxbridge the sports teams have zero say in applications and can only choose their teams from those that are admitted via the normal application process. The only way to get in is to make the grade like everyone else. Contrast that to the US where those admitted via sports scholarships often wouldn't stand much of a chance in the normal admissions route. In almost no cases in the US would being a sports recruit provide 'zero' bonus in the admissions game. Despite the Oxbridge approach, these rowing teams still compete on a world-class level with many from each team representing their home countries in the Olympics. </p>
<p>What does everyone think of this practice? Is it fair to, in effect, lower academic standards in light of ones athletic ability? Does this lead to a better university overall or just better sports teams? Has an obsession with 'winning' and sports team rankings overtaken many university's true responsibility to be first and foremost and institution of higher learning? </p>
<p>P.S. Regarding Oxbridge sports, I was in the UK a bit back and saw this really funny yet interesting movie (documentary) about the boxing teams at Oxford and Cambridge called "Blue Blood"... it's the same story there too where they have to pull the teams from those admitted via the normal process and it goes through a season showing how the coaches turn a seemingly random collection of top students, most who've never set foot in a ring, into boxers. Here is the trailer: YouTube</a> - Blue Blood Trailer</p>
<p>"Has an obsession with 'winning' and sports team rankings overtaken many university's true responsibility to be first and foremost and institution of higher learning?"</p>
<p>Who are you to say define the "true responsiblity" of a university (particularly a private university). They can set whatever priorities they want. It is what it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who are you to say define the "true responsiblity" of a university (particularly a private university). They can set whatever priorities they want. It is what it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wasn't defining anything, simply posting a talking point... although that's a view that I think many would agree with.</p>
<p>Is it unfair? Somewhat. But if I was a gifted athlete I would use any advantage I had. Sports are good for school spirit and can bring a community together. </p>
<p>You have to remember, though, that a great sports program equals lots of exposure and lots of money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But if I was a gifted athlete I would use any advantage I had.
[/quote]
Of course. I'm not suggesting that athletes are doing anything wrong... that's how the system is setup at the moment so play all the cards you got to get in! ;-) I'm just curious if others think this is the best way to run our college admissions system. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sports are good for school spirit and can bring a community together.
[/quote]
True, but so can other things too. I suppose one point is that good sports teams keep a lot of alumni happy and happy alumni results in more donations. This is the same argument used to largely support legacy and donor child admissions... with a view that if those parents are happy they'll donate more money and then the net benefit for all is positive even if some get in with lower stats. I would like to think that the loyalty of an alumnus to their school and their willingness to donate money to fund academic programs isn't linked to the football team's rank in the BCS... although I know that unfortunately this is sometimes the case! ;-). </p>
<p>
[quote]
You have to remember, though, that a great sports program equals lots of exposure and lots of money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But how much of that money actually goes on to fund academic programs (e.g. that generated just from sports such as tickets and TV income)? Most of the money generated by school sports programs goes towards funding school sports programs in order to make them, largely, self funding. They can bring in a lot of $$$ but I don't think that ends up really helping the school at large or academic outlets too much. There is an aspect of alumni donations though which could help fund academics indirectly (see above point).</p>
<p>Like I said in another thread, there is no "unfair" when it comes to who universities let in. They are their own institutions, they decide who they admit, and at least for private universities that is the end of the say anyone other than the universities themselves have in it. If a university decides it only wants to admit people with curly hair, that is fair; if they decide to only admit blonds, that too is fair.</p>
<p>We can argue whether something is in a university's best interest, but in the end whatever they do is "fair". And clearly, in this case, most universities find it in their best interests to recruit for sports. I agree with that stance. Having been on a campus where no recruitment of any kind other than academic went on (Caltech) I can tell you "normal" universities that recruit for different non-academic activities are much the better for it, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Why would athletic recruitment be considered unfair? Because it favors those with more athletic talent over those with less? Possibly, but any selection of one trait or skill over another will always disadvantage those who lack it. I suppose the recruitment of smart students is "unfair" to the students who are not so bright.</p>
<p>To be totally "fair," schools would have to choose their students completely at random - with no regard to their achievements whatsoever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have to remember, though, that a great sports program equals lots of exposure and lots of money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hate to disappoint, but that "lots of money" is only coming from gaining additional students coming to the University. Most athletic departments do not make a profit. In fact, out of over 300 Division One schools, all of 19 actually make a profit!</p>
<p>What you seem to be saying is school should only about classes. How sad for you. </p>
<p>Next should they eliminate certain studies because they aren't of "value". I mean why do we need the arts? Shouldn't everyone just suit up and become investment bankers?</p>
<p>Outside of the dollars generated you could change the subject of your post and make the same arguement. Why music? Why art? why english? </p>
<p>Not trying to be mean, but understand the world revolves around what it wants to and for alot of people, that's just fine.</p>
<p>I totally agree that strong college sports teams and a strong sporting culture (both at the intercollegiate and club level) are essential parts of any college. </p>
<p>However, the fact that the world's most popular college sporting event is an Olympic level contest between two schools with strict policies banning admissions boosts for athletic recruits would seem to fly in the face of the logic that such backdoor admissions are necessary to have quality sports teams or a strong sporting culture. </p>
<p>The other point too is the fact that many of these US recruits never actually finish their degree with many turning pro and the whole 'college' thing merely being a side story to stay on the books with the NCAA. They get a special break to get into a degree program over someone else and then quit before finishing it anyway. </p>
<p>Contrasting again to the Oxbridge example, a year or two ago one of those that rowed in the race for Cambridge later dropped out before finishing his degree. The thought of a college athlete competing in a sport but failing to graduate was considered such an outrage that it caused a huge controversy and the university had to publicly apologize. It was subsequently decided that in the future if any member of the team failed to graduate any previous victories with said student on the team would be retroactively forfeited. Imagine that happening here in the US where top college athletes often happily ditch their course at the end of the season without thinking twice about their degree.</p>
<p>Although, I perfectly realize that the current system is with admissions is unlikely to change here in the US anytime soon...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would athletic recruitment be considered unfair? Because it favors those with more athletic talent over those with less?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I suppose that comes down to ones own personal opinion for what purpose colleges and universities serve in our society. If you think they they exist to promote top athletes then I suppose that argument is valid. Personally, I think amature and professional sports teams and leagues exist to serve that role. I have no problem with the NFL having a bias towards those with excellent football skills. However, if you think that colleges and universities exist first to promote higher education, whilst still providing a dynamic environment including sports for its students, then I don't see how that argument holds water. </p>
<p>Someone also mentioned the arts and admissions based on skills in the arts. Well, colleges do have degrees in the arts so of course it's valid to give someone whose good in painting a better shot at an art degree than someone who's not. Last time I checked though colleges didn't offer degrees in football or basketball.</p>
<p>Every schools admits students to meet its own needs; fairness isn't part of it. We have all kinds of schools, each with its own culture, and schools generally perpetuate the culture they have, admitting students accordingly. Interested students apply to schools according to their own perceptions. Rejoice in the diversity of schools; forget about fairness. An applicant meets the needs of some schools, of some others not.</p>
<p>it's great you like crew but soccer and rugby are the two most viewed sports in the world. I would question if the rowing contest is the most watched college event. Can you provide reference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Has an obsession with 'winning' and sports team rankings overtaken many university's true responsibility to be first and foremost and institution of higher learning?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why do you assume that there is no "higher learning" involved in collegiate athletics? Must the learning take place only from a book or in a classroom? I would wager that there are many college graduates who will tell you they learned many more valuable life lessons from their 4 years on their university sports teams than they did from their academic coursework.</p>
I hate to disappoint, but that "lots of money" is only coming from gaining additional students coming to the University.
[/quote]
I don't think it's true (though I am by no means an expert in this). From what I've heard, successful sports teams create "school spirit" that generates alumni donations for years to come.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would wager that there are many college graduates who will tell you they learned many more valuable life lessons from their 4 years on their university sports teams than they did from their academic coursework.
[/quote]
LOL, that sure says something about the level of academics among the athletes in those schools... (and yes, there are some schools where athletes hardly ever have to show up in class, and have private "tutors" that "help" them writing papers, etc.)</p>
<p>Recruiting athletes is perfectly acceptable. A kid who's that good in a sport obviously has a passion for it (unless he's one of the kids who's pushed into sports by his parents). Academics should have greater weight than athletics, but who's to say possessing athletic talent is "unfair?" As another poster put it, the less intellectually gifted could claim that it's unfair that other people are smarter and consequently get better grades and standardized test scores. A student athlete is going to be a more interesting person than one of the thousands of kids who just studies all day. A student body full of diverse and talented people is every college's desire.</p>
However, the fact that the world's most popular college sporting event is an Olympic level contest between two schools with strict policies banning admissions boosts for athletic recruits would seem to fly in the face of the logic that such backdoor admissions are necessary to have quality sports teams or a strong sporting culture.
</p>
<p>It's crew, what exactly did you expect? If we took away recruitment, the so-called "preppy sports" would still exist at a high caliber in collegiate competition - for example, I guarantee that squash teams would still be strong, and so would any other team whose recruits were of a similarly high academic standard. The same would not be said of other sports - particularly the "revenue sports" where the athletes are often of a lower educational and socioeconomic standard. To maintain strong presences in many sports, recruitment is necessary. Maybe that's sad, but it's true.</p>
<p>I've fought this battle too many times to want to join in here, but ...I did hear something interesting on the idiot box over the last couple of days. I may be a point off in my numbers but a Sweet Sixteen team will bring 4-6 % greater apps the next cycle. A national champion will bring in an additional 8%. I would have guessed the Nat Champ but the Sweet Sixteen % increase was a surprise.</p>