Sports recruitment... is it fair?

Parents Forum
61

<p>"They haven't contributed anything to the school. This is why most schools are looking for well rounded students. Do you know how many 4.0 unw gpa students with 2300+ SAT scores are REJECTED from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Standford, Cornell, Purdue, etc...."</p>

<p>Most of those 4.0 unweighted GPA students with 2300+ SAT scores who apply to HYPS et al ALSO participate in athletics, arts, community service, and various other ECs...and they are STILL rejected. Because HYPS have enough applicants who meet that description to fill their class several times over. (Should Purdue be on that list? :) ) </p>

<p>As it happens, I know 4 or 5 kids with those stats quite well, and all but one of them is extremely well-rounded: multi-season varsity athletes, play instruments at All-State level, do other ECs, and contribute to their school and community in a variety of ways. (It's frightening how accomplished kids are these days.) All of them have applied to more than one Ivy, and their chances are slim at HYP because the competition is just so stiff. (I'm not complaining--I'm just stating a fact.) But we'll know for sure on Monday evening.</p>

<p>The other thing is that schools keep saying now that they are not looking for well-rounded individuals, but for individuals with extreme talent/involvement in one area who put together make up a well-rounded class. It seems that the well-rounded kid isn't favored in admissions these days.</p>

<p>Regarding your discussion of money, I believe I said that the notion that there's a pot of gold at the end of the recruitment rainbow had been thoroughly debunked here.</p>

<p>Lastly, I would also point out that the student who contributes intellectually to the classroom has contributed a lot to the school. More, in my opinion, than anyone else. But then, although the whole college experience is valuable, what happens in the intellectual realm at a school is what is most important to me. YMMV. I would certainly agree that a student who simply sits in silence in the classroom, taking notes, may not be much of a contributor.</p>

62

<p>"Now; finances aside; should recruited athletes get any type of entrance preference over a non athlete? The simple answer is yes! You don't have to like the answer, and many won't even agree, but it is the right answer. ... Again, there are exceptions. Research schools like MSU are one of the largest research schools in the country. They bring in a lot of grant money. Same with UCLA medical; Princeton, other ivy's, and a host of other schools."</p>

<p>Ok, the answer is yes, except when the answer is no. ;)</p>

<p>Different schools craft their classes for different reasons, and all the reasons are valid. We argue about crafting for athletics, diversity, gender, citizenship, etc., on and on...</p>

63

<p>How do you value publicity like this? Or the Davidson trip paid by the school?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503618.html?sub=AR%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032503618.html?sub=AR&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

64

<p>Consolation; so what seems to be the problem? You aren't saying anything that the rest of the supporters aren't saying. There's no disagreements here.</p>

<p>It seems that the only thing you are against is that the athletic department may be authorized; (Depending on the school); a certain number of slots for students that happen to also be athletes that have excelled. If that is your concern, then that is something we probably do disagree on. </p>

<p>yes, if the athletic department has a slot of 40 kids; and these 40 kids happen to be athletes; and these 40 kids have met the minimum requirements for the school; and they are allowed into the school; that there is a chance that there is an applicant that is equal to, or possibly slightly higher than this athlete academically who didn't get into the school. Yes I agree that is possible and probable. I just don't see the problem with it. </p>

<p>you say you know kids who have the grades, ec, athletics, etc.. to get into HYPS that didn't get in. Mainly because there are way more applications than available slots. That's true. Too many academics, too many athletics, too many musical, etc... Just because the athlete who WILL BE PLAYING the sport happens to have the edge in part of their EC areas compared to another student who didn't get selected to go to the school, isn't a negative for the school or the acceptance process.</p>

<p>I don't believe that academics is or should be the 1 and only determining factor in getting accepted to a school. Even if that was true, there would still be some academically equal students who didn't get accepted because there are less slots than applications. I don't want to see a school made up only of kids who locked themselves away and only studied and did homework their entire lives. I want students who have the grades, but also are involved in music, art, volunteer time, leadership, athletics, etc.... But the specialized departments such as music, athletics, art, etc... shouldn't be penalized to only be able to recruit from the student body who did these other activities as an "EC" or at the "Intramural/Hobby" level. There are going to be some that excelled in athletics, music, art, math, etc... These students should be allowed to continue to excel in their specialty. Assuming of course that they met the minimum standards for entrance into the school. This gives you a high caliber orchestra, band, sports team, cheer leading squad, mathematician, etc... Instead of clubs, sports, teams, etc... made up of hobbiests and those at the intramural/fun level.</p>

<p>While some equated this to affirmative action, I don't. I do equate it to diversity. I don't mind saying; but do you have any idea how many colleges have sent letters of interest to my son and daughter JUST BECAUSE they are from Wyoming. They have the 4.0gpa; they have the sports; they have the very high ACT/SAT scores; they have all the EC activities and such that just about every other applicant has. BUT, because they are from Wyoming, they are sought after. WHY??? For the same reason they go after women, blacks, asians, musicians, athletes, low income, etc....Diversity. There is a term known as "UR" "Under Represented". There are a lot of different representations that this can cover. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc... want students of ALL backgrounds, economics, races, geographic locations, etc... A kid with a 4.0 gpa/unweighted, in the IB program, does volunteer work, leadership roles, varsity sports, music, etc... from Wyoming has almost a guarantee to many of the Ivy schools. Put their income to below $50,000 and it's almost guaranteed. Throw in possibly race and some other attributes and it is guaranteed. </p>

<p>So, unless you want to take all activities; music, art, leadership, sports, etc..,; and also remove all other forms of diversity such as home town/state, income level, race, etc...; and make the school 100% on the top level of the academics and application; then there's no way to get around some of these other attributes looked at. Including athletics. It can't be changed. If if you could do it your way, who's going to decide WHICH EC is weighted more than another. Then you have to field the college activities like the orchestra and athletics with not AS talented individuals.</p>

65

<p>So let's look at this another way. You have said this kid may get in because he an athlete and this other kid didn't get in even though he has higher stats.</p>

<p>Ever seen the application process for a Federal Service Academy?</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
It seems to me that the OP has a clear philosophical stance. He thinks that colleges and universities ought to be dedicated to learning, and that they should not be serving as a farm team system for certain professional sports. Further, he thinks that the schools ought to field teams of individuals who are normal academic acceptees, not teams of kids recruited for their sports prowess. (I was recently blown away to learn that many top schools don't allow walk-ons or have any kind of try-outs in some sports. So much for encouraging the scholar athlete concept...) And he presents evidence that suggests that people would be interested in sporting events anyway.</p>

<p>Whether or not you agree, that doesn't seem like a wild-eyed position to me.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Finally someone else understands the point that I was making ;-). </p>

<p>I realize that most of this is a purely philosophical discussion at this stage but that's not to say that it isn't relevant or important as the issue is often raised as a criticism of the American higher education system. </p>

<p>I certainly agree with all the comments that have been made as to why sports and athletes are important and why it's an impressive thing on a CV. However, the fundamental problem with these arguments for defending the lowering of overall admissions standards for some athletes is that all the same arguments equally apply most other extracurricular activities too yet those activities don't get special treatment. </p>

<p>I'm sorry but these posts along the lines of 'well my kid athlete worked really hard and got up at 5:30 am so he should get a break if the rest of his application isn't so strong' are complete utter nonsense. Long hours, getting up early, working hard, having little time for homework... these things can apply to any activity that a student dedicates themselves to so that's not an argument for why sports recruits should be allowed to slide through via a separate admissions process. Everyone should go through the same process. </p>

<p>Some of the other arguments equally fail to hold much water...</p>

<p>If a sports team does good one year then applications increase the following year
Well... if these people are only applying to a school simply because the football/basketball team did well in a game the previous year then these 'bandwagon' applicants are unlikely to be applying for the right reasons (e.g. because there is a particular academic program that suites their goals and needs). Just because one likes watching a sports team on TV doesn't mean they'll make meaningful contributions to the university or that the university will make meaningful contributions to their education and development. </p>

<p>We need to lower the admissions standards because otherwise we won't recruit decent athletes
Total nonsense. There are plenty of excellent athletes out there that are perfectly capable of being admitted on their own merits like everyone else without the need for special exceptions and treatment. </p>

<p>If we don't allow a special admissions process for some athletes to be sure they can get in (when they otherwise wouldn't) then the sports teams won't be very good and nobody will watch or pay attention to college sports.
I don't think there's any evidence at all for this argument and in fact I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. For one, the previous Oxbridge examples where those schools specifically forbid any such special admissions fast-tracks for athletes yet manage to have a very intense sporting culture including popular televised sporting events. </p>

<p>Sports should get a special exemption because they're popular and bring a lot of attention and PR to the school... The alumni like the sports and won't watch them or pay attention and donate money if we don't allow the specific admission of students purely for their athletic ability... and Sports are an important part of the college 'community' and so we need to have special exemptions to ensure that the schools can recruit good players for the teams and build the community
Again, see the above argument... you don't need to make such special exemptions to have popular sports teams or a strong sporting culture within the school. Also, many schools with massive endowments and large alumni donations have relatively low profile athletic teams (e.g. you never see them on TV). </p>

<p>Sports bring a lot of money to the schools so they should get a special exemption
Most of this money simply pays for the sports programs. Far far more money for the University is brought into the schools by its academic research departments via grants and commercial funding arrangements. The overheads (cuts of the grants taken by the university to fund general operations) help fund other less financially lucrative departments. On this point the science and engineering departments will generally bring in a lot more funds than the humanities departments... do the science departments get special consideration and allow the selective lowering of standards over others when it comes to admissions? No... so the argument doesn't hold up for sports either. </p>

<p>I realize some strongly disagree with my views, but I've yet to see any rigorous arguments as to why all athletes shouldn't be held to the same overall admissions standards via the same admissions process as everyone else.</p>

67

<p>
[quote]
I realize some strongly disagree with my views, but I've yet to see any rigorous arguments as to why all athletes shouldn't be held to the same overall admissions standards via the same admissions process as everyone else.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well then its obvious you have not been paying attention! Obviously, there is nothing anyone can say to make you understand it, and therefore I feel sorry for you because you will continue to be mired in frustration over a fact of life in America.</p>

68

<p>My argument would be why shouldn't all students be held to the same overall admission standards as athletes? Why shouldn't admissions be based on some athletic talent?</p>

<p>So I think your argument is flawed by assuming admissions is based on some talents but excludes others. I believe there are prestigious universities that feel athletic talent, like academic talent, and musical or artistic talent is valuable. They choose their admission standards to attract students that excel in all theses areas.</p>

69

<p>
[quote]
Well then its obvious you have not been paying attention! Obviously, there is nothing anyone can say to make you understand it, and therefore I feel sorry for you because you will continue to be mired in frustration over a fact of life in America.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well he seemingly debunked most of the major arguments brought forth so I'd say he certainly was paying attention. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So I think your argument is flawed by assuming admissions is based on some talents but excludes others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't observe that any such assumptions were made, in fact I think he made it clear that he strongly supports a well rounded view of admissions that looks at all aspects and talents on ones application including not just academics. His point was that he opposes the idea that a school has one set of standards for what 'well rounded application' means for someone they recruit to play on a team and another set of standards for a 'well rounded application' for everyone else. Everyone should go through the same admissions process. I fail to see why some people are so strongly oppose to that simple idea.</p>

70

<p>I'm going to turn this argument on its ear...</p>

<p>The OP has asked whether the lowering of admissions standards to allow for more competitive athletic teams is better or worse for a college.</p>

<p>In order to understand what is better or worse for a college, one must understand why societies have colleges in the first place and what is a college's mission.</p>

<p>I think we would all agree that colleges were created to develop and spread the skills necessary for the success of a society. When you look at the highest eductional instutitions going back in time, they were places that collected agricultural, mechanical, medical, and military knowledge and used it to train those who would be leaders and influential in a society in the skills deemed critical to the advancement of that culture.</p>

<p>These schools were full of the most talented in the fields, the great majority being specialists in one area or another. Nobody would confuse a military man with a physician in either thought process or physical prowess, nor would they compare them judging one more deserving of educational opportunity than another.</p>

<p>As time and passed, cultures evolved, and more resources have become available to higher education, the explosion of disciplines and the proportion of resources devoted to the various disciplines has changed as what is considered critical to the success of societies has evolved. We no longer spend most of our resources feeding, sheltering, and defending oursevles from other civilizations, so we can devote more resources to aesthetic (cultural) studies from arts and music to gender and ethnic studies. Our basic instincts to develop physical skills to protect ourselves which started military science schools have evolved into sports programs and athletic training, where those physical and leadership skills are honed in socially more peaceful competitive endeavors that the society identifies with.</p>

<p>Higher education has never been about a single skill (intellectual, artistic, athletic) set being developed at the expense of others. And it remains that way today. We have a balance of skills being developed at colleges and even cross pollenated to a certain extent as a society of skill silos (technicians here, writers someplace else, and athletes over there) would not yield a cohesive society. So it makes perfect sense to integrate these populations as you develop their skills, avoiding that separation that only reinforces itself throughout life.</p>

<p>So how do you select a balanced set of skills to develop that cohesive society? </p>

<p>First you don't use the measurement of one skill (SAT, GPA) to measure another skill (artistic or athletic skill). Nor would you use a 40 yard dash to admit people to your engineering school.</p>

<p>So the idea that we are lowering our standards to admit athletes, presumes that an academic population is what we are trying to develop. That is only part of the skill set we (as a society) have deemed important to develop. We also seem to desire a highly physically competitive set of individuals as well as an artistic set to complement these academics.</p>

<p>And while some don't see the value of the others (the "unfair" athletic advantage is typical of this thought pattern), the purpose of a university is partially to get these divergent groups together to socially unify these populations, building a stronger society, the ultimate goal of higher education.</p>

<p>Getting off my soap box...</p>

71

<p>If OP is unwilling to accept the explanation for the sports admissions process phenomenon from us CCers (he did ask us, after all), perhaps he ought to take his question to the source: Just about every institution of "higher learning" from Harvard all the way down to my local community college, engages in the same practice. If they are operating on "flawed arguments," then perhaps OP (and yuiop) ought to enlighten them.</p>

72

<p>goaliedad you're comments are certainly interesting but I don't see how they work to defend the issue of lowered admissions standards. </p>

<p>Professional sports teams exist in our society to provide an outlet for sporting prowess and provide an environment for those that wish to pursue this as their career (and for everyone else to watch). The NFL is the 'university' of football. However sports within a university is an extracurricular activity (they don't give degrees in football) and not the primary reason someone is there. </p>

<p>
[quote]
We have a balance of skills being developed at colleges and even cross pollenated to a certain extent as a society of skill silos (technicians here, writers someplace else, and athletes over there) would not yield a cohesive society. So it makes perfect sense to integrate these populations as you develop their skills, avoiding that separation that only reinforces itself throughout life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, if the university had degrees in football (or other sports) then this idea of bringing together those that are pursing excellence in different fields would make sense. But the primary purpose for someone attending a university is to purse an academic course of study. Ideally that course of study is further enriched by further extracurricular purists and sports is just one of many different options in that department.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
Just about every institution of "higher learning" from Harvard all the way down to my local community college, engages in the same practice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, this is essentially an American practice and outside the US is almost unheard of. Believe it or not there are actually institutions of higher learning (and some damn good ones at that) outside the US, although I know that's often hard for us Americans to remember! ;-)</p>

74

<p>^^^ Good! Then go apply to them and you won't have to worry about the heathen athletes here in the US!</p>

75

<p>"I think we would all agree that colleges were created to develop and spread the skills necessary for the success of a society. "</p>

<p>Not really. The medieval university concentrated on theology, philosophy and the like. Yale and Harvard were founded as training institutions for ministers.</p>

<p>"When you look at the highest eductional instutitions going back in time, they were places that collected agricultural, mechanical, medical, and military knowledge and used it to train those who would be leaders and influential in a society in the skills deemed critical to the advancement of that culture."</p>

<p>I don't think so. Agriculture was not taught at Oxford and Cambridge or at the University of Paris. Neither was mechanical and military knowledge. Medicine, yes, to some degree. History, languages, science, philosophy, yes. </p>

<p>You seem to be thinking of the American land grant school as a model, not the university in history.</p>

76

<p>I keep seeing people talk about "Lowering the standard" for athletes. Why does this keep getting brought up. The truth is; the vast majority of the time, the standards aren't being lowered. I even mentioned in an earlier post how one of the students in my town's high school was considered one of the best athletes in his sport in the ENTIRE COUNTRY. He was recruited by just about every college in the country. Even though he chose a particular college, very high profile and well known school nationally, he had to work extra hard retaking SAT/ACT and getting his gpa to meet the school's standards.</p>

<p>So no; I don't think the majority of schools are "lowering" their standards for athletes. What I do believe is happening is that a school can only allow so many students a year to attend their school. There are only so many resources; e.g. dorms, classrooms, teachers, etc... Colleges regularly set a certain number of students that can be admitted to the school. If any state funding is used for the school, then the school has a certain number of state residents they will allow. Certain departments like the athletic department are also allowed a certain amount of students. The students they recruit still meet the standards for the school. The standards aren't lower.</p>

<p>I think the problem is as the schools get smaller and more difficult to get into; e.g. ivy league, private schools, etc... there are less available slots for the upcoming year. Some students are upset that because certain applicants; e.g. recruited athletes; have a separate set of slots. They, the non athlete, doesn't get to compete for those slots. Therefor, they could have been the very first rejected student. but their score could have been higher than an athlete that do get in. The point is however, the athlete didn't need a LOWER standard. They met the school's standard. It's just that the standard was lower than most who applied. </p>

<p>This is not abnormal. The question was asked if anyone has experience dealing with a military service academy. Well, I actually have first hand experience with that. The MINIMUM standards they set for the military academies is pretty rigorous. The minimum requirements and the actual average scores and such for those who get accepted are usually very different. If you MET the minimum standards, you might have a difficult time getting accepted unless you were an exceptional standout in another area. Maybe sports; maybe music; maybe you aced the SAT/ACT; etc... Approximately 10,000 people will start applying to each of the Air Force, Navy, and Army academies. When the dust settles, about 1300 will actually be accepted to each. That ranks as one of the most sought after and most difficult colleges to get into. Now, the military academies are a little unique because it's going to lead to becoming a military officer and physical fitness is extremely important. As such, most if not all of the applicants, also played high school varsity sports. But the percentage of "Recruited Athletes" is not much different than any other school. Those recruited athletes MUST meet all the minimum requirements of the academy. Does this mean that there will probably be an applicant who was #1301 who had higher gpa or sat/act than an athlete that did make the cut? Yes, most definitely. But as with all schools, your application is weighted. Your test scores aren't everything. One thing about the military academies is that you can see every percentage and every point total for the entire application. GPA, Class Ranking, SAT/ACT, recommendations, physical fitness test, nominations, leadership, extra curriculum, volunteer time, essays, sports, etc.... You get rated for each individual part of the application. Because of discussions like this, where there is obviously a lot of envy, jealousy, dissent, animosity, or any other non positive feeling; I was very excited that my son was accepted to the majority of his choice during early admissions. This allowed the acceptance to be completed before athletics became an issue. He can honestly sit back and say he got accepted based totally on academics, test scores, ec, etc... Not that there is anything wrong with being a recruited athlete; just that being selected initially from the "General Pool" doesn't allow anyone to have those negative feelings.</p>

<p>But whether it is a service academy, Yale, Harvard, UCLA, or UT Austin, each school has their application process. Different schools have different "Slot Counts". Did you know that most schools ask you what you want to major in for a reason. There are some schools that have a really low population majoring say; "Engineering". If you want to major in engineering, you are almost guaranteed to get accepted. Even if your scores are lower than someone who didn't get accepted. The individual departments and colleges in a university sometimes get slots; same with athletics, music, art, etc.... Sometimes it's to keep a school balanced. Sometimes it's to maintain diversity. Sometimes it's to keep a department open for all the students. I.e. There's a lot of students that might take a particular class like arch or an engineering class but not be majoring in engineering. If there isn't an engineering department, it would be difficult to keep these classes available for the rest of the student body.</p>

<p>The point is; the overwhelming majority of athletes have met the school's standards. They weren't lowered for the athlete. Just as with many other departments in the school, many are given slots for the upcoming freshman class. If you didn't get accepted to the school and you met the minimum standards, then it's because whatever area you fell into, there were more people ahead of you for the available slots.</p>

77

<p>goaliedad that's not really a historically accurate assessment of universities or their role in society. Until quite recently in history universities certainly didn't exist for the greater good of society and were, by most measures, largely inward looking institutions focused purely on intellectual pursuits. They were largely isolated from the 'real world.' There was little to no emphasis on practical skills and "military knowledge and used it to train those who would be leaders and influential in a society in the skills deemed critical to the advancement of that culture".</p>

78

<p>yuiop,</p>

<p>You fall into the category of people who don't understand why athletic "excellence" is important to a society and how sports fills that niche today.</p>

<p>You said
[quote]
Professional sports teams exist in our society to provide an outlet for sporting prowess and provide an environment for those that wish to pursue this as their career (and for everyone else to watch). The NFL is the 'university' of football. However sports within a university is an extracurricular activity (they don't give degrees in football) and not the primary reason someone is there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll agree that there is no degree in football. Many recruited (the people being complained about here) athletes get degrees related to their athletic interest (anything from physical therapy, to psychology (it is a major part of athletics), to coaching). This educational experience allows them to better themselves in their sport, much like any other degree will help the student in their specialization in life.</p>

<p>And while YOU may view football as an extracurricular, it is every bit as valid in developing necessary skills (I'll get to necessary skills later) as the debate team (proving grounds for many lawyers). And while you may not get academic credit for either, they are both essential to the development of these students in their field of endeavor.</p>

<p>And of course, you ASSUME that football players are at college to play football, I will just take it as your prejudice about the thought patterns of a certain set of students, not based on fact. I've never seen a study showing this to be true. While some young kids see college ball as a ticket to playing on Sundays, the vast majority realize that they won't even be asked to come to camp to tryout in the NFL. They are there to develop that skill and other skills of interest to them that will make them productive members of society.</p>

<p>Some other problems with your argument...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, if the university had degrees in football (or other sports) then this idea of bringing together those that are pursing excellence in different fields would make sense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll pick on military science. It is often the major of those who intend a career in the armed forces (although not exclusivley). Military Science is about far more than just physical fighting skills which are often the skill/interest of people who enlist in the service and seek a degree to further this career. We have ROTC scholarships for those who bring the physical traits necessary to defend our country and offer them degrees of interest like Military Science, but don't offer a degree in marksmanship or hand-to-hand combat.</p>

<p>And yes, there are non-academic (i.e. physical) requirements if you want to enlist in a ROTC program. Heaven forbid that they make some academics pass them.</p>

<p>And these skills are unfortunately necessary in the world we live in for our society to prepetuate itself.</p>

<p>We as a tribe celebrate physical athletic prowess, as it satisfies a need for physical security in a world perceived to be dangerous. And while athletics is not exactly defending the society, it is recognized that the physical and psychological skill sets developed in sports do contribute to the sense of physical ability to defend that is that necessary component of society.</p>

<p>Just be glad that you live in an age where physical prowess is not as needed as it use to be and that there isn't an athletic measurement required for admittance to college.</p>

<p>Oh, and BTW the NCAA does NOT allow for a LOWER academic standard for admission for athletes. DUH! If there is a GPA or Standardized Test requirement for a school, all athletes must pass it. In addition, the NCAA's GPA/Test Score scale for D1 athletes is tougher than many universities admissions requirements.</p>

<p>And if you think schools outside of the US are better because they don't "lower" the standards for athletes (which they don't), please feel free to enroll there. There seems to be too many applicants in this country for the slots open anyway.</p>

79

<p>Look, let's put it this way: I had to choose between Princeton (a pretty academic university, but recruits athletes and all that) and Caltech, probably the most academically-focused school in America. Let me tell you, the fact that Caltech is so singlemindedly focused on academics at the expense of other things was not a positive for me. I cannot imagine it being a positive for any school, frankly. And I think very few people would argue that it is - except those few people who are so much occupied with academics that they do not realize how key a role other pursuits play in university life.</p>

80

<p>rocketman and christcorp,</p>

<p>When I referred to early "higher education" - note I didn't say university education - I was referring to the highest education available to ancient societies - think Rome, Ancient Greece, Babylon, Ancient Egypt. Yes, they did add philosophy and to a degree whatever religious beliefs there were of the day, but those were in the interest of unifiying a society around a certain cultural thought, more than as a study for posterity.</p>

<p>And in those ancient times, the priorities were feeding, sheltering, and defending your people, so that is what they taught - the best accumulated knowledge of their times.</p>

<p>Later on, as wealth beyond that necessary for basic survival was achieved, the wealthy of a society could devote resources to more broad thinking, such as divinity schools and the like.</p>

<p>And even many of the great public universities of today were founded as land-grant institutions, serving the more immediate needs of the local populations such as agriculture, medicine, engineering, commerce, and military. Many evolved into today's research institutions, as the populations served became wealthier and could afford the investment.</p>

<p>My point is that higher education institutions are created to serve the needs of the society it serves and develop excellence in those needed skills. Physical development is still one of those needs. Sports programs are just a part of that physical development need. And while playing football may seem an arbitrary way of developing educated, physically skilled people necessary for certain functions, much can be said about many arbitrary persuits of colleges. How many people use spelling, geography, or other academic competitions as a method to get admissions/FA to schools. Being a walking dictionary or mapbook is not exactly a degree you pursue in college.</p>

<p>You academics need to broaden your thinking here!</p>