Basketball is different that all other sports. The players can go to the NBA or other pro leagues, so basketball programs get the ‘one and done’ reputation. Uconn and Kentucky aren’t taking the same academic quality students as Yale. Most of the schools like UConn and Kentucky have to make up the graduation statistics for basketball in other sports where the student stay 4 years and graduate.
Then there is Duke. Good academics and good graduation rate. And good basketball.
No one’s suggested that UChicago isn’t “a global academic powerhouse…with a research reputation around the world that compares to Oxford”. I’d argue, though, that Yale’s “190-year head start” (or, for that matter, Harvard’s “260-year head start”) aren’t particularly relevant comparisons, because there weren’t any major American research universities until the latter half of the 19th century, when UChicago (and Stanford, and Cornell) were founded, and older universities such as Yale and Harvard began to evolve into what they are today. Yale and Harvard were founded to educate ministers, and did so for much of their early history. In the 19th century, they de-emphasized religion and added professional schools, eventually becoming much more research-focused and international.
That said, most of the other top-tier American research universities have incorporated sports as a feature of their undergraduate experiences and cultural identities in a way that UChicago consciously turned away from 80 years ago. That has benefits and drawbacks, which reasonable people can debate. I think, though, that if the Ivy League schools abolished sports and replaced the ~15% of their classes that are recruited athletes with candidates mirroring the rest of the class, I’m not at all sure those schools would have the resources to do as much research as they currently do. But we’ll never know.
On recruiting threads when it’s suggested athletes have a lower academic standard to meet at top schools, parents have described their kids’ academic and other strengths and how they were fine candidates even without the sports. That’s legit.
But that’s not the issue. It’s the kids who do get in with weaker records, evidence of other issues that don’t conform to what an Ivy or othr tippy top expects among the rest of the candidates. The AI doesn’t weed out those who will struggle through, academically or other. I’ve seen kids whose futures could be better impacted by going to the right match, instead pulled through by the coach’s wants. That’s where it disconnects, for me.
I don’t think we’ll see tippy tops cut out the money producing sports, in the next decades. The sports machine at those is too strong. Not just aspects directly related to the sports (facilities, personnel, travel, and the rest,) but the divisions within Development, the number of staff reporting on sports, producing daily or weekly updates in multiple forms, the number of staff devoted to the money-bringing tasks. It’s embedded.
I’ve really enjoyed reading this thread. In the past, I have tried to initiate discussion pertaining to this topic but those threads (i.e. Third Rail of College Admissions) never really gained any traction. My sentiments are that athletic recruitment at highly selective colleges is a thing and will likely remain so. Athletic recruitment at these colleges most certainly serve an institutional function. But very few institutional players have any interest in casting a critical eye at athletic recruitment and the fairness of awarding such privilege to recruited athletes over other applicants. As @Hanna said in an earlier post, nobody wants to kick the beehive.
Don’t you think there is a big disconnect between a school being an “academic powerhouse” and supporting sports like football (and potentially soccer), where the damaging aspects to the brain have become widely recognized?
Or legacy…or internationals…or developmental cases…instead URMs are the favored target. I am not saying that any group as a whole is, or isn’t academically qualified. Admits are individuals and perhaps it would be best to stop categorizing an individual’s credentials based on a grouping they are associated with. Just like most athletes are probably academically qualified, perhaps we can start giving URMs the same acknowledgement, rather than stigmatizing an entire race on campus.
I would love to see the recruited athletes backed out of the AA statistics to see how much of an impact that has.
Yale alum here re importance of athletics in the Ivy League. Personally I am not into sports and have real reservations about football injuries, but winning championships (or even being a contender), regardless of the sport, gets a lot of interest in alumni communications and in the Yale Daily News. Yale really works hard at creating camaraderie and engagement across the college and in smaller interest groups. Sports is a significant part of this effort and helps create the “vibe” and sense of belonging in the place. Quite simply, sports help foster the kind of community Yale (administration, students, alumni) wants to see. And if Yale can create the kind of community it wants while still maintaining its extraordinary academic aspects, why not?
@gwnorth the disconnect of the academic mind and the health of the brain is an interesting and important issue, and is one that should be considered at all colleges, not just at Harvard.
Harvard has done significant research on NFL players:
http://neuro.hms.harvard.edu/harvard-mahoney-neuroscience-institute/brain-newsletter/and-brain-series/football-and-brain
https://footballplayershealth.harvard.edu
I doubt this research will impact Harvard’s football program and recruitment in any significant way. Certainly concussion protocols may change, and perhaps there will come changes in safety equipment. But ultimately Harvard’s position is currently ‘do as we say, not as we do’.
“winning championships (or even being a contender), regardless of the sport, gets a lot of interest in alumni communications and in the Yale Daily News”
The question is, is this truer for the golf or sailing team than it is for, say, the Whiffenpoofs? Or for the leaders of the YDN itself? I doubt it. So it doesn’t explain why university employees should be scouring the country for sailors and not for basses.
I don’t know whether it is “truer” for the Whiffenpoofs than for the “minor” sports. That is beside the point, really. My point is that these sports help create (not the only way, of course) the diversity of interest groups that creates a fascinating vibrant community. And if you don’t give up anything in the way of overall academic chops, why not encourage athletes who can make the grade to be part of this community?
Because those who are not athletes will argue against any athlete getting any advantage, those who are not URMs…
“The question is, is this truer for the golf or sailing team than it is for, say, the Whiffenpoofs?”
When I was at a local Harvard club two months ago I heard two Harvard College alums in their late fifties talk incessantly about their golf game, and I bet their sailing ventures wouldn’t be far from their mind either. I can see how a golf championship would generate some interest among certain alums.
But I agree with you @Hanna that it is odd that Harvard values athleticism at the expense of other seemingly more important talents. My own theory is that recruited athletes provide two things AOs probably want: one is to achieve the current demographic makeup—the RA are overwhelmingly white and affluent (a common misconception is that there is a lot of overlap between RA and AA admits, my guess is not much at Harvard) and the other is to give the student body a more athletic appearance. It is obvious to see this when kids take a group photo and you walk around the campus. Now, I can almost hear your snickering at this silly suggestion of AO’s care about how student body would appear. But if there is any truth that athletes are typically better looking (not just at Harvard of course), and many of them would go on to wall street and other careers where their appearance, social skills and stamina can serve them well (think Winklevoss brothers), the RAs may well become equally accomplished alums despite their not so stellar academics and lack of other talents.
Unless you’re talking about academic ability, why are those other skills “seemingly more important”?
It is not easy to become and stay a high level athlete. It’s very time consuming, competitive, tiring and requires a lot of dedication and focus. Athletes learn to manage setbacks, and most learn the importance of team. Perhaps a little hackneyed, but these all seem like terribly relevant qualities and experiences to me … though I’m a little biased.
The issue, at least in this thread, is not the benefits of having athletes on campus, it’s are Asians being systematically discriminated against in achieving the class Harvard wants.
“Because those who are not athletes will argue against any athlete getting any advantage,”
Some days, seems every other poster is railing against any person/group they “think” has an advantage, real or not.
Meanwhile, the time could be better spent on their own records, applications and the quality of thinking they show. They could make their own apps more viable. And/or developing an understanding of how much competition and a realistic sense of chances. Not this float between dreams/prestige and then outrage.
I don’t think this is about appearance. Most people like others they think can work hard on goals, function well in a team, sometimes win, but be resilient…and nice. In lots of pursuits, they don’t hear about the results as obviously as a weekend win in the big sport.
I don’t know. I get the FB feeds from my school and both my kids’ schools, and they are more often about a science success or study abroad win than a sports win. There are sports, of course, but balanced with the other things. I get the glossy magazine from my daughter’s school and there are the normal stories about alums having babies and new jobs, but more stories about marine biology work or jet cars, about Buzz Aldrin or the women astronauts who are alums. There is never more than a page dedicated to sports.
So one in five kids who the coaches want end up getting rejected. The coaches really need to think this through a bit better.
I don’t think it is either – but in an age when young people spend an ever-increasing amount of time absorbed with their smart phones, perhaps physical health and engagement in regular and prolonged physical activity with others is not a bad quality to have on campus. The athletes may or may not be physically attractive, but pretty much by definition, they are physically active.
The Whiffenpoofs are certainly great ambassadors for Yale, but, unlike the golf and sailing teams, Yale doesn’t have to make any effort to recruit for them. Yale has very strong theater and music offerings and attracts a lot of singers.
More to the point, the Whiffenpoofs aren’t competing against groups from other schools, so, in contrast to the golf and sailing teams, no one’s keeping score of exactly how good they are (even if the average person had a good enough ear to tell). It’s just 14 talented singers in white tie to most people, and the alums love them no matter who’s up there.
I’d make a similar point about the YDN; plenty of talented high school journalists make it to Yale without dedicated recruiting (because their profiles make them good matches for the school), and very few people are comparing the YDN to the Harvard Crimson (although personally I think the Crimson’s a better paper).
I think, though, that the golfers and sailors probably are less of an issue, because there’s a good chance they’re strong enough academically to have been reasonable contenders for admission, the dedication to the sports speaks to character, and they might have other favored attributes (e.g., they may be connected, wealthy legacies). I also doubt Yale (or Harvard) bends over backwards to recruit them, or allocates many spots to their teams.
Where the academic standards are relaxed and the recruiting is strongest is mostly in the big-time sports (e.g., football, basketball and ice hockey). This is what I think @lookingforward is focused on.