Turning the heat up on Rutgers

Parents Forum
1

<p>There have been a few stories lately that are trying to get Rutgers to reverse their decision to eliminate six varsity sports. I guess hearings have been held. The other day I read about several state legislators questioning the decision. Today there is an editorial/story that details the grades and stats of excellent students that are not considering Rutgers because their sport has been eliminated. At the end of the article the author cites the stats of Rutgers' prime football recruit. This was perhaps the top football recruit in the country and it was a major coup for Rutgers when he signed. </p>

<p>First these examples of kids who are no longer considering Rutgers:</p>

<p>3.6 grade point average, member National Honor Society, team cap tain. Wants to be a veterinarian. Now looking at Cornell, Loyola, Princeton and Tufts.</p>

<p>3.4 GPA, wants to study business and finance. Now looking at Boston College, Notre Dame and Villanova.</p>

<p>Marty Williams, a junior from Plainfield, who may be the best fencer to come out of New Jersey in years. Nationally and internationally ranked.
"I was really looking at Rutgers, but that looks like it's out," said Marty...</p>

<p>...Eagle Scout with a GPA of 4.2 in Advanced Placement Courses interested in studying biology and genetics, has crossed Rutgers off his list.</p>

<p>...a three-time junior Olympian, who has a 4.0 GPA, is a National Latin Merit Finalist, a National Honor Society member and close to earning the Girl Scout "Gold Award," is now looking at NYU, Columbia, Harvard and Stanford.</p>

<p>From the end of the article:</p>

<p>
[quote]
This week, Rutgers trumpeted "the signing" of a top high school player who admits he doesn't like school and scored 890 on his SATs, more than 200 points below the university average.</p>

<p>This is not written to embarrass the young man. It's written to embarrass the university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The entire article here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/117108588889330.xml&coll=1&thispage=3%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/117108588889330.xml&coll=1&thispage=3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>interesting, the Star Ledger misspells the word "embarrass" !!! ("embarass" on their website!)</p>

2

<p>Is Rutgers eliminating fencing? How stupid. NJ has probably the best HS fencing programs in the country, and fencing is certainly not a high cost sport. What's the name of the book recently written ; 'Why Smart People Do Stupid Things'</p>

3

<p>yup. Rutgers is embarrassing itself. Win a few football games, and it goes to your head. Football, even with the recent success, costs far more than it brings in, and is now causing the elimination of some of the finest Olympic- sport programs in the country, which together cost a fraction of what football costs. It's really a shame.</p>

4

<p>Haven't read this story yet, but this past week I read (also in Star Ledger) that the state legislature is calling the decision to eliminate these sports "unfortunate" or "a mistake", or words to that effect. They also stated that they would be taking this decision into account when budget time rolls around this year. Not too subtle.</p>

<p>There have also been numerous opinion pieces written in support of the teams in the college paper, the Daily Targum. Seem to be becomming more frequent and heated as time goes on.</p>

<p>I have the feeling that Dr. McCormick and the athletic director, Mulchacy, are getting the message. I predict that the elimination of these teams will not stand.</p>

5

<p>890 on the SAT - heck - virtually every school in the top 25 at the Division 1 level takes players with less than that - 820 is the minimum - but of course JC transfers don' t need those. Read a great website called the Rutgers 1000 (the professor received death threats when it was active) describing just where Rutgers priorities happen to be. Sure, Rutgers competes (at least this year) with fourth tier schools - i.e., athletic teams with a school attached - such as Louisville and South Florida and West Virginia. So to keep competing heck, they won't be choosy if the kid can play. Have to wonder, though, if they continue to lie with the dogs whether the fleas won't invariably attach.</p>

6

<p>I do not wish to comment on the main topic of this thread. I only wish to strongly condemn the characterization of schools scuh as the University of Louisville, South Florida and the University of West Virginia as "athletic teams with a school attached." All are large public universities where only a very small percentage of the student body is involved in intercollegiate sports; one is the flagship university of its state. Admittedly, these schools serve a population that is less advantaged than that which typically attends Rutgers, New Brunswick, but that is no reason to arrogantly denegrate the useful social function that they perform.</p>

<p>In short, mam1959 should be ashamed of himself.</p>

7

<p>briansteffy, You know what I didn't. According to the article:

[quote]
At the high school level, New Jersey is to fencing what Iowa is to wrestling, Florida to baseball, Texas or Ohio to football. The best. Jersey kids sprinkle rosters around the country,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>mam1959, One of the better know members of the Rutgers1000 was Dr Milton Friedman (the Nobel prize winning economist and Rutgers alumni). He argued for many years that Rutgers should not be in Division I football.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
I only wish to strongly condemn the characterization of schools scuh as the University of Louisville, South Florida and the University of West Virginia as "athletic teams with a school attached."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My only objection is that that the comment wasn't extended to include a lot more schools.</p>

9

<p>To return the focus of this thread back to Rutgers's stupid decision to eliminate "minor Olympic sports":</p>

<p>Even if the decision is reversed, it will cost the university at least one year of students, because the class of 2007 will almost certainly neither benefit from the reverssal nor believe in its permanent status. NJ often complains about its brain drain. The loss of a relative handful of gifted student athletes is just the tip of the iceberg. Rutgers has long failed to market itself in-state as a viable alternative to prestigious private colleges and universities. The decision to elminate men's tennis, crew, and fencing, stereptypically though perhaps accurately thought of as sports for good students of relative affluence, seems to reflect the university's overall attitude.</p>

10

<p>Interesteddad:</p>

<p>Yes, they like their sports at Louisville, South Florida and West Virginia, and yes, they are willing to admit students with lower academic credentials in the interest of fielding highly competitive teams, particularly in high profile sports.</p>

<p>BUT: West Virginia and Louisville each have apporximately 20,000 undergraduates enrolled, and South Florida has 34,000. The vast majority of those students are not involved in intercollegiate sports except as spectators. The comments of you and mam1959 speak more to your provincialness and narrowmindedness than anything else.</p>

11

<p>As anyone who has read my comments on other thread knows, I am not an enemy of intercollegiate sports generally. But the actions of Rutgers have to be considered in context. The university faces great financial difficulties that are likely to continue for years to come. EVERYTHING is facing cuts; people are losing their jobs. Surely, athletic programs should not be exempted from the pain.</p>

<p>Now, one might argue that the university should be focusing instead on sports such as football and basketball. That would certainly be a plausible response. However, I would observe that the sports that are being cut add little to the atmosphere of the university, while the fact remains that lots of students enjoy watching big-time football and basketball.</p>

12

<p>EMM1, that actually isn't quite true. The presence of gifted student athletes reminds people that athletic prowess and academic prowess are not mutually exclusive (something that CC has an occasional tendency to overlook); that reminder of multiple talents in itself adds to the "atmosphere of the university." "Atmosphere" isn't just cheering in a football stadium six times a year or crowding into a packed arena on a snoy night to cheer your basketball team on (although I think those are valid experiences too). It is also about rowing on on a lake or river in a misty dawn or playing tennis on a crisp fall or mild spring afternoon while your friends cheer you on. Yes, there are schools whose basketball players are also serious students, and football players who make the league honor rolls. But the point about Rutgers is that it is The State University of New Jersey and it has made a decision to cut off options for a certain segment of its population of the diverse state it is mandated to serve.</p>

13

<p>According to the Star Ledger RU had a large increase in apps this year. Also studies HAVE shown a positive connection.</p>

<p><a href="http://rutgers.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=2330&tid=87741399&mid=87741399&sid=988&style=2%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://rutgers.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=2330&tid=87741399&mid=87741399&sid=988&style=2&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And
"Now, with two successful football seasons behind it, the university is beginning to see the impact on admissions. The university recently announced it had seen roughly 1,400 more applications, 3,600 more campus tours, and a 33 percent jump in visits to the admissions Web site. They're also receiving more requests to send representatives to out-of-state college fairs." </p>

<p>"Athletic success increases student applications to universities (Murphy and Trandel 1994, Zimbalist 1999). Theoretically at least, increased applications lead to more selective admissions and thus better students. Moreover, research by Lovaglia and Lucas (2005) suggested that high-visibility athletic programs increase the prestige of a public university's academic degrees. "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No3/lucas.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.thesportjournal.org/2005Journal/Vol8-No3/lucas.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

14

<p>Exactly, mattmom. And the price to keep these sports is a fraction of the increase of the football budget, which, even with the increased renown, still does not come close to supporting itself. So yeah, there are choices about who's gonna be exempted from pain, and apparently, with all the academic cuts already made for this year, it's everyone but football and basketball.</p>

15

<p>I think that we need to separate the arguments that have been made here. The first is that Rutgers "has made a decision to cut off options for a certain segment of its population of the diverse state it is mandated to serve." But in a world of limited and diminishing resources, somebody has to lose. I am not bothered by a decision to save $800,000 by cutting off support for varsity activities that a) involve only a very small portion of the student body and b) are generally populated by the more affluent part of the student body. (Note that all of these students can still attend Rutgers; they simply will not have their varsity activities subsidized)</p>

<p>So the real question is, what should be cut. I stand by the view that the sports that are being cut provide few benefits for the rest of the student body. Frankly, I don't think that, in general, the student body cares one way or another about swimming, crew and fencing. Moreover, notwithstanding the skill and dedication required to participate at a D1 level in these sports, I don't think that anyone is particularly surprised when the participants are also good students. It is a matter of socioeconomic class.</p>

<p>By the way, I can't resist. My S is close to one of those football players who is also an outstanding student. The boy attends--WEST VIRGINIA.</p>

16

<p>I do not want to be too tangential here but it is interesting to note that the fencers from St. Benedict's are not affluent at all. St. Benedict's is in Newark and a lot of the students, almost all of them minorities, will be depending on scholarships to attend college, as the column in the Star Ledger made clear. It's an interesting socioeconomic quirk that applies specifically to fencing in New Jersey. </p>

<p>I would also suggest that and the student body in general almost never cares about the "little" sports, which can be defined in various ways, but if it is your sport it matters a lot. Really, how many people come out to watch a cross-country meet at your average school? Or even women's basketball except perhaps at Duke and UNC? Soccer? Lacrosse? Hockey? It is not a matter of finding the broadest appeal but of a large state university serving the state that finances it, and of having respect for people whose talents and interests are not those of the largest numbers of spectators or followers. Certainly the sports can be run as club programs but that's not always feasible and not always fair to the participants if it requires them to lay out money they do not have because they are not stereotypically affluent.</p>

<p>I suspect you have to be a New Jersey taxpayer who has seen your own town and/or children benefit less and less from the taxces you pay to appreciate the effect the Rutgers decision has on people.</p>

17

<p>It is interesting to see how passionately people feel about this issue. At the time the decision to cut the sports was made (last July) Mulcahy (Athletic Director) warned McCormick that there probably would be a temporary backlash, lasting a few weeks, in response to the cuts. Boy, was he wrong!</p>

<p>My husband and I are debating this issue in our house. I have written letters to Dr. McCormick urging him not to go through with these cuts. It is my understanding that in the last few years money from other (minor?) sports has been diverted to Rutgers football. It is also my understanding that the athletic director has been looking to cut these sports for a while, and the budget crisis was the perfect excuse to act. Now that RU football is on the ascendency, it seems only fair to re-invest some of those funds into the endangered sports, IMHO. I think it only fair, it does attract top students, and does add to the richness of the university.</p>

<p>I don't think it has to be either fencing or football, however. I have never watched anybody fence, and before this past year have never watched an entire football game either. Since Sept., and because my son is enrolled at Rutgers, I actually have begun following college football. It is fantastic! Our whole family enjoyed this season immensely, and it lent a spark and an interest for my son, who didn't particularly want to attend his state university. So I would not agree with those who think that an emphasis on collegiate football makes for an anti-intellectual environment. My son is very interested in sports, and is a very good student.</p>

<p>My husband, who holds a Ph.D in philosophy, doesn't care about fencing, tennis, or crew. He thinks in light of the budget cuts sacrifices have to be made somewhere. He loved the football games, and would like to see money diverted to curriculum, to adding sections of classes. My son was shut out of a philosophy course he wanted to take.</p>

18

<p>I am sure the goal of the Athletic Dept is to become self-sustaining--and that is only possible with a successful football program. In a few years football should be turning a substantial profit--enough to fund all the current other sports and maybe a few more. Basketball needs to pull more weight too.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Rutgers has long failed to market itself in-state as a viable alternative to prestigious private colleges and universities.

[/quote]
Exactly, mattmom. I'm an alum -- both graduate & undergrad. When spending some time in Houston 20 years ago, I was surprised to see many people considered Rutgers to be an elite school. Back home, it was the choice of many who had circumstances that prevented them from going out of state -- in other words, not a choice, just where they went because of $$ issues. Much of that perception is unfair, I know. There are many fantastic programs sprinkled throughout the many campuses. But for some reason, there isn't the fierce loyalty for Rutgers among New Jerseyans as I've seen with so many other state Us.</p>

<p>Good point about the St. Benedict kids. It's a mostly black school. Strict discipline, long-standing tradition, tons of alumni support to provide needy kids a good education. I haven't followed SAT trends here, but assuming these kids are solid students, URMs, with great fencing skills, how fast will elite schools be snatching them up? Rutgers is foolish to let them go.</p>

20

<p>But for some reason, there isn't the fierce loyalty for Rutgers among New Jerseyans as I've seen with so many other state Us.</p>

<p>I know some posters on this board will disagree but I believe a strong sports program - especially football or basketball- inspires that fierce loyalty and spirit. Look at Duke, Wake Forest, UMich, UWis, Penn State, UT and more. Compare to universities that don't have this setup like SUNY campuses. It makes a difference. Students LOVE to root for their teams, and like it or not, it's a huge draw. So although this is a very painful stage for Rutgers (and I do not agree with cutting the small teams - my son is a tennis player!) - I think Rutgers as an institution will be on the upswing in the next few years due to the huge success of the football program. It would be nice to see students in NJ actually pick Rutgers instead of paying double to go to Penn State. I guess we'll see.</p>