Warning on Recruiting

<p>It isn't really just Ivy Leagues playing this game. My alma mater (UVa) has taken several "helmet" players in the past few years that needed remediation--a year's worth-- before they could start classes, all the while rejecting kids with 1400s and 1500s. When I was there it was unheard of for football players to leave early for the pros. This year they lost two recruited football players early. (for which they will be appropriately dinged on the new NCAA scale for athletic teams)</p>

<p>We have found that the Patriot League has less of a gap between scholarship athletes and the rest of the student body. In fact, at my son's school the scholarship athletes had a 100% graduation rate last year as opposed to the 92% for the class as a whole.</p>

<p>Why is it that people who object to an athelete with a low AI being admitted to an Ivy don't object when a fine arts or music major with a low AI is admitted? Why is being a great tuba player "better" in their eyes than being a great gymnast? Why is being able to draw more valueable than being able to hit a baseball? Certainly in the real world we know the gymnast and ballplayer are valued more highly. When was the last time you heard of a tuba player signing a multimillion dollar contract or saw great violinist's of the world playing cards collected and auctioned?</p>

<p>I agree that other "non-money" sports are also valued, but the favored status of men's football and basketball does exist-- there's more leeway in scores for these sports, & a higher # of coach-designated recruits. Women's crew coach probably has power to bring in 1-2 'coach selected' recruits; men's football would be more like 15-20 recruits. Women's crew might have an SAT "bar" of 1300; men's football might have three "bars": a few 1100's, some 1200's, some and the rest 1300+. </p>

<p>In fact, that these soccer & crew girls were all high-stats kids is right in line with reality... "non-money" sports are less forgiving for low stats athletes. The crew girls <em>have</em> to have good stats to counterbalance the hockey boys, so the aggregate for all athletes is not too low.</p>

<p>In my D's case her SATs are about 40 pts lower than the median of the school that recruited her. This is hardly a big differential; after all 50% of the school has scores lower than the median. Maybe she's counterbalancing a linebacker?</p>

<p>We do know an athlete recruited by USC who was really academically poor, to the point that we worry about this kid's ultimate survival in USC. We are told by the family that there is are enough gut classes & tutors to "get the kid through." We'll see. It distresses me that the kid will likely graduate without much of an education-- and is not world class (or would already be on pro track.) Seems like a pity for the kid.</p>

<p>While SATs of 1200 may be well below the median at an Ivy, 1200's do not indicate a kid who <em>cannot survive</em> academically.</p>

<p>Title IX? Not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm pretty sure Title IX doesn't allow for girls-held-to-a-higher-standard business. </p>

<p>Also, the quarterback had stellar grades and SATs, from a top private school--not a helmet that needed to be leveraged. </p>

<p>And, UCB, strapped state school, had a lot more than 2 recruits for women's rowing this year. <a href="http://calbears.collegesports.com/sports/w-crew/spec-rel/120704aac.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://calbears.collegesports.com/sports/w-crew/spec-rel/120704aac.html&lt;/a> Are you sure of your facts, SB?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Achieving equal opportunity for women in intercollegiate sports has not been an easy task. Some colleges have faced budgetary restraints and others simply have been reluctant to change the status quo. Given the fact that no federal Courts of Appeals have ruled against Title IX's athletic provisions, however, it is clear that the immediate challenge for our nation's higher education community is to find positive ways to comply with the law. </p>

<p>Here it is important to recognize that there is no mandate under Title IX that requires a college to eliminate men's teams to achieve compliance. The thought that "if women are to gain opportunities, then men must lose opportunities," presents a false dichotomy. As with other educational aspects of Title IX, and according to the expressed will of Congress, the regulation is intended to expand opportunities for both men and women.</p>

<p>Title IX: Student Participation in Athletics</p>

<p>In the assessment of the "interests and abilities" portion of the Title IX regulations, a three part test governs. As the name suggests, this test consists of three separate and distinct parts. All that is required under Title IX is that an institution be in compliance with one part of that test. No one part of the test is the predominant or "true" measure of compliance. The three parts of the test are:</p>

<p>Part One: Substantial Proportionality. This part of the test is satisfied when participation opportunities for men and women are "substantially proportionate" to their respective undergraduate enrollments.
Part Two: History and Continuing Practice. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution has a history and continuing practice of program expansion that is responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex (typically female).
Part Three: Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities. This part of the test is satisfied when an institution is meeting the interests and abilities of its female students even where there are disproportionately fewer females than males participating in sports.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Patuxent - Tuba players are not a problem. Studies show that musicians hold their own, if not outperform, the rest of the student body. Same with legacies. Even URMs are making progress. On the other hand, 81% of Ivy League recruited athletes are in the bottom 1/3 of their class in terms of GPA. Source: Revisiting 'The Game of Life': Athletics at Elite Colleges by William Bowen (former president of Princeton)</p>

<p>Points about the same exceptions being made at UVA, UCB, and others are valid. However, these schools do not make any sanctimonious claims in their recruiting policy like the Ivy League and second, their student body isn't 10% recruited athletes like the Ivy League.</p>

<p>Finally, it isn't just football. Elite athletes in non-revenue sports are getting into HYP with 1200 SATs and low 3.x GPAs.</p>

<p>tactics - I am talking about the stats tuba players are admitted with not the ones they graduate with. If you could major in football like you can major in playing the french horn then football players would be graduating at the top of the class too. lets disaggregate the numbers and see what any of the kids that have to audition or show a portfolio for admission bring to the table vis a vis the Engineering School kids.</p>

<p>cheers - don't even start on title 9. It has forced the dismantling of many mens sports and even put an effective cap on roster sizes of the sports remaining. Crew being a fine example. They have to give scholarship money and recruit girls to fill boats so that men on the other side of the boathouse can walkon and have an opportunity to row. I am glad that women have opportunities in sport but title 9 has been a disaster for non-revenue mens sports. The revenue sports football and basketball (and probably hockey and baseball) shouldn't count in the numbers.</p>

<p>cheers, </p>

<p>I am talking about elite schools (primarily D3 LACs) with 1200-5000 kids; I assume the Ivys differ somewhat, but not enormously. Of course UCB, D-1 with 10 times larger total population, will have room for bigger rosters and larger #s of athletic admits in all sports. And yes, at the Ivys, there will be some football players with high stats. Again, these are <em>general</em> truths that do not always hold in every specific instance. </p>

<p>In general, there are definitely more "auto admit" slots for coaches of the big $ team sports. I have seen several links about this, but unfortunately I do not have them to give you. (I think the thread I started about "Is Enthusiastic Coach call = likely letter" has a few of them.) Someone on that thread was citing Williams and giving the info on numbers of coach-designated admits & their minimum stats. I believe there is a NESCAC guideline governing this.</p>

<p>Your Title 9 question is excellent. I do not know if unequal admission standards and unequal number coach-discretionary admissions would be a violation of Title 9, but that is very intriguing...</p>

<p>patuxent - Title 9 - It has forced the dismantling of many mens sports and even put an effective cap on roster sizes of the sports remaing</p>

<p>You certainly make it sound as tho the male gender should not have to suffer at the expense of women's sports - talk about bias!!!!!!! I certainly hope that is NOT what you are insinuating!!! Since the BIG revenue sports seem to be elitely male - with the exception of maybe W/basketball - fair is fair - and if the men rowers aren't scholarship elidgeable - maybe they should change to football where they would be. The women don't have that choice to make!!!</p>

<p>JeepMOM - football and basketball players get scholarships because they generate money for the school and some of that money goes to pay for non-revenue sports like crew. I know about crew and I know about womens rowing because I was there when it started. I may well have rowed with the first woman in the country to letter in a "men's" sport and I certainly knew some of the first US womens rowers to row internationally. I am a strong supporter of women atheletics in general and womens rowing in particular but that doesn't blind me to the inequities that title 9 has created. It is a well intentioned but badly interpreted law. It was meant to create opportunities not limit them just as the civil rights acts were meant to create opportunities not limit them. However in the hands of leftwing judges and bureaucrats both laws have been misinterpreted and misused to promote a political agenda that has more to do with destruction than amelioration.</p>

<p>Amen, patuxent. I have three rowers - two boys and a girl. While I'm thrilled with the opportuntiies my daughter has, I don't think it should be at the expense of the boys. I was shocked to find how many colleges had to scrap their men's varsity rowing programs because of Title IX. I agree that the judges have misinterpreted the law. It was never meant to limit opportunities for boys.</p>

<p>Your political mumbojumbo is not the issue here - Women have EVERY right to be equal to men when it comes to sports and their abilities to participate just as men to - and your comment about women rowers in a ''mens'' sport pretty much proves that you are insinuating your bias. Yes - the income producing sports DO support the non-income producing sports - and should - but to say that programs are in-ruin because of the legal changes that effect mens sports - well times are a changin. When men and women share the grid-iron on the same playing field - equally - and for equal $$ in college athletic scholarships and benefits - Maybe I would think differently - but until there IS equal support/opportunities for both sexes - the scales remain unbalanced. Why should the opportunities favor only males it athletics - they shouldn't - but Title 9 has at least leveled the field a bit.</p>

<p>Oh and if you are offended by my reference to rowers - it is just an example - the issue here effects several college sports - swimmers, baseball/softball, etc......... This is not specifically directed to crew teams at all.</p>

<p>I guess my beef is when colleges have football teams that support over 100 players/males (and all the scholarship $$ involved) and a staff of maybe 10 coaches - with the head coach making a 6 figure salary + the salaries of all the other coaches - and put that against lets say a swim team with the coach making at least half that and maybe 1 assistant making bairly above minimum wage - I am sorry - but if the mens swim team has lost their scholarship allotment in order to provide scholarship support for a womens team - I am sorry but I don't feel as you do - women do deserve the same/similar opportunities - and yes - it has come at a cost in some places. But the way things were before title 9 offered no/very little support or recourse for women in sports in this country.</p>

<p>Title 9 was not meant to limit the opportunities in of itself - it was to level the field relating to the $$ and to provide opportunities for women that did not exist - and yes - i agree in some ways it did do the opposite - but there are only sooooo many $$'s to go around.</p>

<p>It certainly helped equal things at the high school level - which was a huge improvement and did benefit girls more than boys.</p>

<p>When womens sports bring in some revenue then they should get some scholarship money. Football is the goose that lays the golden egg and typically has 85 to 120 players 86 of whom (max) are on scholarship. If a school has fully funded those foorball scholarships then they have to provide 85 full scholarshipd for women in some sport - bowling, rowing, whatever, Additionally if the femal male split in the undergraduate programs is 55% female 45% male - not atypical these days, then 55% of all roster slots have to be filed by women. The net result of this interpretation of title IX has been that even when funding has not been an issue schools have still had to limit roster slots and drop sports or hand out womens scholarships in sports like rowing or bowling that NEVER has men's scholarships in order to fill enough womens roster slots where there isn't sufficient interest.</p>

<p>If you want to eliminate discrimination among the sexes I have a better suggestion. Lets let men try out for the womens team that doesn't have a mens counterpart. In return women can try out for football. Indeed we have already had women on mens teams including D1 football teams but I doubt we have ever allowed a man to try out for the womens lacrosse team.</p>

<p>BTW I didn't say rowing was a mens sport only or even imply that. I said that I may well have rowed with the first woman to earn a letter on a mens varsity atheletic team.</p>

<p>Again I am all for womens atheletics but it shouldn't come at the expense of opportunities for men. Wrestling, track, rowing, cross-country, swimming, rifle and other purely amateur mens teams have been sacrificed for some numbers driven mania of a few ideologues even when finances were not an issue.</p>

<p>patuxent -- I am a high school coxswain and it is awesome that you were there with the first rowing women. I totally agree with the statement about women's athletics coming at expense to men. We row out of the same dock as a major public university, and we see the women's boathouse all the time. They're a big D1 sport with a large boathouse, milenniums, all that. The men's team doesn't have a boathouse -- boats are stored in a backyard and they wetdock. It's a club sport. Their coach quit because he made too little money and a then-college-junior/coxswain for the team took over as coach. I know this because he's also our head coach. Their assistant coach is a college freshman who rowed with us last year. While I, as a girl, agree completely with title 9, it doesn't seem quite fair to male rowers (swimmers, runners, etc.)</p>

<p>I've actually changed my tune about college football and basketball teams over the years. Yes, these teams cost the schools a lot of money. However, if they are successful, they can also bring in much more in revenue than is needed to support the teams. The result can be beneficial to all students on campus who can benefit from better overall facilities. A good team that rallies the students can also result in better school spirit and an increased quality of student life.</p>

<p>S had a 1480 first sitting; 800 V, 680 M. NMS Finalist. Major awards at his high school, and a 3.9 unweighted average while spending 25-30 hrs./wk on his sport. If he had chosen to focus solely on acadmeics instead of adding in his sport, he could have had the perfect GPA and probably the 1550 or 1600 SAT. Frankly, the headmaster of his school counseled against it; told him the sport would be a better "hook". </p>

<p>So when you discount recruited students for their "lower" scores, remember the number of hours weekly they give up to that "hook". It's a true sacrifice for them and for their families. It bears no resemblance to the camaraderie of seasonal sports; you're competing at a national level under great odds and pressure for a goal you are really unlikely to achieve. You get up each day and basically go to "work" in addition to school. Obviously you have to love it or you couldn't do it, but it's not easy. </p>

<p>I totally understand the resentment of the 1600 kids who get deferred or rejected, but on the other hand, I also believe that my S earned his way. I know a double legacy with lesser scores who was admitted, so I won't apologize for my kid...</p>

<p>Going just a tad bit OT: I was listening to an NPR report (McNeil-Lehrer) report tonight on college athletics. The 3 sports that have the lowest GPA and graduation rates are men's basketball, football, and baseball. So Dizzymom, rest easy ;). Swimming, tennis and the like usually don't have the same academic issues. </p>

<p>Is this a stupid question: why are the athletes in those 3 sports as a general rule more academically challenged?</p>

<p>Dizzymom and Patient, you both sort of hit on what I have been thinking for some time. Sports participation erodes an incredible amount of time - time that would ordinarily be consumed with more studying, or getting enough sleep. If D had time for an SAT prep, would she have scored higher than 1400? Or if she had time for more studying, would she have achieved higher than 3.8 gpa? But it's a matter of physical stamina too - muscle groups worked hard require rest to repair and grow. </p>

<p>The same issue appears in college, too. Sophomore year D got injured; completed her season and won her events even with the injury, and took her final exams while in a significant amount of pain. Final exams were A's, B's and C's; would they have been mostly A's without the injury? </p>

<p>I am guessing perhaps basketball, football and baseball have lower GPAs because of the more intense physical stress, and perhaps there may be a greater number of injuries with these sports than the others. </p>

<p>Last, there is a little-noticed time element in collegiate sports participation - for example, D is required to attend publicity events, team community activities, and other types of training outside of athletic training (example: mandatory for all athletes, lecture hosted by the FBI on gambling; classes on how to interact with media; sessions on compliance issues, etc.). This stuff is all interesting and perhaps useful, but clearly eats up even more time that students who are not athletes may spend studying, or simply resting, etc.</p>

<p>While sports participation takes a lot of time, I can not conclude that S would have higher SATs/grades etc. if he were not an athlete. On the other hand, the discipline and drive that his sport requires contributes to efficient study habits and a focus on "getting the job done", whether it be athletics or academics. My fear is that without the sport, he could easily have headed down a less positive track (no pun intended, for those who know his sport). I am grateful for his success in academics and athletics, and have no qualms at all about using the athletic talent to gain an admission edge. I worked for a wonderful CEO who hired me (as an experienced attorney), in part, because of my own athletics. He liked what he saw in committed athletes.</p>

<p>A couple thoughts on Title IX ... Title IX is getting blamed for way too many cuts in athletic support. Schools do need to get there opportunities in balance (which I personally think is a good thing) ... but that does not explain why wrestling, gymnastics, track, etc teams (both men's and women's) are dropping like flies from division I programs ... schools are deciding to cut budgets and sports for both sexes are getting killed in the process.</p>

<p>Football is the boogieman in the Title IX argument since it involves so many players ... to match those slots requires more women's teams than men's teams (BTW - if the limit of football scholarships was greatly reduced this problem would be greatly reduced)

[quote]
However, if they are successful, they can also bring in much more in revenue than is needed to support the teams.

[/quote]

The catch here is that only 25 or so DI football teams are making money ... the other 100 are losing money ... fo for 80% of the DI schoold they are losing money and getting into Title IX issues chasing a pot og gold they will not achieve.</p>

<p>DIII schools, with no scholarships, seem to be able to field a ton of both women's and men's teams (often twice as many as most DI schoold) staying in Title IX guidelines ... it can be done if a school wants to!</p>

<p>A cou</p>