<p>
[quote]
1. Do you think it would be cool if the college playing in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Elite 8 with the chance of advancing to the Final Four was not little Davidson, but XYZ Ivy college?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would be newsworthy in the same way that any college qualifying for the last eight teams is newsworthy, but plenty of newsworthy things happen at Ivy League universities. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. Do you think less of the academic quality of Davidson or Stanford for their athletic accomplishment in the Men’s tournament?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I evaluate the academic quality of universities directly. I don't look at the sports page to get information about where the strong math departments are, for example. I look directly at the websites for the math departments (or English departments, or whatever) of each college of interest. Stanford is certainly an academically very strong college, </p>
<p>At Yale, we have a lot of school spirit. I think at this point, better athletics wouldn't do much to improve it! We're really just as enthusiastic about our alma mater as my friends at places like Vandy, OSU, Michigan, etc. are! </p>
<p>Besides that, I think offering admission to people with lower scores b/c they are athletes -- especially in today's college admissions climate -- would be a bad decision. Classes here are TOUGH, and being forced to lower some standards for the sake of a sports program would not be good. As it is, we have good athletes who are also good students -- they may not be the best athletically, but they can absolutely fit in academically! And at a university where the main focus is intellect and academics, I think that should be the main focus of admissions, too -- not improving the athletic program. Plus, offering athletic scholarships would be absurd, seeing as how the Ivy Leagues would still not be able to offer academic merit scholarships. Why should someone with an AI of 171 who's a good football player get merit money if all the academic superstars who were Seimens finalists, award-winning violinists or perfect-scorers (aka the rest of the class, lol) can't?</p>
<p>""If Harvard is going to spend the money on 44 Division 1 sports teams, why doesn't Harvard make the effort to make them as esteemed as every other facet of its offerings? Stanford does it, and I think it is embarassing that Harvard can't.""</p>
<p>I'm not embarrassed about the quality of Harvard's football team. In fact, I DID NOT WANT to go to a college that had a nationally ranked football team. </p>
<p>I love the elitism that only Harvard and Yale alum care about their annual big game. </p>
<p>I think it's silly and superficial that so many people choose colleges based on the quality of their sports teams. I'm glad that the people who chose my alma mater aren't like that.</p>
<p>"The thing I find difficult to understand, is how universities which obviously aim to be the best in all they do, fall down in this arena. "</p>
<p>In the opinions of their alum, administration and most of their students, places like Harvard are not "falling down" by not being sports powerhouses. Harvard has indeed achieved its aim: to have more NCAA division one teams than does any other college. I am very proud of that because it reflects the kind of diversity of interests that makes Harvard students so interesting and engaging. In fact, that's a reason why many Harvard students and alum rate the student body as being the best part of the Harvard experience.</p>
<p>Harvard wouldn't be Harvard if it was recruiting in order to field a nationally-ranked football or basketball team.</p>
<p>"2. Do you think less of the academic quality of Davidson or Stanford for their athletic accomplishment in the Men’s tournament or less of Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame for their accomplishment in the women’s tournament? I don’t."</p>
<p>I don't rate the academic quality of any university by whether or not they win national sports tournaments.</p>
<p>I understand the limitations of the Ivy League (no athletic scholarships), but with the financial aid now being offered by HYP, the lack of those scholarships should not be as much of an impediment to recruiting the top scholar/athletes as it once was. </p>
<p>If Davidson (Div. III) can make it to the Elite 8, then there is precedent for athletic success without the scholarships.</p>
<p>I still have trouble fathoming why many people seem truly offended by the prospect of Ivy League schools excelling in sports in addition to academics. Are the 2 mutually exclusive? I think Stanford has shown that they are not.</p>
<p>Offering a plethora of options to the student body seems preferable to fewer. Those who are not interested in sports are never forced to participate in any way.</p>
<p>And btw, my D does not "rant" about or "demand" anything from Harvard with respect to its sports. It merely appears to her that the campus would benefit from a more vibrant sports scene.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt that the Ivy alumni have the same passion for their sports teams. In a national context, the games didn’t really matter much when they were students and they don’t matter much after they graduate.
[/quote]
You're right, Hawkette. The games don't matter much because most Ivy athletes couldn't even compete against the intramural athletes at the elite schools you've mentioned. Their contests are simply not as exciting. I believe that if ivy sports were nationally competitive, then the buzz & attention the teams received would be contagious. Many of the alumni would be loyally following their teams. (Provided the celebrations don't involve setting couches on fire.)</p>
<p>"Imposing their will" is a bit over-the-top, don't you think IOng?. Better sports would be an added dimension to campus life. I know plenty of ivy grads who wish their teams were more competitive. And while those in the CC world can name all the ivy colleges, most people can't. But who in the world hasn't heard of Duke basketball or Notre Dame football? Their sports programs are fantastic marketing tools. If you watch televised college sports, it's interesting to see how carefully the advertisers have chosen which teams fit their customer profile, by the way. That's why Notre Dame can negotiate its own tv contracts; high end advertisers want to reach their alumni & fan base.</p>
<p>Another reason that Davidson's basketball succes has been so exciting to the campus is because the athletes are not seperated in special dorms & they take classes with the general student body.</p>
<p>Intel finalists & violin stars & academic superachievers of all types don't get any $$ at Notre Dame, either. The campus is full of them. It's strictly athletic scholarships or need based aid.</p>
<p>It might be a long time before the level of ivy play is upgraded due to top athletes who will now qualify for financial aid choosing to play in the less competitive ivy league. Many of them are drawn to the chance of national recognition/exposure at schools with more competitive programs.</p>
<p>Sorry, I am not familiar with Davidson (other than via basketball news:)), so I should not have spoken about it.</p>
<p>Building competitive programs will obviously take time for the Ivies, but with their stellar academic reputations, that should not take too long.</p>
<p>
[quote]
with the financial aid now being offered by HYP, the lack of those scholarships should not be as much of an impediment to recruiting the top scholar/athletes as it once was.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We'll know next week when the admission decisions are announced.</p>
<p>It isn't top "scholar-athletes" who will take Ivy sports to the next level. It is top ATHLETES. The athletes at the top programs, including Duke and Stanford, don't have a lot of time to be "scholars". Maybe this is why there are not Ivy athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>I am not at all opposed to seeing stronger Ivy teams, but I have enough knowledge of what it takes to build a program to know that it isn't going to happen in the near future. There truly are Duke basketball players who can barely put a sentence together. These athletes aren't going to be going to Princeton to "help build a program".</p>
<p>Please attend a Cornell v. Harvard hockey game at Lynah rink and then tell me that neither of the two schools have any athletic spirit. Sports that matter (Hockey, Lacrosse, Squash, and Crew) are extremely well represented at the Ivies.</p>
<p>"1. Do you think it would be cool if the college playing in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Elite 8 with the chance of advancing to the Final Four was not little Davidson, but XYZ Ivy college? I think it would be pretty neat. "</p>
<p>Obviously it's not neat enough to the Ivies as a whole to get together and decide to upgrade their athletic programs and rescind their previous stance on not offering athletic scholarships. They don't value the big-revenue sports enough to compromise something that they feel could really compromise their overall mission, by going above and beyond in rewarding athletic talent. The fact that Stanford / Duke / NU et al can and do offer athletic scholarships is irrelevant to them, as it should be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that Stanford / Duke / NU et al can and do offer athletic scholarships is irrelevant to them, as it should be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,
I think you are assuming a lot when you say this. Or do you have inside knowledge that HYP et al. feel that Stanford's appeal in the cross-admit wars is in no way related to its successful sports programs?</p>
<p>The total number of Harvard freshmen admitted last year who played men's basketball/baseball/football is 51. An academic compromise of 51 students out of 1700 admitted each year hardly seems a "compromise of their overall mission." And that assumes that an academic compromise would be necessary for all admits. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White was a football star at U of Colorado, a Rhodes Scholar, and Yale Law grad and he played NFL football.</p>
<p>tokeadult, why do you think a Taiwanese starting tailback "is really cool?"</p>
<p>I have no inside knowledge, Bay. Perhaps HYP indeed feels that Stanford's appeal in cross-admit wars is related to Stanford's sports programs. If they felt that that was a PROBLEM, though, then they'd do something about it and revisit their prohibition of athletic scholarships. Since they aren't, I can only assume that it's not something they consider a problem. As arbiter said early on, it's not that they couldn't, it is that they choose not to. Oh well. It seems to bother the rah-rah sports fans but it doesn't seem to bother anyone else.</p>
<p>YK that old saying about how there are 2 things you don't ever want to see made -- laws and sausage? Personally, as a top school alum, I'd add a 3rd -- highly selective school football / b-ball teams. For my own alma mater, I'd like to think that the standards are still high and that our football players were still academically NU-worthy. I haven't really investigated, I'm not going to slit my throat or stop donating or anything if a few get through who aren't, but ideally? Yeah, there's a principle I think that certain schools should stand for. And one of those is that we're NOT Yee-Haw Non-Selective State U that admits people primarily for their prowess in tossing around a pigskin.</p>
<p>I don't blame HYP at all for having that policy; in fact, I quite admire it. </p>
<p>Going off topic for a moment, among the top schools, Wash U gets blasted a lot on these boards for throwing around merit money, but at least they offer merit money to reward ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE. I have a hell of a lot more respect for that than offering merit money to reward tossing around a pigskin.</p>
<p>Bay, you had said above: "If Harvard is going to spend the money on 44 Division 1 sports teams, why doesn't Harvard make the effort to make them as esteemed as every other facet of its offerings?"</p>
<p>This is the crux of it. I suspect that I speak for Northstarmom and tokenadult, among others, in saying that we, personally, put academics (by which I'm including the arts) on a higher pedestal than athletics. We think nothing is "lost" in a school that doesn't have winning football or basketball teams because we think those things are irrelevant to the mission of education. And while it's always more fun to win a game than lose a game, it is not necessary that a really good school have to "uplift" their sports into a top-notch program, the way it is important that a really good school keep its academic programs top-notch.</p>
<p>Northstarmom didn't find Harvard's poor sports teams to be embarrassing; I didn't find NU's (then) poor sports teams to be embarrassing either. There's nothing embarrassing about our schools not excelling in things we consider less important.</p>
<p>" Perhaps HYP indeed feels that Stanford's appeal in cross-admit wars is related to Stanford's sports programs."</p>
<p>I do have inside knowledge having been on the national committee of alumni volunteer interviewers at Harvard.</p>
<p>Harvard feels that the cross admits it loses to Stanford are due to the weather, something that Harvard can't do anything about.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Harvard isn't worried about cross admits since it has the country's highest yield and takes a lower proportion of applicants than does virtually any other college in the country. Overcrowding is a problem at Harvard, not losing admits.</p>
<p>Should Harvard lose some students to places that have better sports teams, it's no big deal. It's not as if Harvard is hurting for students. If everyone whom Harvard accepted decided to go to Harvard, there would be no place to put them, and Harvard -- which prides itself on the wealth of its residential college experience wouldn't be the Harvard that its alum, students, and applicants find some attractive.</p>
<p>I, on the other hand, WAS embarrassed by Indiana's pathetic football team while I was there in the 70s. We were a Big 10 school and we were supposed to be GOOD! (I will note that Northwestern was the one school we seemed to be able to beat). However, the passion I developed for college basketball continues to this day. Even my musician daughter became a huge Rice baseball fan while she was there (and continues with that interest). So, yes it is true that it is a LOT of fun to watch a good sports team and get caught up in the excitement. However, it is not a requirement that every college provide this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We think nothing is "lost" in a school that doesn't have winning football or basketball teams because we think those things are irrelevant to the mission of education
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No offense, Pizzagirl, but what you personally think is relevant to the mission of education is irrelevant to this discussion. Obviously, all of the Ivies must think it is relevant or they would not field any teams, let alone actively recruit athletes, which they do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should Harvard lose some students to places that have better sports teams, it's no big deal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Northstarmom,</p>
<p>Your inside information about Harvard comes to me as quite a surprise. It was my impression that Harvard's administration would not rest until its yield is 100%. It seems to me I remember another Harvard alum on these boards depicting Harvard as unwilling to settle for anything less than perfection.</p>