<p>"Most young people I know personally who declined an offer of admission from Harvard enrolled at MIT, which is certainly not a sports powerhouse. "</p>
<p>That brings up a great point. MIT is certainly HYP's peer academically. Would it be "cool" for them to field winning Division 1 football or b-ball teams? Would all the students just jump up and down from the excitement? Should MIT offer money to really good football players to make this happen?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It's not at all helpful to civil discussion to distort someone's statements like this. I'm grateful that Pizzagirl has challenged this mischaracterization of her views.</p>
<p>"I hope you realize that, for a low-income athletic student, the quality of the athletic life of the college would likely be an important factor in his/her selection of a college. "</p>
<p>Where's the research evidence for this?
I'd bet that after acceptance to college, money is the main factor in what colleges low income students choose to go to. Harvard's offering low income students a virtually free education now would make it probably tops on the list of the majority of low income students who could qualify for admission even if they hadn't heard of Harvard before.</p>
<p>Of course, the same is true of middle and upper middle class students given that Harvard's financial aid for them now is virtually tops in the nation.</p>
<p>Thanks, tokenadult.</p>
<p>I guess what I don't understand is why Hawkette thinks that people who don't particularly like to watch sports "don't know what they're missing" when the team wins and people get all excited. Not everyone finds that type of atmosphere fun, and I don't know why she assumes that people who don't would somehow magically find it fun if their team were a powerhouse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think statistics show that MIT and Yale are two of the three colleges that do best in cross-admit battles with Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the sake of accuracy, this chart shows the top 3 as Yale, Stanford and MIT, with Stanford and MIT tied for Harvard cross-admits (not that it necessarily proves anything with regard to collegiate sports preferences):</p>
<p>The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices</p>
<p>I was referring to more recent (referred to in press reports, but not published) statistics from the full pool of each college's cross-admit pool. (The Avery et al. working paper that is the basis of the New York Times chart is a nonrandom sample and less recent.) But, yes, although the colleges' internal data are not published, Harvard and Yale know that only a few colleges are serious competitors for the students they admit. So an Ivy League approach to sports apparently doesn't wreck the appeal of a college among the most competitive college applicants.</p>
<p>IOng,
I think we’re making progress. I think we agree on a key point which is that the Ivies would not want to make any changes that would jeopardize their academic reputations. In fact, this is the key qualifier in my arguments as I agree that academic considerations are paramount. That said, I don’t believe that the academic reputations of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame have been damaged by their nationally successful sports teams.</p>
<p>We disagree, however, on what attracts the top athlete and what the quality of athletic life means. I am not talking about the potential of a college scholarship (although this is undeniably an important consideration), but rather the nature of the competition that he/she will face, the nature of the athletic experience that he/she and the fans will experience together (eg, Cameron Indoor or Maples Pavilion vs Jadwin Gym or the Palestra) and the community and support that the student-athlete will receive from the institution. Money talks, for sure, but so does the competition and the environment which is the whole reason that most athletes play their sport in the first place. And the environments greatly influence the nature of the sporting experience for the fan. </p>
<p>We also disagree on the nature of the sporting experience offered at the Ivy colleges. It may be diverse and have lots of sports (though other colleges have club teams and intramural teams so opportunities for participation is rarely an issue at any of these colleges), but is it of a high standard? I believe that Ivy athletics and the general social scene that surrounds them are poor compared to those available at Stanford, Duke, et al, and particularly so for the major sports of football, basketball, and baseball. The only college that I have mentioned where it is close would be Rice, which only has 3000 students, but they somehow still have a baseball team consistently ranked in the nation’s Top 10. In these major sports, it is doubtful if any of the Ivies would have a single team in the nation’s Top 100. And drawing more than a modest crowd to Ivy sporting events is a rarity. </p>
<p>Finally, re your point about the impact of adding more high quality athletes to the student body, I reject your negative stereotype of all of these students. The NCAA standards aren’t very tough, but let’s face it, the Ivy League isn’t the purest place either as the AI is not exactly the most demanding metric either. Undoubtedly there are already plenty of football and other sports-playing students at the Ivy colleges who only got in because of their athletic ability. </p>
<p>The student-athletes in the Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame group don’t always fit the stereotype either. As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, the student-athletes at these colleges aren’t exactly classroom underachievers-the graduation rates of the student-athletes at the non-Ivy elites that I presented earlier are close to, and many cases exceed, the graduation rate of the overall student body. And I don’t think that Stanford, Duke, et al are offering basket-weaving….</p>
<p>Allow me to repeat myself in directing a question to the OP: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tokenadult,
Before you go making (IMO false) charges about uncivil mischaracterizations, please review the following statements by pizzagirl in this thread where she expresses her opinion about the value of athletic life. </p>
<p>“Personally, it wouldn't have enhanced my undergrad experience at all to have a good football team. I don't care one bit…”</p>
<p>“I am <em>bothered</em> by the fact that all of a sudden NU got notoriety for sports… the moment a handful of our students can toss a football, everyone notices. It's a reflection on society's warped priorities, IMO”</p>
<p>“I don't find it particularly fun to be a sports spectator, and I too would not want a college where the social scene revolved heavily around cheering on the team”</p>
<p>I believe that these comments appropriately support my characterization of her position and make clear the very low value that she attaches to athletic life and what it means for a student.</p>
<p>Token,</p>
<p>I also found some of Pizzagirl's characterizations to be uncivil and offensive. She described football fans as "Joe Six-packs" and those desiring winning teams as having "WHACKED OUT' priorities (#53, 54).</p>
<p>alright hawkette your point's basically that by indulging in spectatorship, ivies will "drastically" increase the athletic and college experience for the students....you are entitled to have this view</p>
<p>all i wanna say is that ivy students have contact with schools like stanford/duke/rice etc, if this idea of "fan sporting experience" appealed to them, they would have lobbied for it....doesnt matter whether they have a genuine dislike or are simply to "shallow" to appreciate sports culture, the FACT is they didnt, so thats their preference....they are rightfully entitled to it, and being stakeholders in the education that ivies impart, their wishes should be respected</p>
<p>thats why IT IS Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke etc. and NOT DUKE DUKE DUKE DUKE you get it? different schools cater to different students who are rightfully entitled to different preferences....if you're a lover of showmanship, head for Duke where you'll be in the company of like-minded individuals, leave Harvard or Yale for those whom i quote "dont value the athletic experience"....my point is, theres plenty of room for everybody, why must you intrude on the turf of muggers? we muggers are happy with the status quo, so please dont try to bring about an influx of athletic scholars and this hullabaloo over "top ten ranked sporting teams" </p>
<p>how would you feel if we were to insist on doing away with basketball at Duke? or at least divert a major portion of the resources into other activities?</p>
<p>thank you for your understanding</p>
<p>" I believe that Ivy athletics and the general social scene that surrounds them are poor compared to those available at Stanford, Duke, et al, and particularly so for the major sports of football, basketball, and baseball."</p>
<p>But that's because you personally define a "good" social scene as high-level rah-rah-tailgating involving the whole campus where everyone cheers on the QB! Not everyone defines a "good" social scene that way.</p>
<p>I bet the H/Y alumni have plenty of fun at their H/Y game, just as NU/Michigan alumni have plenty of fun at the NU/Mich games. They're different styles of fun but I'm not prepared to say that H/Y is having *less fun because they don't do it Big 10 style.</p>
<p>I'm looking on in this thread, as an alumnus of a Big Ten university that has had its share of past and recent national championships in various team sports, wondering why this is an issue that has to be personalized at all. It's quite evident that in society as a whole in the United States there are some people who are avid sports fans and some people who hardly note the name of their hometown professional team. Usually, all of us can get along and not ask others to change their habits to suit us. Sports is occasionally a contentious political issue when a new stadium construction plan is proposed. I'm not aware of any need to build a new stadium at any of the colleges mentioned in this thread. </p>
<p>This is the College Search & Selection Forum, and right now there are multiple threads here posted by students who have just been admitted to various subsets of the hundreds of colleges in the United States. If the varsity sports scene on campus is important to those students, that's one of the things those students will ask about as they ask for help in deciding which offer of admission to accept. If other issues are important to those students, that's what they will bring up. There are a lot of trade-offs involved in choosing a college to attend, and there is no particular reason for all colleges to be alike, because it is certainly the case that not all students are alike. Some students enjoy bringing a minority point of view (about sports, politics, religion, or anything else) into a college where they know up-front they will be part of a minority, while other students are interested in having lots of fellows sharing their point of view (on whatever) as they choose colleges. That too is up to each student, and most colleges end up enrolling both kinds of students, just as most colleges have some avid sports fans (even colleges without college teams in the major revenue sports) while other colleges enroll students who can go years without attending a game and never missing the game-watching experience. Can't we just all get along?</p>
<p>IOng,
I think you're overreacting-I don't think I wrote anything about "drastically" increasing the athletic and college experience. My point was that, for some students (and I include students even at the Ivy colleges), it's fun to attend major college sporting events that have national implications and wouldn't it be neat if the Ivies could also develop sports teams that might be competitive nationally in events like the NCAA basketball tournament. That's it. </p>
<p>I'm not suggesting any radical switch from being academically-focused to being a jock school (and I think any suggestions that this is the case at Stanford, Duke, et al reflects a lack of understanding and appreciation for what goes on on their campuses). Frankly, I have a hard time understanding the hostility to the whole idea that a college can have great academics and great athletics. I have a high regard for the student-athletes at Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and I respect the great academic product that these colleges provide and the excellent graduates that they turn out. </p>
<p>pizzagirl,
You say that I "define a "good" social scene as high-level rah-rah-tailgating involving the whole campus where everyone cheers on the QB!" If that were true, I think your argument might be on firmer ground. But it is not true. The fact is that I see athletic life as only one aspect of the non-academic life of a college student. </p>
<p>If you want to know how I define a good social life at a college, I created a thread on this topic in 2007. Here is what I said then and which I still think is viable today:</p>
<p>"I consider 10 criteria for evaluating a school's social life:
*Welcoming nature and friendliness of the students
*Musical scene (both locally and for bands that come through)
*Athletic scene for entertainment purposes, ie, sports teams
*Greek life (good or bad)
*Strength of party scene
*Size, diversity and cohesiveness of the student body and how this impacts social life
*Weather and its impact on social activities
*Proximity to urban life/arts
*Student activities including community service, club activities, intramural sports, etc.
*Alcohol and drug scene"</p>
<p>You may want to read the comments of others in this thread about the nature of the social experience at a variety of USNWR Top 20 colleges.</p>
<p>I actually have a very different idea of what makes a good college experience. Frankly, sports team strength in my opinion isn't that great. It brings forward the concept of "local celebrities" on a campus where everyone is equally qualified to be there. Often times these groups tend to dominate the social stratification at schools like Duke, whereas at Ivies this is much less the case. </p>
<p>The notion that you need sports teams to rally around I also find dubious. My alma mater, Dartmouth, hardly was an athletic powerhouse yet there was an incredible amount of school spirit and loyalty, but it centered around big events. Dartmouth's homecoming is unparalleled (huge bonfire, the entire freshman class marching in mass, alumni marching by class year at night through the town), heck its practically pagan, and so much of this powerful spirit has very little to do with athletics.</p>
<p>The "easy" answer to hawkette is (and has already been stated by some), "if you don't like the Ivies' sports scene, then don't go there!"</p>
<p>But private universities are businesses, and businesses must evolve to stay competitive and relevant. Universities have certainly evolved over the years in just about every way. So I think hawkette's question is a legitimate one for discussion. HYP are on top right now, but for how much longer? Stanford, Duke and others are nipping at their heels. Could a more vibrant sports scene simply add to HYP's greatness? I think it would. IMHO</p>
<p>Hawkette, looking at your criteria for what defines a good social life:</p>
<p>Surely you can see that different people will value different aspects on this list differently ... and that's OK. </p>
<p>Some people will want to be smack dab in the middle of a city ... and Columbia and NYU (just to pick two) will suit that perfectly. Others will want a bucolic rural setting, and there are plenty of excellent options in rural settings as well. </p>
<p>Some students will care passionately about access to a local music scene; others won't. </p>
<p>Some will care about the weather and access to certain outdoor activities (mountain climbing, skiing, etc.); others won't. </p>
<p>The point is, fan sporting life isn't any different from any of these. Some will value it and others won't. You seem to believe that fan sporting life is a universal value across all or most students, and therefore "wouldn't it be better / neat" if HYP et al had it. </p>
<p>To me, saying "wouldn't it be better / neat if HYP had championship sporting teams" is like saying ... (apologies for the NU-centric examples)</p>
<p>"Penn has an outstanding undergrad business program. Wouldn't it be better / neat if Harvard and Princeton started an undergrad business school, too?"</p>
<p>"NU has a world-class journalism school. Wouldn't it be better / neat if Harvard had one too?"</p>
<p>"NU has a strong Greek presence / life. Wouldn't it be better / neat if Reed had that kind of fun, too?"</p>
<p>"NU plays Big 10 athletics. Wouldn't it be better / neat if U of Chicago joined the Big 10, too?"</p>
<p>"Harvard is about 7,000-8,000 undergrads. Wouldn't it be better / neat if Davidson had that many?"</p>
<p>Do you see what I mean? To Tokenadult's point, why not enjoy the diversity of different types of campuses with different options, instead of assuming that something which is valued on one campus is necessarily "missing" from another's?</p>
<p>"The notion that you need sports teams to rally around I also find dubious. My alma mater, Dartmouth, hardly was an athletic powerhouse yet there was an incredible amount of school spirit and loyalty, but it centered around big events. "</p>
<p>Right. I think one thing that Hawkette may be thinking is that the amount of school spirit engendered by rah-rah-ing around the football team is directly proportional to the actual winning record of the football team. I can attest that for those of us who went during NU's awful-football-team streak in the early/mid 80's, it was almost the opposite -- it was a point of perverse pride that our teams were that bad, because it cemented the fact that we were the most selective Big 10 and that we weren't lowering our standards just for the sake of beating another team.</p>
<p>I've heard of other colleges where much school spirit is built up by a sports team that is NEVER in contention for a national title. So I would offer the thought that colleges certainly do look at what builds school spirit, but it might surprise onlookers what colleges conclude about what is most helpful in building spirit among their students. I've read that Berkeley students (who certainly have had some strong sports teams to cheer on over the years) are also proud of the parking spaces (a scarce resource in Berkeley, CA) that are labeled "Nobel laureate only." Students can be proud of their college having a noted medical school, or a law school that is the alma mater of a current president or vice president, or lots of other things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some will care about the weather and access to certain outdoor activities (mountain climbing, skiing, etc.); others won't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. I had an interesting conversation with the dad of an outstanding student (front page mention in the metropolitan daily newspaper) from Minnesota last year who is now at Williams. He had been accepted by Yale, too, but preferred Williams because of the nearby mountains where he can hike and camp out. (He grew up in an urban neighborhood in Minnesota.) There are a lot of good colleges in the United States with a lot of varied characteristics.</p>