Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Ohiodad51 Senior Member

1,588 Points 3,095 Visits 1,804 Posts
Last Active:
Registered User
  • Re: Title IX case against University of Chicago

    @jhs, the above sounds like the beginning of an argument that UC had some duty to stop the "harassing" conduct here? I didn't think that was your view?
  • Re: Title IX case against University of Chicago

    Well, given my truly horrible typing skills, it's not hard to see why, lol.

    And to me, something that "rises to the level of harassment" means conduct that would support a stand alone claim for harassment which I do not believe is required here. That said, I would agree that the complained of conduct will have to be determined to be harassing, even if he can't make an individual claim for harassment or defamation. Make sense?

    And I don't know what his claim against her would be for filing an allegedly false claim. Courts are very loath to impose liability even for pretty obvious abuse of the legal process. I can't imagine any court being excited about finding some tort right of action in allegedly abusing what is effectively a private administrative process. I assume the claim against the university in that respect would hinge on whether their policy prohibits the filing of a retaliatory claim, and then some argument that the decision to proceed with both of hers, and not his, is discriminatory.

    Also, as a somewhat related aside, the Judge in the Yale basketball player case denied the injunction requesting reinstatement recently.

  • Re: The 10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech: 2017

    Wow, so Jim Sleeper says that Greg Lukanoff is a horrible person for picking on Jim Sleeper, and that while his article did in fact "as worded, leave the impression" that Lukanoff criticized, it was only because of the NYT editor and not Jim Sleeper. Therefore, Lukanoff is a big fat weenie. That's what I call persuasive!
  • Re: Div 1 Ivy athletic recruit's academic stats on accepted and rejected recruits by the AO

    First, @doubtful, thanks for the kind words. Second, I don't think that @twoinanddone and I are really in opposition. He or she is saying that early recruiting happens in certain sports outside of the general Ivy calendar, and I am saying that the Ivy system makes such recruiting inherently unstable and untrustworthy. We may disagree about how early is early, and whether the Ivy teams can actually fill up their rosters with 8th and 9th graders or whether the Ivy schools are fishing for early commits from some sliver of 10th and first semester 11th graders with at least some testing and GPA history. But in general, I think we are all talking about different facets of the same thing.

    I think we are all in agreement that whether we are talking about 8th graders committing to Harvard, which was the premise that started this whole digression, or 10th graders committing to ACC schools, the recruiting calendar is getting earlier. I have posted before that when my son was getting recruited a couple years ago he was getting weekly e mails from Penn that said don't trust these early offers (which at that point meant in the winter/early spring of junior year) being thrown out by some schools (cough - Harvard - cough) and that Penn did things the "right way", and no offers would go out until the pre reads were done and the coach knew where the recruit sat in the band system, etc. Last year I helped a kid who will play in the Ivy next year and Penn offered him in March. I don't think anyone believes that to be a good thing, regardless of sport.

    Personally, I am kind of fatalistic on whether the NCAA will jump in. One, the change to recruiting rules last year loosened, rather than tightened, early contact. Two, I wonder how much appetite the NCAA will have to what seems like a "stop us before we kill again" type of argument. Three, I haven't seen the NCAA carve out specific rules for sports other than the revenue sports (and hockey) very often, so even if it sounds like the offer that lacrosse can be a kind of guinea pig makes sense, I wonder if the NCAA will go for it.
  • Re: Div 1 Ivy athletic recruit's academic stats on accepted and rejected recruits by the AO

    @twoinanddone, we have been down this road before. I am not saying that kids in certain sports aren't committing to Ivy schools as freshmen or whatever. Nor am I saying that coaches aren't offering to support the kid when the time comes. I am saying that any such offer of support/committment must of necessity be conditional on at least a couple of things. First, that the kid hit some target GPA/test score that will achieve what the coach believes will be an acceptable AI in the recruit's admit year. Second, that the coach's estimate on his or her AI requirements two, three or four years out be accurate. And that is leaving aside all of the other academic issues that might pop up over the course of high school. I mean we are not talking about maintaining eligibility here. A kid with a 3.5 unweighted GPA in tough courses and a 30 ACT, which is in the top 5% nationally, is going to have an AI of 207. That is likely right at or below the midline (one standard deviation from the average of the four preceding classes) for admitted athletes at each Ivy. I doubt very seriously that most women's lax players are being recruited and admitted below that line, and would argue that at most schools, most such recruits are being asked to hit a target somewhat above the one standard deviation mark. While you may be able to comfortably predict that some kids will hit such numbers coming out of 8th or 9th grade, for a lot of kids those are aspirational numbers which will require a lot of work and maybe a little luck. Personally, I do not think it wise to rely on any offer which has conditions attached, particularly conditions that may not be a sure thing, until those conditions are satisfied. That is really my only point.

    FWIW, here is what the Harvard AD said about the issue in 2015 when the Ivy put together their proposed rule change to the NCAA:
    Elsewhere in Division I, coaches may be able to promise roster spots to recruits with limited high school records; Ivy coaches, however, cannot. . . . Unlike their counterparts at other institutions, Ivy coaches must wait until October of the candidate’s senior year to get definitive word about an applicant’s acceptance.

    And here is a quote from the Yale Daily News, discussing the same rule proposal:
    At Yale specifically, coaches interviewed said they tend to recruit athletes later in their high school careers, because standardized test scores and transcripts are taken highly into account.

    It seems early committments in the Ivy are in some ways similar to the current fad of "non committable" offers that larger D1 schools have been throwing out in football over the last couple years - "Come to our camp and show us you can compete at x, y, or z and we will give you an offer" or "We already have an offer out to kid x, but we really think he is going to Penn State. Don't commit anywhere else, because once he commits to PSU, we want you". I wouldn't rely on those offers either, although I know plenty of parents and kids who do. I watched one dad slowly melt down as senior fall turned to winter and his kid's offer to the preferred school did not become committable until a couple weeks before signing date when the "other" kid finally committed elsewhere. I know for a fact that such offers are being reported on recruiting sites.

    And a very minor point, but even if coaches cared about non committable or conditional offers being posted on recruiting sites, the NCAA prohibits the coach or school from publicly commenting on a recruit until after national signing day in the recruit's senior year.