<p>
LOL, I will leave it to others on here to decide what sounds more like what a 5 year old would say.</p>
<p>You force me to quote you again:
Make up your mind!!</p>
<p>prestige,
I didn’t mean you literally, but if you read stories about what’s happened in Cambridge the last few years, it’s amusing and fun to learn that academics and students who didn’t know a basketball from a watermelon are gaga over the Crimson’s games. </p>
<p>And I agree with your comment,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a big part of why I’m so impressed with what goes on at Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame. They deliver in the classroom, they compete at the highest levels in major sports and they create a fun and energetic athletic environment that can be enjoyed by students, faculty, alumni, employees, local fans, etc.</p>
<p>
The problem (from hawkette’s perspective) is that a “fun and energetic athletic environment” simply isn’t a big priority at the highest levels of academia.</p>
<p>You can see this in the academic rankings. Once you get to the Top 20 or so, the FCS and DIII schools clearly outnumber those that still attempt to be relevant in major college sports.</p>
<p>And a glance at college history is suggestive as well. The Ivies stopped winning national football championships in the 1930s; Chicago dropped Big 10 football at about the same time. These schools proved that great athletics aren’t necessary for a great university.</p>
<p>Since that time, new universities have followed the Ivy/Chicago model. There are six “new” research universities that were established in the postwar era, and which have since risen to the top academically (where “the top” means membership in the prestigious Association of American Universities). Those six are UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, Stony Brook, and Brandeis (you could argue that Davis and Santa Barbara campuses existed in the prewar era, but the decision to turn them into research universities was later). </p>
<p>None of these “new” top schools have any interest in major college athletics – they have rejected the hawkette philosophy so completely that most of them don’t even have football teams, at any level. UCD and Stony Brook do have FCS football; UCSB and UCI would be FCS if they had teams; UCSD would be DII; Brandeis would be DIII. So by the late 20th Century, the decoupling of great academics and great athletics was complete. Like it or not, national athletic relevance is no longer a priority when top academic institutions are developed.</p>
<p>The hawkette schools are holdovers from a different era in college history: they are quaint, but they are not the future. For most people in the academic community today, athletic competition simply makes more sense when it involves schools with similar academic and admission standards. So Harvard vs. Yale makes sense; Vanderbilt vs. Mississippi State does not. </p>
<p>To compete effectively with schools like Mississippi State, the hawkette schools either (1) drop their admissions standards dramatically for athletes, or (2) lose a lot of games, or more commonly (3) both. For most people at most top schools, the negatives outweigh the positives, despite hawkette’s best efforts to proselytize.</p>
<p>corbett,
Nice try, but…</p>
<ol>
<li> It’s true that Stanford, Duke et al drop their admissions standards for athletes. So do the Ivies. IMO, there are not great differences between them and all of the student-athletes would likely be fine at either set of schools and would graduate at a rate not much different than other students.<br></li>
<li> Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame are quaint??? LOL. Quaint is Hanover, NH or Ithaca, NY (but certainly not West Philadelphia or New Haven). Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre are wonderful academic schools, all at the Ivy level in student selectivity and quality of undergraduate education. They also play a factor in major college sports and offer an athletic life that is much livelier than anything that the Ivies can offer.<br></li>
<li> Stanford, Duke et al are the past??? Major LOL. If anything, these schools get stronger every year. Regardless of how we might differ on this, I hope you agree that all are in the top 1% of American colleges.<br></li>
<li> I’ll concede that Stanford, Duke et al are not football powers every year, but each has had some recent success. Are you aware that, other than Duke, each of the others has played in and won a bowl game in the last two years?</li>
<li> Re athletic competitiveness, if you investigate, I think that you’ll discover that the Stanford, Duke group of schools are very competitive in their conferences. Look at the major sports of football, basketball (men and women), and baseball and see how they’re doing. It’s impressive. By comparison, none of the Ivies are close.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>I still can’t figure out the negatives that you and others see of going to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt or Notre Dame or how their athletic life somehow damages their academic reputations. I haven’t seen it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, especially for the major revenue sports (football and basketball) programs. Let’s examine this more closely, shall we?</p>
<p>FOOTBALL:</p>
<p>Amongst all the hawkette schools, only Notre Dame has traditionally been decent at football. And we’ve established that this is because ND severely compromises its admissions standards by recruiting football players with 800 SATs and/or C’s on their transcripts.</p>
<p>Only Stanford, Northwestern and Rice admit ivy-quality football recruits (with avg. SATs above 1100). However, Stanford has been historically mediocre at best, Northwestern less than that and Rice absolutely abysmal. </p>
<p>Despite having avg. SAT scores of approximately 1000, both Duke and Vanderbilt’s football teams have been almost as bad as Rice’s. To remedy this, Duke has instituted a new policy in which fully one-third of its recruits could be miminum NCAA qualifiers. This policy will also allow the Duke admissions office to weigh more heavily “non-tangible” (read: non-academic) qualities in their decisions. Time will tell if this will improve Duke’s football program. The rub here is that Duke is implicitly acknowledging that its football program cannot get better on the field without cutting corners off the field.</p>
<p>BASKETBALL:</p>
<p>Duke is the only hawkette basketball program currently ranked above an ivy (Cornell). Again, similar to ND football, Duke basketball is only viable because it sacrifices admissions standards for its recruits. The avg. SAT of the Duke basketball team is under 1000, including the multiple “walk on” ringers who’re there mostly to keep up the team’s avg. SAT. (They don’t play because Coach K has a short bench.) </p>
<p>Except for this and last year, Stanford basketball has actually been pretty decent. But still this is a program that has sniffed one single Final Four since its national championship way back in 1942. Northwestern is a joke of a basketball program. It is the only one among the BCS schools that has never even been invited to the Big Dance (i.e. the NCAA tournament). Rice currently has a sagarin rating in the mid-200’s, below that of three ivies (Cornell, Harvard and Princeton). Vanderbilt has a good team this year, but usually it isn’t. Notre Dame is okay, but nothing to write home about. It hasn’t made much national noise since pulling a big upset over UCLA in the 1970’s.</p>
<p>So basically all of the hawkette schools are at best mediocre or at worst a joke in the two main sports (football and basketball) that she idolizes. The only exceptions are ND football and Duke basketball because they admit subpar athletes that are not only below ivy quality but also indistinguishable from state school recruits. But both schools will continue to do this because their very institutional identity is tied to their bread-and-butter sports. This is why Notre Dame will be paying someone an estimated $18 million NOT to coach, in addition to the salary for their current coach. And Duke’s basketball coach makes several times more than the next highest paid employee of the school.</p>
<p>Corbett,
Take a sport where the Ivies compete at the same level as one of the Stanford, Duke et al group. For example, I just looked at the NCAA Academic Progress Rate data for men’s ice hockey. Notre Dame, the lowest ranked of this group, does every bit as well as the Ivy colleges.</p>
<p>Here’s how they compare (and for comparison purposes I added the two highly ranked publics that play):</p>
<p>Ice Hockey APR Score </p>
<p>980 , Nat’l Avg for Division I</p>
<p>994 , Notre Dame</p>
<p>1000 , Brown
998 , Yale
993 , Harvard
989 , Princeton
983 , Dartmouth
971 , Cornell
na , Columbia
na , U Penn</p>
<p>981 , U MICHIGAN
967 , U WISCONSIN</p>
<p>meangirl,
I think you need to recheck your facts. According to the latest Sagarin basketball ratings, 347 colleges are ranked. Following is how the Ivies compared with Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame and I attached a comparison of some highly rated publics. Only Rice compares poorly and even then still would be 4th in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Sagarin men’s basketball rank , College</p>
<p>3 , Duke
14 , Vanderbilt
52 , Cornell
68 , Notre Dame
75 , Northwestern
89 , Harvard
114 , Stanford
136 , Princeton
244 , Rice
272 , Yale
290 , Columbia
306 , Brown
317 , U Penn
338 , Dartmouth</p>
<p>10 , U Texas
13 , U Wisconsin
36 , UC Berkeley
58 , U Illinois
76 , U Virginia
87 , U Michigan
110 , UCLA</p>
<p>As I said earlier in the thread, think of the Stanford, Duke group as:</p>
<p>Ivy academics + State U athletic life = Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame</p>
<p>meangirl, can I see a source for your info on the average SAT of Duke basketball players? Just curious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/duke-university/251415-duke-athlete-admissions.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/duke-university/251415-duke-athlete-admissions.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ONLY Stanford, Duke and Northwestern have “Ivy academics” if we’re using the conventional meaning of ACADEMICS, namely faculty and departmental strength.</p>
<p>Meangirl- Vanderbilt is doing really well in basketball this year and has had a strong program (last year was a young team and a rebuilding year with no seniors) for a number of years. They are ranked 17th right now and beat Tennessee twice this season. </p>
<p>I disagree with hawkette about Rice, though, and I have said this before. Rice does NOT have an athletic culture of any significance at all, despite doing so well in baseball. The students get excited about the baseball success, but much of the season happens after the students leave for the summer and college baseball doesn’t attract huge crowds anyway. Football is horrible and basketball is worse. I have a kid who went from Rice to grad school at Vanderbilt and it is night and day. </p>
<p>I also want to say that the Vandy basketball players are neat kids. One of my friends is a lecturer at Vandy and has taught one of the top players in class and says he is very bright and a great kid.</p>
<p>There is something else to know about Vanderbilt. Just because the football team hasn’t been good lately (actually did go to a Bowl game in 2008) doesn’t mean that the school doesn’t have a culture that backs the sport. I compare it to a slower marathoner. You still do all the training and all the preparation for the race-even if you aren’t going to be the winner. Vanderbilt is in the SEC and while the games don’t have the intensity of TN v. Alabama, the fun and excitement is still there. Rice- not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I acknowledged that the Vanderbilt men’s basketball team is good this year. But it hasn’t been historically been very strong. The women’s basketball team, however, is a national or at least regional power (despite being overshadowed by its in-state rival University of Tennessee program.) </p>
<p>This is because in basketball, it is easier to recruit top female (vs. male) students to top universities. Either female athletes are better students or more likely they are more focused academically because the lure of the WNBA is relatively new (and much less lucrative) and is definitely not as strong as that of the NBA.</p>
<p>Hence we see that most of the hawkette schools: Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame have elite women’s basketball programs. The exceptions are Northwestern and Rice. For some reason, these two schools are just bad at basketball, regardless of gender.</p>
<p>Vandy has had two winning seasons in the last 30+ years (8-4 in 1982 and 7-6 in 2008) but the people of Nashville still support the Commodores with 38,000 average attendace per game</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go this far. While the balance of academics and athletics may be too heavily weighed for sports in some of the hawkette schools, there are some in the Ivy League community who envy at least the Stanford model:</p>
<p>[Meritocracy</a> 1, Harvard 0 | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2002/2/26/meritocracy-1-harvard-0-as-reported/]Meritocracy”>http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2002/2/26/meritocracy-1-harvard-0-as-reported/)</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Daily News - Either go big, Bulldogs, or just go home](<a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2008/04/15/either-go-big-bulldogs-or-just-go-home/]Yale”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/guest-columns/2008/04/15/either-go-big-bulldogs-or-just-go-home/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but the Ivy League has a built-in geographic advantage. Logistically speaking, it’s easy for Harvard to compete against Yale. It’s much harder (albeit not impossible) for Vanderbilt to compete against its regional academic rivals. And unlike Harvard and Yale, which have historical links beyond their ivy affiliation, Vanderbilt does not have the same connections with, say, Duke or Emory, except for geography.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What nonsense. </p>
<p>Not Rice or Vanderbilt or Notre Dame?? Oh yeah, that’s right. They’re in the South or they’re religious. Must be full of rednecks or bigots or religious fanatics or maybe worse….Conservatives! :eek: </p>
<p>Do you really believe that the quality of the undergraduate education is markedly different at Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame than at the non-HYP Ivies??? You know, this is 2010, not 1980. Things do evolve. Heck, I think one could easily make an argument for the inclusion of places like Georgetown or Wake Forest or even the Honors programs of top publics like UC Berkeley, U Virginia, UCLA, U North Carolina, etc. There are a lot of very good places in the USA for undergraduate education. The world does not begin and end with the Ivy colleges. </p>
<p>As for an accurate meaning of ACADEMICS, I look at it from the student’s perspective and what he/she will be getting from their colleges and their professors. Students want profs that are knowledgeable, accessible and interested in their success. IMO, the Ivies do just fine with this. So, too, do all of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt AND Notre Dame. </p>
<p>Finally, re your links and comments about the “Stanford Model,” this is what I’ve been talking about. Stanford does it best, but Duke and the others are very, very close behind. As the articles note, none of the Ivies are remotely close. </p>
<p>mowc,
I agree that Vandy is at a different, higher level for athletic life and campus energy than Rice, particularly as it relates to football and basketball. But Rice baseball is special and, from what I can gather, followed by and a nice source of school pride for a goodly number of students and alums.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did I say that the “undergraduate education” is markedly different?!?! I specifically said that ACADEMICS as defined by “faculty and departmental strength” are markedly weaker.</p>
<p>Please read my posts before responding to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you’re implicitly acknowledging that Rice football and basketball are not “special.”</p>
<p>Care to tell me the average attendance at a Rice baseball game? Just curious.</p>
<p>mg,
I think it’s fair to classify Rice’s football and men’s basketball as “not special” in comparison to the rest of the Stanford, Duke et al group. Vs the Ivies, it’s not as clear, but there is certainly a bigger football scene in Houston and the team has had some good recent success. </p>
<p>As for baseball, it is special and the Owls are a fixture in the nation’s Top 10. For attendance, it depends as some games are played at Minute Maid Stadium where the Astros play. Those will get 20,000+, but the games at Reckling draw less (3-10k) as they mostly play lower marquee opponents there. Also, I think that you’ll find them pretty regularly on ESPN. </p>
<p>And for your information, the season opener is tonight at Stanford.</p>
<p>Your reading comprehension is getting better. Congratulations!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have an odd concept of “success.” Or you have low standards. Rice’s 2-10 record last year cancelled any momentum it gained from the anomalic 2008 season, in which it beat a mid-major directional school at a bottom-tier bowl. The last bowl win before that was in 1954. Do you consider half a century ago “recent”??</p>
<p>No Rice football game is as big as the Harvard-Yale game.</p>
<p>No Rice basketball game is as big as the Penn-Princeton game (or the Cornell-Harvard game).</p>
<p>Even Rice students and parents themselves are saying that no one there cares about college football or basketball:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But still you promote your fantasy to spread your agenda of jock idolatry.</p>
<p>I do agree that strong athletic teams (or trying to be strong in a strong league) add to the college experience. I did not expect to enjoy college basketball the way I did at my college, and I have been a life-long fan- not just of my alma mater but of college hoops in general. HOWEVER, if this is important to an applicant, there are plenty of places to find it. The Ivy League just doesn’t get there, no matter how exciting it was for Penn to beat Cornell last week, etc. I think my kid has missed that in his 4 years at an Ivy, and tends to focus on pro sports instead.</p>