<p>If you reread my original post, I never said schools should not have athletic programs - I asked if it was fair for athletes to have preferential treatment over students who are equally talented in other areas. I don’t view it as a sports resentment thread, but rather a pro-non-athlete thread. The question boils down to “why should a less-academically qualified athlete receive preference over a better-academically qualified actor (dancer, painter, musician, etc.), and, for the schools that offer them, why should they be more entitled to a scholarship?”</p>
<p>Many schools have scholarships for both. Typically the schools with lots of athletic scholies are using the players to earn money to pay for the athletic programs.</p>
<p>Vango, it is a supply and demand thing. There are simply more very gifted, academically successful students that cannot or do not want to play college level sports, than there are who could play at that level. Though a college level athlete can often make it through a selective college’s curriculum, you just cannot grab a bunch of regular students and make them into the level athlete needed to be on a college team. The skills and knowledge needed come from hours and years of play and experience, for the most part. Also talents such as skill, hand eye coordination, speed and natural attributes such as size, eye sight, body type come into play. There is a shortage of qualfied athletes when it comes to selective colleges. They not only have to have the experience and ability to do their sport, they also must be educated and smart enough to handle the college curriculum. </p>
<p>The cost vs benefit of college teams cannot be measured by the balance sheets and financial papers alone. The reason for this is that the publicity, exposure, reputation, name that comes from the sports is not easily buyable. The same with the alumni and community sport. The NYTimes, a few years ago covered a story of a Florida university that decided to add a football program. THere is no way that the actual revenues generated by football could anywhere come close to the money expended, and the Times showed this very clearly by going into the numbers. What is immeasurable was the the value of the school/community games, the attraction to alums, political figure and sports celebrities came to the school. Football was a drawing card for all of this. The school has reaped benefits from increased apps as well. Could not buy these kinds of benefits for even twice the money or more, particularly in the short time frame all of this was achieved.</p>
<p>Another thing is that former college athletes tend to be the most active supporters of the school when they become alums. Sporting events attract the alums for reunions and other get togethers. Though seminars, performing arts venues, cocktail type parties, etc have also been and are done, guess what works the best? Yep. Sports. </p>
<p>The direct answer to your question is that a skilled athlete is rarer than the actor, dancer, painter, musician, writer, etc. Admissions offices have to turn the later groups away in swarms, whereas they often have to woo and court and even buy the athletes.</p>
<p>-Vango
At least where I go (Penn State) not a cent of the athletic budget comes from government money, tuition or fees. It is all either donated or raised through ticket sales. This includes all of their scholarships. If it were not for the athletic funds this money would not exhist anyways and thus is not being taken from other students. This is a fact and is entirely undisputed at the school. I have never heard a single person complain about how money is going to athletics. Additionally even none big money sports such as wrestling, soccer and volleyball often draw thousands of fans. For instance I was at a wrestling match this past weekend that had 6,000 people at it.</p>
<p>“The direct answer to your question is that a skilled athlete is rarer than the actor, dancer, painter, musician, writer, etc. Admissions offices have to turn the later groups away in swarms, whereas they often have to woo and court and even buy the athletes.”</p>
<p>Exactly right. And the way I look at it - for both my d’s, one an athlete and one not - if they want their services, the colleges should bid for them. For the first one they did; we are waiting on the second.</p>
<p>British culture values sports, but sports are not a factor in admission, much at all, into British universities. So there is a different model for the parents whose children want to go to English-speaking institutions of higher education with a different admission policy. For my oldest son, traveling soccer (at a low competitive level) is an enjoyable, somewhat time-consuming activity, but will probably have little influence on his college application. I’m not worried about him not getting into a good college.</p>
<p>There is also a perception that being able to juggle a varsity sport (or two) during high school, as well as decent, if not spectacular grades in challenging curriculum, says something about the student’s ability to manage time.</p>
<p>You can practice a band instrument an hour per day, and probably get good enough to make all-county or all-state by senior year of high school. Two hours a day will get you there for sure even if you’re not “musically inclined.” But most varsity team sports involve 3 to 5 hours per day. Throw in travel and 1 to 3 games per week, and we’re up to 20 to 25 hours per week, all outside of school. That’s not including the meetings before school, batting cage practice, weekend drills, etc.</p>
<p>Good athletes > Good teams > More attention given to school > More money > Attracts Better students slowly > More attention > Even better athletes > Even better students > Even more money > Better Reputation > Even Better Students > Even better rep > Even more money</p>
<p>doubleplay-
if a student can juggle a varsity sport and keep his/her grades up, then I am impressed and have no issues with them getting accepted to a school over another student. But there are plenty of other non-sport ECs that take just as much of a time commitment (drama and dance come to mind) and if a student engaging in one of those can also keep their grades up, to me they would be the more impressive student.</p>
<p>BTW, I totally understand that the athletics/education thing is a cultural phenomenon in this country. I just am not convinced that it deserves all the resources it gets. I’d rather see kids focus getting a good education than on becoming a good athlete. It’s terriffic if you can do both, but most kids can’t (the CC community notwithstanding). I have met parents of very young kids who are so focused on making them into athletes and yet have very little regard for their education. And since the U.S. is falling farther and farther behind in international education rankings, it should probably be a cause for concern.</p>
<p>Also, people keep mentioning athletics as they relate to our national obesity problem, but we’ve had athletics tied to education for decades and decades and yet we are becoming more obese each year. So much for healthy mind/healthy body. Why are countries like Italy and France less obese when they do not have athletics tied to education? I don’t think having athletics tied to education has any impact on obesity. I don’t have to be a college athlete to decide to eat right and exercise.</p>
<p>Still, there is more focus on athletics now than there was thirty years ago, and yet there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in those thirty years.</p>
<p>Kid around the corner is now a student at Yale because of his athletic prowess. His sister, a better student, in now at the state flagship and doing well after a year at Richmond.</p>
<p>athletes add the $, but take away from intelligence and respectability of the school. case in point, we prepare for a midterm in my class the other day. most of us are busting and working hard, while the athletes get free tutoring. what will happen when their bodies are no longer useful?</p>
<p>OK, one more time. “Meritocracy?” As measured by what,originaloog? I assure you, nobody handed a Division I athlete anything. Grades and standard test scores are not the only measures of achievement. Yale has simply decided that other types of extraordinary achievement are important as well. You may disagree with that assessment, but who appointed you the ultimate authority?</p>
<p>Not all athletes are on full or even partial scholarships. The NCAA limits the number of scholarships given per particular sport for Division I and II. I believe baseball only is aloted 9 scholarships. Also, many sports have booster clubs that significantly support the operations of the team.</p>
<p>EMM1- I know a little bit about the hard work and talent associated with competing in college athletics at the highest level, being a top junior golfer as a hs student. Alas, I did not make the team freshman year at Ohio State and didn’t try out subsequent years for a variety of reasons.</p>
<p>To get a clearer understanding how college athletics adversely impacts higher education read “The Game of Life:College Sports and Educational Values” piblished by Princeton University Press. A review exerpt.</p>
<p>"James Shulman and William Bowen introduce facts into a terrain overrun by emotions and enduring myths. Using the same database that informed The Shape of the River, the authors analyze data on 90,000 students who attended thirty selective colleges and universities in the 1950s, 1970s, and 1990s. Drawing also on historical research and new information on giving and spending, the authors demonstrate how athletics influence the class composition and campus ethos of selective schools, as well as the messages that these institutions send to prospective students, their parents, and society at large.</p>
<p>Shulman and Bowen show that athletic programs raise even more difficult questions of educational policy for small private colleges and highly selective universities than they do for big-time scholarship-granting schools. They discover that today’s athletes, more so than their predecessors, enter college less academically well-prepared and with different goals and values than their classmates–differences that lead to different lives."</p>
<p>When we consider that as much as 25% of the student body participates in varsity athletics at small colleges, one can imagine the impact that could have on the education mission of the college if a significant %age of these students are admitted with substandard academic credentials.</p>
<p>And we need to be honest. Giving admissions advantages to athletes is not about fielding athletic teams but fielding “winning” athletic teams. And I have yet to see this claimed in a college mission statement.</p>
<p>And no, nobody appointed me as the ultimate authourity. But I am entitled to my own opinions aren’t I? And I certainly am happy that you are able to have yours.</p>
<p>Of course you are entitled to your opinion. My point is that there is nothing inevitable about the idea that college admissions should be based only on purely academic measures and that considering athletic abilities/accomplishments is no less “meritocratic.” Instead, the question is which accomplishments one considers important. </p>
<p>William Bowen is one of the pious hypocrits of the age. While he was president of Princeton University, he did nothing to change the strong emphasis on athletics there. Stop me before I kill again! </p>
<p>Finally, the observation that “today’s athletes [at elite institutions have different goals and values than their classmates–differences that lead to different lives” proves nothing about the relative merits of the two visions of life–but simply that they are different (on average).</p>
<p>Look, I have nothing against the Cal Tech model of admissions. My only point is that there is nothing inherently unfair or “bad” about having a different model.</p>
<p>Vango seems to have raised an interesting question and many of your responses seem to miss the point. Vango is not arguing that athletes should not get credit in the admissions and financial aid process, just that the credit should be roughly the same as that granted for other worthy and demanding activities like theater. The issue is not the treatment of athletes but the treatment of “recruited athletes.” Arguing by example is pointless since of course there are a large number of recruited athletes who could have gained admission based on their academic qualifications. The question Vango raises is about those who could not have. Arguing that this is just the way things are is also beside the point since Vango is arguing that we should change the way we do things. Derek Bok, former President of Harvard and former Dean of Harvard Law School, makes many of the same points in his book “Universities in the Marketplace.” First, he notes that the link between high profile athletics and a university education is a remarkably American phenomenon. Second, he argues that to the extent that it results in the recruitment of academically under-qualified students it undermines the principal purpose of the University. He also notes, that very few athletic programs are self-sustaining and that most are a significant drain on university resources. On the issue of fitness other countries that give no special credit to athletics in the admission process seem to have smaller problems with obesity than America and, in any case, I don’t think Vango’s argument is that college athletics should be abandoned but rather that it should be given only proportional credit in the admissions and financial aid process. This is an interesting issue and it is certainly not settled as many of you seem to imply.</p>
<p>In the end we need to remember we get what we create incentives for. Do we really want to encourage High School students to spend 3 to 5 hours a day training to become college athletes?</p>
<p>A few years ago I was at a planning session for a school trip to Greece. One of the students asked why we were spending a lot of time in Athens, but no time in Sparta. The organizing teacher pointed out that there was “nothing to see in Sparta because the Spartans left nothing behind”. (BTW, this teacher was a former Marine, and proud of it, and coached basketball and cross-country. But he knew what the primary mission of education was.)</p>
<p>Could I comment on the hypocrisy of posters who complain about sterotypes of knuckle-dragging athletes? I’ve seen innumerable references to boring bookworms who add nothing to college life because all they do is sit in their room studying. This is a myth. The top highschool students I know (very well) are involved in many school activities, and though most of those activities involve cerebral pursuits, they contribute no less to the vibrancy of the school than my neighbor’s kid who plays football–and does nothing else. When professors, doctors, lawyers and other professionals visit this community when considering job offers, they want to know if the schools sponsor active Science Olympiads, math teams, Quiz Bowls, if they have a quality literary review and a good record in the National Merit competition, if the orchestra is any good, is there a jazz band option, how about show choir and theater, etc. The kids who do these kinds of activities (my son among them) spend more time on their out of class activities than any athlete I know, and the school and community are better for their efforts. I also happen to think they are better prepared to contribute to the overall quality of college campus life than a student who spent 5 hours a day playing a single sport.</p>