|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 19, 2020 17:45:55 GMT -5
The reason for the elimination of varsity sports such as rowing, swimming, golf and tennis is due to the admission sports reserved for each class to field a competitive varsity sport. At elite competitive schools with admission rates in single digits, i.e. Stanford, Dartmouth, Brown, with small class sizes, to reserve an admissions slot for a jock, will keep out a talented non jock who maybe an engineering, pre med or physics savant. At Stanford, with a undergrad class size of roughly 1,700, with over 47,000 applications, reserving admissions slots for Olympic Sports for example, fencing, squash, field hockey, sailing, may be contra productive to an elite scientific institution. It is also a fallout from Varsity Blues, where spotlight was shown on the scandal at USC, Yale, Georgetown and Stanford. The class size at Stanford, is now larger than when my daughter’s class enrolled. This increase in enrollment was needed for example to accommodate size needed for the sports mentioned. Stanford admissions for the class of 2024 is 4.3%, Brown’s admissions is 8.5%, Princeton 6.5, Dartmouth for the class of 2024, is 8.8. admission.stanford.edu/apply/selection/statistics.htmlAt Stanford, “Nerd Nation”, (said as a point of pride by Stanford undergrads) has risen. 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 19, 2020 19:44:39 GMT -5
So it would not have been possible to retain those sports but eliminate the laxer standards for athletes?
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 19, 2020 21:18:57 GMT -5
Great points, Crucis. A lot of the sports getting cut are of the country club variety. Rosters tend to be close to 100% Caucasian and also in the much wealthier side. Elite colleges are trying not to skew any greater towards these demographics in overall admission so making the cuts in those specific sports makes a lot of sense as far as the overall admissions objective is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 19, 2020 21:20:30 GMT -5
So it would not have been possible to retain those sports but eliminate the laxer standards for athletes? What will ultimately happen is these sports teams will still exist but the athletes composing the team will come from the pool of students who got into the college on their own, not because they were recruited and slotted by a coach. And the teams will be led by senior or grad student captains as opposed to a head coach being paid by the athletic dept. |
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 19, 2020 21:47:03 GMT -5
So it would not have been possible to retain those sports but eliminate the laxer standards for athletes? Not sure I completely understand your question. However, I will try to answer. From a financial standpoint the schools should have been able to accommodate and keep the sports with the ability to raise targeted funding from alumni and friends to endow scholarships and coaching positions. However is that the best use of resources? From an institutional cultural standpoint, there is a perception in academe of the tail wagging the dog regarding athletic admissions. Clear and simple, too many possible marginal jocks getting athletic quota admissions for Olympic sports. Talented Oboe, Cello and Violinist need not apply. The Varsity Blues scandal, currently still being litigated, at Ivy League and elite schools may have caused the reevaluating of athletic based admissions for low profile Olympic sports at highly competitive institutions. In many schools, this was gaming the admission process, University of Southern California acceptance rate is approximately 11%. In order to truly eliminate the gaming across the board, eliminate all athletic admissions, of course, we all know this is impossible in our totally obsessed revenue based athletic culture. Non elite colleges and universities out of necessities will continue to use unencumbered Athletic reserved admissions, without an AI, to bolster their class size. |
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 19, 2020 22:01:53 GMT -5
Great points, Crucis. A lot of the sports getting cut are of the country club variety. Rosters tend to be close to 100% Caucasian and also in the much wealthier side. Elite colleges are trying not to skew any greater towards these demographics in overall admission so making the cuts in those specific sports makes a lot of sense as far as the overall admissions objective is concerned. The elimination of these sports should not be viewed on a racial, “Country Club” perspective. The comment appears to be a biased, aggrieved talking point, promulgated from those attempting to reinstate these sports at a particular institution or attempting to create an additional dichotomy to our society. The elimination is based on bottom line. What do these sports add to the overall financial picture of their respective athletic departments? Generally zilch. Outside of an occasional ESPN episode to fill unexpected time, they are never seen, thus are not a revenue or marketing generator for the AD or the Board of Trustees. We know the bromide, Money talks,..... walks. The sports eliminated were not independently financially sustainable at the given institution because of conference affiliation, regarding support, travel, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 19, 2020 23:21:35 GMT -5
So, do you think that colleges should drop all sports that do not generate revenue or media exposure ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 20, 2020 1:13:24 GMT -5
No!!! I did not state that narrative as an absolute metric. At H C, I would like to see us retain all the current varsity teams, knowing they do not generate revenue, however they provide intangible value in their vibrancy to the HC culture. I have talked to parents whose children decided to attend HC for the value of participating in a D1 Olympic program. For example, Ice Hockey helps attract international students from Canada and Europe. Volleyball and softball is beneficial in recruiting students from California and Florida. Over the years, I have attended all sports programs home and away offered at HC and have enjoyed watching. Including watching soccer play at U SF (San Francisco) on September 14, 2003 in the Diadora Classic tournament. My highlight day was attending 5 H C Varsity sports competitions on the same day in 2007. On November 10, HC played five events on campus. Football played Lafayette, Basketball played Hofstra, Men’s soccer played Lafayette, Volleyball played Colgate, and Men’s Ice Hockey played Canisius. Truly a great day to root for all teams wearing purple. Retaining Olympic sports should be determined on an institution by institution basis. In the case of Stanford, Dartmouth, Brown, they had in excess of over 30 varsity teams, each using valuable admissions slots by each class. Stanford had 36 varsity sports, including Squash and Wrestling. These institutions determined that the intangible value add proposition of these sports really no longer provided a benefit for the institution’s marketing profile. Conversely, Trinity College in Hartford is a Squash powerhouse who will reserve admissions slots for Squash over a talented Oboe player. The Squash team is composed of many international students, who add to the demographic profile that Trinity is seeking to achieve. I wish HC could attract the same multi national roster for a sport as Trinity Squash. Stanford in turn, does not currently need a Squash program to attract a global student population. bantamsports.com/sports/msquash/roster?path=msquashbantamsports.com/sports/wsquash/roster?path=wsquashThe same is true with Wresting at Lehigh, which has an Endowed Head Coaching Chair. Although it is not a Patriot League sport, it is part of their institutional DNA, and provides a demographic that Lehigh seeks to attract and retain. lehighsports.com/sports/wrestling/roster |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 20, 2020 8:03:30 GMT -5
The Ivy Leagues aren't sponsoring ANY sports for revenue or media exposure. If that was the criteria for not dropping a sport, no one in the Ivy or Patriot Leagues would have athletic departments.
It may not purely be "racial" reasoning but Dartmouth clearly wants to eliminate the number of "slotted athletes" in it's admissions pool. And it just so happens that a lot of these secondary sports tend to be made up of wealthier students who tend not to be what admissions officers would refer to as "people of coler".
|
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jul 20, 2020 10:51:41 GMT -5
For those who seemed to be ticked off, I am trying to understand your perceived grievance in the elimination of the sports selected at the schools mentioned. Do you have a child or relative that is in a select pool of applicants who will be affected? Or are you playing devil’s advocate. Each institution has made a decision, to no longer support these program on a varsity level and reserve admissions slots to ensure their competitive success. The effects of the Varsity Blues Scandal, can not be under emphasized in this decision. www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/10/ivy-league-athletics-are-the-new-money-ballIf you are upset, so be it, but why? Do you really have a dog in this hunt? Will if affect your day to day life? Bottom Line, these sports provided an entry into certain schools in a less than meritorious process. Varsity Blues exposed the corruption by coaches and parents to game the system in many cases for academically unqualified students, who may have had bogus SAT and ACT scores submitted, along with fraudulent or questionable athletic achievements. The article in the Daily Princeton highlights the Money Ball practice. Neither Stanford nor Dartmouth for example are denying admittance to “Wealthier Students” who Fence, or play Squash or Row,or Golf. They just no longer can get admissions spots reserved solely by playing the sports selected for termination on a varsity level. Trying to blame their elimination of a change because of admissions looking at “People of Coler” (sic) maybe is a poor reflection on the character of those who believe that is the only reason. I am willing to listen to a cogent argument in defense of their elimination. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 20, 2020 11:58:32 GMT -5
For Thor those who seemed to be ticked off, I am trying to understand your perceived grievance in the elimination of the sports selected at the schools mentioned. Do you have a child or relative that is in a select pool of applicants who will be affected? Or are you playing devil’s advocate. Each institution has made a decision, to no longer support these program on a varsity level and reserve admissions slots to ensure their competitive success. The effects of the Varsity Blues Scandal, can not be under emphasized in this decision. www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/10/ivy-league-athletics-are-the-new-money-ballIf you are upset, so be it, but why? Do you really have a dog in this hunt? Will if affect your day to day life? Bottom Line, these sports provided an entry into certain schools in a less than meritorious process. Varsity Blues exposed the corruption by coaches and parents to game the system in many cases for academically unqualified students, who may have had bogus SAT and ACT scores submitted, along with fraudulent or questionable athletic achievements. The article in the Daily Princeton highlights the Money Ball practice. Neither Stanford nor Dartmouth for example are denying admittance to “Wealthier Students” who Fence, or play Squash or Row,or Golf. They just no longer can get admissions spots reserved solely by playing the sports selected for termination on a varsity level.
Trying to blame their elimination of a change because of admissions looking at “People of Coler” (sic) maybe is a poor reflection on the character of those who believe that is the only reason. I am willing to listen to a cogent argument in defense of their elimination.The wealthy and connected will certainly find a way get into these schools. As you pointed out, the methodology in which they achieve admission will no longer hinge solely on the will of an athletic dept. employee. They will need to get in via SAT score, grades, recommendations, etc. etc. and then try out for these now-club teams when they get into the school. On the last point, there may be other reasons (costs, lack of revenue) but Dartmouth literally said they made the cuts because they wanted less admissions spots to be taken up by slotted athletes when filling incoming classes. And it just so happens that slots for these particular sports primarily come from a wealthy, suburban, Caucasian, prep school demographic. I personally applaud the decision because chances are these teams will be able to continue their lineage on campus and possibly compete at a national level without athletic dept. sponsorship. So I think it could be a win-win. The very reason the track teams at Brown WERE REINSTATED was because of outcries that both the men's and women's teams were well-represented with diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. That's a fact, not an opinion. Your point about the Varsity Blues scandal is very relevant and definitely could have been a factor. The scandal enveloped both Stanford itself as well as Ivy League institutions and directly revolved around "slots" for varsity sports that tend to be filled by wealthier student-athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 21, 2020 10:29:58 GMT -5
How do you figure that the teams will be able to compete on a national level by moving from varsity to club status and by reducing/eliminating recruiting (no slots for athletes, reduced budgets) ?
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jul 21, 2020 10:45:11 GMT -5
A large number of white Ivy kids are either recruited athletes, legacies, or related to staff/big donors. A move like Darmouth's would lower that number and in all likelihood increase diversity. www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/study-harvard-finds-43-percent-white-students-are-legacy-athletes-n1060361How many of those kids would get in to Harvard without those connections? The study also found that roughly 75 percent of the white students admitted from those four categories, labeled 'ALDCs' in the study, “would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs,” the study said.
Almost 70 percent of all legacy applicants are white, compared with 40 percent of all applicants who do not fall under those categories, the authors found.
“Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jul 21, 2020 11:54:55 GMT -5
. “Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged,” the study said. [/i] [/quote] This seems to be what NY Cru is getting at. |
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jul 21, 2020 13:29:33 GMT -5
70 percent of all legacy applicants are white—-is that off base in a country where 76% of the population is white? No doubt the population of 18 year olds is less than 76% white but the 70 percent figure does not seem unreasonable to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jul 21, 2020 15:30:35 GMT -5
With Dartmouth closing and re-purposing it's money losing golf course, does that mean golf has peaked in popularity? You would think climate change would benefit golf courses in New Hampshire to the same degree it hurts ski resorts. Maybe Dartmouth should have slapped "National" onto the course name.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Jul 21, 2020 16:55:14 GMT -5
How do you figure that the teams will be able to compete on a national level by moving from varsity to club status and by reducing/eliminating recruiting (no slots for athletes, reduced budgets) ? What I meant is that club sports can still compete in NCAA (or whatever governing body is called in certain obscure sports) intercollegiate competition. Only difference is that the budget to fund the team would fall outside the umbrella of the athletic dept. And yes of course the teams won't be as strong without being able to actually recruit. |
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Jan 29, 2021 11:22:08 GMT -5
Dartmouth announced today that they have reinstated all 5 teams ! Excuse was a Title IX review - Nothing stated about the future of their golf course
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbball13 on Jan 29, 2021 12:42:37 GMT -5
Dartmouth announced today that they have reinstated all 5 teams ! Excuse was a Title IX review - Nothing stated about the future of their golf course Institutional incompetence by calculating Title IX percentages incorrectly (basic math) and then pulling the trigger based on that math. Embarrassing stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Jan 29, 2021 13:46:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 29, 2021 13:54:37 GMT -5
I'm wondering if it was really a Title-IX miscalculation or whether there was enough backlash and/or new funding to keep the sports alive?
|
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 29, 2021 14:17:21 GMT -5
Doesn’t every student who gets into an Ivy need some sort of admissions hook whether that be sports or legacy or Uber-rich parents who might make a huge donation or some unique talent or being part of an under-represented group? I was a very good student in high school. I used to tutor another white student. His parents were quite wealthy. They sent him to Africa every summer to build water systems so he had a very unique hook and got into multiple Ivies. I was much better on every academic metric from the same high school but I was a bus boy or waiter every summer. Apparently that didn’t jump off the page in Ivy admissions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 29, 2021 14:25:23 GMT -5
I'm wondering if it was really a Title-IX miscalculation or whether there was enough backlash and/or new funding to keep the sports alive? I think it's more the latter. Hard to believe cutting both women's and men's swimming, for example, was a Title IX issue. |
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 29, 2021 14:29:16 GMT -5
Doesn’t every student who gets into an Ivy need some sort of admissions hook whether that be sports or legacy or Uber-rich parents who might make a huge donation or some unique talent or being part of an under-represented group? I was a very good student in high school. I used to tutor another white student. His parents were quite wealthy. They sent him to Africa every summer to build water systems so he had a very unique hook and got into multiple Ivies. I was much better on every academic metric from the same high school but I was a bus boy or waiter every summer. Apparently that didn’t jump off the page in Ivy admissions. And where would this Message Board be if an Ivy had decided otherwise ? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbball13 on Jan 29, 2021 14:40:42 GMT -5
|
|
