"There were more varsity athletes at Cornell University (1,116) and Harvard (1,115) in 2017 than at much larger Ohio State University (1,065) and the University of Michigan (910), according to federal data." (Source: Washington Post, June 13)
Ivy League Athletics compared to BT, one perspective
- Thread starter Class of 67
- Start date
Without scholarship restrictions these schools regularly have extra bodies on most rosters compared to big schools. Basketball carries 20 or so at Cornell where Brian Earl is head coach (Danny's brother) some other sports carry larger rosters as well Add to that sports like squash, rowing and sprint football and you can see where they make up the larger numbers
very helpful. The OP was perplexing. The OP seems to equate athletic scholarship with non-scholarship. I guess, too, we have the hollywood pay to get into a good school scandal to consider as well.
Not so much scholarship restrictions as philosophy and cost. Cornell and Harvard are D1 basketball programs subject to the same squad size rules as OSU and Michigan...none.
As you point out, most Ivies simply field more teams. Cornell has 37 and Harvard 42 versus 37 at OSU and 29 at Michigan.
Then there is the money. The total athletic budget at most Ivy League schools would have little left over if they paid the salary of a big time football or basketball coach (and it probably won't be too long before they couldn't cover that). From a management perspective, Ivy League athletic programs are viewed as a cost of running a university and the governing officials simply decide how much they're going to spend.
1) "Varsity Athletes" is not = "Scholarship Athletes" (obviously). Just to clarify what would likely be misconstrued by the average reader.
2) How did the WaPo put together their numbers, and what parameters did they use? I have no idea (they may not either), but - in any event - not knowing that, their story isn't really worth any further consideration.
3) Many of the Ivies (including, I would wager, Cornell and Harvard - though I would have to check to make sure) sponsor significantly more varsity sports than would OSU and UMich ….. and even "more-more" varsity sports than most other major conference Universities.
That has been discussed on this Board - in great detail - on more than one occasion.
So the only thing surprising - to anyone familiar with collegiate athletics programs - would be if they did NOT have more varsity athletes.
Obviously
Guessing the WaPo used EADA numbers. Pretty much the only source and almost certainly the only source for private schools.
Every Ivy athlete is essentially a walk-on. They receive the same need-based financial aid (extremely generous) as all other students. Some (not really very many) get the admissions bump because the coach wants them on the team. It doesn't really cost the schools much to have lots of students on the teams even if most of them won't be part of actual competition.
I think the thrust of the story was that athletics are a really big part of Ivy admissions. If you're capable of playing a sport at a pretty competitive level, it helps you get in -- even if you're not one of the coach's picks, it still gives you a little edge in the admissions process.You don't have to be a great rower, you just have to be a good one with competition experience, and sometimes that's enough.
But it's not just athletics. If you play violin well enough to be part of the university orchestra, that can help with admission as well. It's extremely, extremely hard to get in purely on academic credentials because there are so many kids with near perfect SATs and grades taking every available AP course.
There's a logic to this -- the Ivies want an alumni base that will give them enough money to expand their huge endowments into something even more huge. So they don't want the smartest kids, they want smart kids who are going to be successful (or whose families have already been successful). A kid who was on a rowing team -- that indicates a well rounded kid, but maybe more importantly it indicates a family with enough resources to pay for rowing, which is a pretty expensive sport.
At Harvard they used to say -- the smartest kids don't go to Harvard, they go to MIT or the U of Chicago. And when they get out, they get hired by companies run by Harvard alumni. There's some truth to that.
I think the thrust of the story was that athletics are a really big part of Ivy admissions. If you're capable of playing a sport at a pretty competitive level, it helps you get in -- even if you're not one of the coach's picks, it still gives you a little edge in the admissions process.You don't have to be a great rower, you just have to be a good one with competition experience, and sometimes that's enough.
But it's not just athletics. If you play violin well enough to be part of the university orchestra, that can help with admission as well. It's extremely, extremely hard to get in purely on academic credentials because there are so many kids with near perfect SATs and grades taking every available AP course.
There's a logic to this -- the Ivies want an alumni base that will give them enough money to expand their huge endowments into something even more huge. So they don't want the smartest kids, they want smart kids who are going to be successful (or whose families have already been successful). A kid who was on a rowing team -- that indicates a well rounded kid, but maybe more importantly it indicates a family with enough resources to pay for rowing, which is a pretty expensive sport.
At Harvard they used to say -- the smartest kids don't go to Harvard, they go to MIT or the U of Chicago. And when they get out, they get hired by companies run by Harvard alumni. There's some truth to that.
Wash post is basically like any other rag these days, no one researches beyond the first hit on a google search.1) "Varsity Athletes" is not = "Scholarship Athletes" (obviously). Just to clarify what would likely be misconstrued by the average reader.
2) How did the WaPo put together their numbers, and what parameters did they use? I have no idea (they may not either
3) Many of the Ivies (including, I would wager, Cornell and Harvard - though I would have to check to make sure) sponsor significantly more varsity sports than would OSU and UMich ….. and even "more-more" varsity sports than most other major conference Universities.
That has been discussed on this Board - in great detail - on more than one occasion.
So the only thing surprising - to anyone familiar with collegiate athletics programs - would be if they did NOT have more varsity athletes.
Obviously
[EDIT: See that Art has listed the # of sports sponsored by each University]
One thing that occurs is a kid getting into school, aided by his athletic ability, then dropping out- and staying in the school.
Psu had stanko, I had a colleague at work who did that with Princeton. Not playing by the spirit of the rules but quite legal (unless they have filled the loophole). These kids are usually quite good students, just not that good.
Psu had stanko, I had a colleague at work who did that with Princeton. Not playing by the spirit of the rules but quite legal (unless they have filled the loophole). These kids are usually quite good students, just not that good.
This is largely correct, but the attraction of athletes to the Ivies and to future employers or grad programs is that these athletes compete in the classroom with their fellow Ivy League students while at the same time dedicating up to 20 hours per week to their sport. My son estimated that this was the case for him year round when he played football at Penn. This dedication demonstrates a willingness and ability to work harder than the average student while in a team centered environment...something future employers value highly.
