So I came across an article (haven't found it on line yet) titled "The High Cost of Winning" (Yale Alumni Magazine, Sept/Oct 2003) reviewing a book titled "Reclaiming the Game: College Sports and Educational Values," by a couple of economists (Bowen and Levin). Among other things, it talks about how athletic recruiting is ruining the Ivies.
They cited some interesting statistics, including that Ivy Men's Ice Hockey players have average SAT scores 177 points lower than the school average, the worst of the sports recorded (Basketball was only 165 below and football was only 144 below.) The schools would only provide the statistics if they were presented by sport and not by school. (Cited for 1995 entering male classes)
I know SAT scores don't really mean crap, but these numbers are causing presidents and AD's (claims the article) to reduce the numbers of recruit spots offered. It further complains that these spots are A) average 16 and up to 25 percent of the total student bodies, and B) make up 80-90% of the sports teams preventing "real" students from being able to participate in athletics. Actual recruiting and admission procedures were explained, but I won't reproduce them here (at least in part for fear of not getting it exactly right and getting flamed endlessly :)
Other interesting points were that fact that when talking about how, despite all the restrictions, some schools still managed to be dominate in certain sports at certain times. They mentioned Princeton in Lacrosse, Brown in Soccer, Yale in lightweight crew and women's cross country, but said nothing about Cornell's Hockey (recently or in the mighty 67-70). They did towards the end of the article conclude that tightening athletic standards was the right thing to do to Yale's athletic program even if it meant continuing to lose to Cornell at Hockey. Good to get the respect, but I'm not sure how I feel about the smarter-than-thou attitude.
Just wanted to share.
P.S. I've got LOTS of crash space for the Cornell @ Yale game Nov 7th. Come one, come all. My cookies aren't exactly Christine's fudge, but still pretty wonderful. :)
Adam
[On topic] Does the article indicate what percentage of the overall undergraduate population scores 177 (or some other number) above the school average? If it's in the 16-25 percent range, then why do they have a problem -- somebody has to be below the mean. Also, do they give any indication whether there are other groups that have similarly low numbers -- like members of the band, the drama department or some other field where applicants might get credit for non-grades/non-SAT factors?
[Off topic] Any idea when tickets might be available from the Yale ticket office for that game?
There was an article about this book in the NY Times the other day, at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/education/15COLL.html.
The Times mentions the lower SAT scores but focuses more on how recruited athletes are more isolated from other students than they used to be. Here's the opening sentence: "Even at the nation's elite colleges and universities, athletes have become so narrowly focused on sports that they are far removed from their classmates academically, socially and culturally, according to a study of intercollegiate athletics in the Ivy League and at 25 other highly selective colleges."