ECAC Inferiority

[KeithK]

I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed.  But I don't see how you change that now.

But my problem is that in scholarship schools, too much of that money goes to the athletic department and not to the school itself. At least in the Ivys, I think most of those that donate to sports, donate more to the academic side.

So is the complaint that people who would otherwise donate money to the academic side of institutions are instead giving it to athletic programs, thus starving academics?  That assumes that it's an either or proposition, that those who donate specific gifts to athletics would give the money to academics (or general funds) in the absence of the sports culture.  I'm not sure that's true.

[nshapiro]

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed.  

Brilliantly said.  I have always been Pissed Off about paying for private school, and being solicited to contribute EVEN MORE.  I was also amazed that most families (according to the school) did contribute beyond tuition.

[Trotsky]

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed.  

Brilliantly said.  I have always been Pissed Off about paying for private school, and being solicited to contribute EVEN MORE.  I was also amazed that most families (according to the school) did contribute beyond tuition.

Although interestingly (I'm sure Beeeej has concrete numbers for this) private school alumni have both higher giving rates and give larger amounts than public school alumni.  I don't know whether that's still true if you adjust for wealth of the donor -- it may be that private schools have that much higher a concentration of wealthy alumni -- but the dime store sociologist reason I've heard is private school = greater sense of community.  For that matter, it may not withstand adjusting for size, either -- it may simply be a matter of smaller schools fostering a greater sense of belonging.

I have always been impressed by how strong an allegiance Cornellians have for our school even though it is both relatively large and "relatively public."

Edit: from this source quoting the USNWR rankings:

Code Select Expand


% of Alumni Giving , National Universities
60% , Princeton
53% , Dartmouth
51% , Notre Dame
43% , Yale
41% , Harvard
40% , Duke
40% , Brown
38% , U Penn
37% , MIT
37% , Wash U
36% , Stanford
36% , Columbia
36% , Emory
[color=#d61616][b]34% , Cornell[/b][/color]
34% , Rice
33% , Johns Hopkins
32% , U Chicago
30% , Northwestern
29% , Caltech
28% , Georgetown
25% , Vanderbilt
24% , U Virginia
22% , Carnegie Mellon
14% , UC Berkeley
14% , UCLA


% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

64% , Carleton
61% , Amherst
60% , Williams
58% , Middlebury
55% , Bowdoin
54% , Davidson
51% , Wesleyan
50% , Swarthmore
50% , Wellesley
49% , Haverford
48% , W&L
48% , Colby
47% , Pomona
45% , Claremont McK
43% , Grinnell
43% , Colgate
43% , Hamilton
43% , Bates
42% , Bryn Mawr
42% , Macalester
41% , Oberlin
38% , Harvey Mudd
38% , Smith
35% , Vassar
34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad


[marty]

% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

64% , Carleton
61% , Amherst
60% , Williams
58% , Middlebury
.
.
.
.
.

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

??


I thought of these two as more or less engineering schools. Interesting categorization.

As an aside, I give more (and regularly) to the University of Michigan than to Cornell or my other Alma Mater (U of Ill.).  Michigan arranged for a fellowship with a stipend and I will be finished paying my debt when I breath my last.   Until then U of M and eLynah get annual donations.

[Trotsky]

I thought of these two as more or less engineering schools. Interesting categorization.

Good point.  I think they just didn't have a place for them.

The moral of the story is soldiers, engineers and New Yorkers are free loaders.  

[Jim Hyla]

I understand the arguments about big time athletics taking advantage of athletes. But why exactly is athletics fandom "corrupting"? It helps create a community, brings enjoyment (mostly) and doesn't really have negative consequences. Are you just arguing that schools have to spend money on athletics (and exploit athletes) to keep the fans happy? Or is it more an aesthetic statement that students/alums don't appreciate academics because they focus on athletics?

From my perspective the whole business model of higher ed - relying on massive, continuing contributions from previous customers - is flawed.  But I don't see how you change that now.

But my problem is that in scholarship schools, too much of that money goes to the athletic department and not to the school itself. At least in the Ivys, I think most of those that donate to sports, donate more to the academic side.

So is the complaint that people who would otherwise donate money to the academic side of institutions are instead giving it to athletic programs, thus starving academics?  That assumes that it's an either or proposition, that those who donate specific gifts to athletics would give the money to academics (or general funds) in the absence of the sports culture.  I'm not sure that's true.

I certainly don't know the answer. But at least I would think it would be easier to solicit for academics if they weren't also being pitched heavily by athletics. Certainly in Syracuse there are friends that I know who give substantial amounts to SU to get good seats, etc. They don't do nearly as much to the academic side as many of my CU friends do. None of that proves anything, maybe someone has studied it, but I don't care enough to search it.

[Josh '99]

% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

Nitpick:  I would assume that those figures exclude the fact that virtually all of us give money to those schools via the IRS?  :-}

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

Nitpick:  I would assume that those figures exclude the fact that virtually all of us give money to those schools via the IRS?  :-}

Don't remind me.  I just did my taxes last night  ::scream::

[Roy 82]

Dixon?  From someone who mourns the passing of classical languages?  Sacrilege.  It's Dickson.;-)

OK, I officially sux.

FYP. (Thanks for the freebie)

[Jim Hyla]

% of Alumni Giving , Liberal Arts Colleges

34% , US Military Acad
23% , US Naval Acad

Nitpick:  I would assume that those figures exclude the fact that virtually all of us give money to those schools via the IRS?  :-}

I hope that a greater % of military grads than that pay taxes.

[Swampy]

Cornell is "the easiest Ivy to get into, the hardest to graduate from," and I have to think that most of us take great pride in this.

Is this still true?  I know that my freshman year, the first thing we were told was 'look left, look right... one of you three will not make it to graduation.'  This is no longer the case.  When I compared Cornell's Freshman retention rate and 6 year graduation rates to schools my son is deciding between, I was shocked to see Cornell's numbers around 95% for freshman retention, and 90% for 6 year graduation.

You've got two different things going on here. Low retention could be due to high academic standards OR due to students unprepared for college, low financial aid, not being able to get classes, 60% of courses taught by part-time lecturers, a physical plant resembling Hiroshima in 1946, etc. On the other hand, if a school is attracting extremely well-prepared, serious students, can control costs and financial aid so that students can work for money at most a limited number of hours per week, and keep partying confined to alternate weekends, it can have high academic standards AND high retention and 4-year graduation rates.

This is why the Ivies do so well. It's also why things like SAT scores are such poor predictors of student success in the Ivies: the scores are so similar among students that there's not enough variation to make much of a difference.

[NYBIGred80]

How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out? You have 6 Ivy schools, so you would play the other schools 4 times each for a total of 20 league games. That would free up 2 extra games from the current ECAC format for a total of 9 non conference games.

[marty]

How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out? You have 6 Ivy schools, so you would play the other schools 4 times each for a total of 20 league games. That would free up 2 extra games from the current ECAC format for a total of 9 non conference games.

It wouldn't work.  What will is a merger of WCHA and CCHA.

[Rosey]

How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out?

I'm imagining it would result in the Ivy League schools' eventual national irrelevance. Also see: football. :-)

[css228]

How would a Ivy League split from ECAC work out?

I'm imagining it would result in the Ivy League schools' eventual national irrelevance. Also see: football. :-)

Probably though we'd stand a better chance of relevance in hockey. Still, best not tempt fate.