Ivy League plays a complex game Scholarship situation adds recruiting wrinkle

[TSUalum05]

This article is from the Houston Chronicle. I thought it was interesting article...

===============

College football recruiting at any level is a complex game. But when it comes to understanding Ivy League recruiting, you really could use a degree from Harvard.

Houston-area players like Alief Taylor's Jordan Are', Memorial's James Rushing and Klein Collins' Scotty Whitmore are finding that out this season — and doing their best to play by the rules.

"I'm the type of person who can adapt pretty quickly, and I know if I have a certain expectation to meet, I can pretty much meet it," Are' said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/7354159.html

[DFW HOYA]

One of the interesting stories that doesn't get attention is how the Ivy League is recruiting areas like Texas that were not a part of its efforts a generation ago. While not everyone from the Ancient Eight lived in the Northeast and there were always a few kids on the roster from out west (for example, the great Harvard team of 1968 featured guard Tommy Lee Jones from Dallas' St. Mark's HS), there was always more than enough talent within driving distance to fill most Ivy teams.

Today, Ivy and PL teams almost have to go beyond its region to fill teams. With a 20% growth rate and four new Congressional seats coming its way, it's no wonder that Texas is a focus of Harvard recruiting. And yet there are still some people in the Northeast who still can't imagine that more people now live in the Lone Star State than the Empire State.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

"A bold move by Fordham, which received Friendswood QB Peter Maetzold's pledge and has talked to Klein Forest's Lewis Williams, could lead to the Ivy League offering football scholarships.

(Ivy League) schools are so expensive," Maetzold said. "It's been a real blessing that (Fordham's) been able to offer athletic scholarships. I think I would have ended up somewhere down here if that wasn't the case."

Calling president Weiss...

[Panther88]

Interesting process.

[DJOM]

One of the most interesting facets of my son's education at Princeton has been his ability to forge friendships with teammates from all over the country. This stretched as far as Hawaii, included Texas, Florida and most states in between. These young men are forming bonds and potential business relationships which should last them a lifetime.

[LBPop]

It was 7 years ago that we as parents went through the Ivy League/Patriot League recruiting process. And I can attest that it is confusing...even for someone with a three digit IQ xlolx . Thankfully our son, "LBKid" was a high band candidate, so he had an advantage (but maybe not--more later). Despite the fact that these schools did not have scholarships to offer, and because they were all largely recruiting from the same list of candidates, there was a much larger degree of manipulation and misinformation than we ever expected from such "hallowed" institutions. The statement made by the Harvard coach about Band 1 players, "...that kid better score a lot of touchdowns or stop a lot of touchdowns" must be the Harvard mantra. They said those exact words to the LB family when we visited. They also said (in classic Cambridge humility), "If we want a kid we usually get him". It is a delicate little game they play once they identify a young man who can play and who either can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of aid based on "need". It took us completely by surprise and I have "threatened" to write a booklet to educate the parents of potential FCS non-scholarship football players.

These schools look at the offer of admission as their "scholarships". The Yale coach estimated that of the 25 kids that were "offered" the prior year, maybe two would have gotten in without football. Well, we had no worries about LBKid getting in, but we were shocked at the attitude of a couple of the "Elite Eight". They challenged our son's real desire to play football. The assumption was that a young man with excellent grades and SAT scores could not really like playing football. During one particular meeting with a head coach he was boldly and unabashedly blatant about it. If I had known that my son had already decided that he wasn't interested in this Ivy League school I would have gone off at the coach. But being inexperienced, I politely listened to his cynical challenge to my then 18 year old son's true motives.

If these schools ever go scholarship, I think the families will be much more prepared for the "game" these coaches play. When it's about money, you expect some level of maneuvering. But when it's just about being offered a spot in a recruiting class, a naive parent (as I was) is not as well equipped to help their son navigate through the process. Bottom line, I understand how confusing this can be and I can see how, if played properly, Fordham's decision can become a huge advantage. If the PL goes all scholarship (and if Georgetown can ever find the money to participate) I could see them pullling in a lot more of the Ivy kids.

[DJOM]

I have often thought about writing a book about what parent's should look for, expect and will probably see while their sons are being recruited. Both of my sons are a year apart and both drew recruiting visits from D1 A and AA schools. I learned so much during the first go round it was incredible. Problem is, most publishers would probably label any true depiction of the process as a work of fiction---cuz if you have not been thru it, you wouldn't believe it.

[MplsBison]

It was 7 years ago that we as parents went through the Ivy League/Patriot League recruiting process. And I can attest that it is confusing...even for someone with a three digit IQ xlolx . Thankfully our son, "LBKid" was a high band candidate, so he had an advantage (but maybe not--more later). Despite the fact that these schools did not have scholarships to offer, and because they were all largely recruiting from the same list of candidates, there was a much larger degree of manipulation and misinformation than we ever expected from such "hallowed" institutions. The statement made by the Harvard coach about Band 1 players, "...that kid better score a lot of touchdowns or stop a lot of touchdowns" must be the Harvard mantra. They said those exact words to the LB family when we visited. They also said (in classic Cambridge humility), "If we want a kid we usually get him". It is a delicate little game they play once they identify a young man who can play and who either can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of aid based on "need". It took us completely by surprise and I have "threatened" to write a booklet to educate the parents of potential FCS non-scholarship football players.

These schools look at the offer of admission as their "scholarships". The Yale coach estimated that of the 25 kids that were "offered" the prior year, maybe two would have gotten in without football. Well, we had no worries about LBKid getting in, but we were shocked at the attitude of a couple of the "Elite Eight". They challenged our son's real desire to play football. The assumption was that a young man with excellent grades and SAT scores could not really like playing football. During one particular meeting with a head coach he was boldly and unabashedly blatant about it. If I had known that my son had already decided that he wasn't interested in this Ivy League school I would have gone off at the coach. But being inexperienced, I politely listened to his cynical challenge to my then 18 year old son's true motives.

If these schools ever go scholarship, I think the families will be much more prepared for the "game" these coaches play. When it's about money, you expect some level of maneuvering. But when it's just about being offered a spot in a recruiting class, a naive parent (as I was) is not as well equipped to help their son navigate through the process. Bottom line, I understand how confusing this can be and I can see how, if played properly, Fordham's decision can become a huge advantage. If the PL goes all scholarship (and if Georgetown can ever find the money to participate) I could see them pullling in a lot more of the Ivy kids.

"It is a delicate little game they play once they identify a young man who can play and who either can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of aid based on "need"."


Allow me to translate: if the coach had the choice between two equally skilled, equally academic student-athletes - he would choose a guy that either comes from a wealthy family or would qualify for need based aid from the school anyway over the kid whose family has too much income to qualify for need based institutional aid but can't afford the tuition themselves.

That way the school doesn't have to help out financially any more than they would have to anyway, just to get the player to go to the school!!



This "need based athletic aid" is liquid horses**t !!! It needs to be BANNED.

A player's family's ability to pay SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON HOW MUCH ATHLETIC AID HE RECEIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

xflamemadx xflamemadx xflamemadx xflamemadx xflamemadx

[Ivytalk]

It was 7 years ago that we as parents went through the Ivy League/Patriot League recruiting process. And I can attest that it is confusing...even for someone with a three digit IQ xlolx . Thankfully our son, "LBKid" was a high band candidate, so he had an advantage (but maybe not--more later). Despite the fact that these schools did not have scholarships to offer, and because they were all largely recruiting from the same list of candidates, there was a much larger degree of manipulation and misinformation than we ever expected from such "hallowed" institutions. The statement made by the Harvard coach about Band 1 players, "...that kid better score a lot of touchdowns or stop a lot of touchdowns" must be the Harvard mantra. They said those exact words to the LB family when we visited. They also said (in classic Cambridge humility), "If we want a kid we usually get him". It is a delicate little game they play once they identify a young man who can play and who either can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of aid based on "need". It took us completely by surprise and I have "threatened" to write a booklet to educate the parents of potential FCS non-scholarship football players.

These schools look at the offer of admission as their "scholarships". The Yale coach estimated that of the 25 kids that were "offered" the prior year, maybe two would have gotten in without football. Well, we had no worries about LBKid getting in, but we were shocked at the attitude of a couple of the "Elite Eight". They challenged our son's real desire to play football. The assumption was that a young man with excellent grades and SAT scores could not really like playing football. During one particular meeting with a head coach he was boldly and unabashedly blatant about it. If I had known that my son had already decided that he wasn't interested in this Ivy League school I would have gone off at the coach. But being inexperienced, I politely listened to his cynical challenge to my then 18 year old son's true motives.

If these schools ever go scholarship, I think the families will be much more prepared for the "game" these coaches play. When it's about money, you expect some level of maneuvering. But when it's just about being offered a spot in a recruiting class, a naive parent (as I was) is not as well equipped to help their son navigate through the process. Bottom line, I understand how confusing this can be and I can see how, if played properly, Fordham's decision can become a huge advantage. If the PL goes all scholarship (and if Georgetown can ever find the money to participate) I could see them pullling in a lot more of the Ivy kids.

Well said, Pop! I remember "talking" to you on this site when LBKid was applying. The article surprised me in one respect: fully 1/3 of each entering class scores in the lower two "bands." I guess it shouldn't have, given that even in my day, some football and hockey players who didn't make the initial academic "cut" had to "prep a year" before they were admitted.

[ngineer]

Ah, yes, forgot about the ol' "prep school 'red shirt' " that the IL and PL use to some extent. I assume it is still a gamble in that the student has not "committed" in the same way letters of intent are executed with BSC schools. But I'm alway curious as to how many of those coming from the various 'prep schools' were 'led there' by the school they eventually entered.

[Green26]

One of the interesting stories that doesn't get attention is how the Ivy League is recruiting areas like Texas that were not a part of its efforts a generation ago. While not everyone from the Ancient Eight lived in the Northeast and there were always a few kids on the roster from out west (for example, the great Harvard team of 1968 featured guard Tommy Lee Jones from Dallas' St. Mark's HS), there was always more than enough talent within driving distance to fill most Ivy teams.

Today, Ivy and PL teams almost have to go beyond its region to fill teams. With a 20% growth rate and four new Congressional seats coming its way, it's no wonder that Texas is a focus of Harvard recruiting. And yet there are still some people in the Northeast who still can't imagine that more people now live in the Lone Star State than the Empire State.

I don't think the statement in the first para is accurate. It certainly wasn't accurate for Dartmouth. In the late 60's and early 70's, we had players from all over the country. I think our rosters generally had players from 25 or so states. On Dartmouth's undefeated Lambert Trophy team in 1970, the defensive starters came from 10 states, is my recollection. We had lots of players from Texas, as well as CA, from places Snyder, Muleshoe, Nacodoches and San Antonio, as well as suburbs of Dallas and Houston. I grew up in Montana and was recruited by Dartmouth and Yale. The Dartmouth coach used a shotgun approach, sending hundreds of letters and making thousands of calls. The alumni were very much involved in the recruiting process and sent in names to the coaches. Of course, times changed and things evolved.

Off the top of my head, we had players from CA, Oregon, WA, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, DC, West VA, New York, Penn, NJ, Mass, Conn, NH, Maine.

[DFW HOYA]

But I'm always curious as to how many of those coming from the various 'prep schools' were 'led there' by the school they eventually entered.

In Georgetown's case, probably none at all. The Hoyas may be on the radar of some 5th year players, but simply can't do much vs. the scholarship or equivalency packages other schools can offer.

The coaches obviously don't talk about it, but I wonder how many recruits are lost each year simply because the offer won't even be close to the competition.

[Sader87]

I don't think the statement in the first para is accurate. It certainly wasn't accurate for Dartmouth. In the late 60's and early 70's, we had players from all over the country. I think our rosters generally had players from 25 or so states. On Dartmouth's undefeated Lambert Trophy team in 1970, the defensive starters came from 10 states, is my recollection. We had lots of players from Texas, as well as CA, from places Snyder, Muleshoe, Nacodoches and San Antonio, as well as suburbs of Dallas and Houston. I grew up in Montana and was recruited by Dartmouth and Yale. The Dartmouth coach used a shotgun approach, sending hundreds of letters and making thousands of calls. The alumni were very much involved in the recruiting process and sent in names to the coaches. Of course, times changed and things evolved.

Off the top of my head, we had players from CA, Oregon, WA, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, DC, West VA, New York, Penn, NJ, Mass, Conn, NH, Maine.

Agree with you...the Ivies have recruited nationally for decades. There may be a bit less from the Northeast than say in 1970, 1980 but many of the Ivies had rosters that were national in scope back then. Holy Cross for that matter has recruited nationally for some time now as well. The scholarship Holy Cross teams of the 1980's had multiple players from the states of Texas, California, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Missouri etc.

[Wildcat80]

Would love to see the Ivies 1) offer true scholarships; 2) compete in FCS playoffs. As liberal bastions they think they are being so "fair" but they are really excluding most middle class kids from going there. And I think the rest of the country would quickly realize that most years the Ivy champion would win 1st round games in the FCS playoffs. Some teams would challenge all the way. Ask nova about Penn! Would give UNH & others more OOC options in the northeast too. Also yes the Ivies are expensive but if you are a kid that does not get in you realize that other second-tier schools are even more pricey. For a top academic school with a national rep they are actually reasonably priced. UNH misses playing DARTMOUTH!!

[Tribe4SF]

I don't think the statement in the first para is accurate. It certainly wasn't accurate for Dartmouth. In the late 60's and early 70's, we had players from all over the country. I think our rosters generally had players from 25 or so states. On Dartmouth's undefeated Lambert Trophy team in 1970, the defensive starters came from 10 states, is my recollection. We had lots of players from Texas, as well as CA, from places Snyder, Muleshoe, Nacodoches and San Antonio, as well as suburbs of Dallas and Houston. I grew up in Montana and was recruited by Dartmouth and Yale. The Dartmouth coach used a shotgun approach, sending hundreds of letters and making thousands of calls. The alumni were very much involved in the recruiting process and sent in names to the coaches. Of course, times changed and things evolved.

Off the top of my head, we had players from CA, Oregon, WA, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, DC, West VA, New York, Penn, NJ, Mass, Conn, NH, Maine.

I was also recruited by Dartmouth in 1966, and my experience was not good. The alumni in the Pittsburgh area became intrusive, and were very aggressive. They spent plenty on dinners, and luncheons with film highlights. When I visited, I was surprised by the explanation of what the "job" portion of my aid might include. In the end, my gut feeling that it was not the place for me was confirmed by Bob Blackman. He told me I was making the biggest mistake of my life by choosing W&M over Dartmouth. The following day I got a call from the "point man" alum in Pittsburgh disparaging W&M, and echoing Blackman's admonition. From reading LBPop's experience, it sounds like not much has changed among the Ivies where recruiting is concerned. At least these days the alumni are out of it, or supposed to be.

[Franks Tanks]

Would love to see the Ivies 1) offer true scholarships; 2) compete in FCS playoffs. As liberal bastions they think they are being so "fair" but they are really excluding most middle class kids from going there. And I think the rest of the country would quickly realize that most years the Ivy champion would win 1st round games in the FCS playoffs. Some teams would challenge all the way. Ask nova about Penn! Would give UNH & others more OOC options in the northeast too. Also yes the Ivies are expensive but if you are a kid that does not get in you realize that other second-tier schools are even more pricey. For a top academic school with a national rep they are actually reasonably priced. UNH misses playing DARTMOUTH!!

That isn't true any longer. Even for middle class kids the Ivies can be extremely affordable. For example at Harvard if your parents make 100k per year combined the student will only pay 10k per year tuition. It sounds like the kid in this article has a poor understanding of the financial aid available to student-athletes.

[Wildcat80]

A plus though is many Ivy stadiums are renovated recently.....Princeton's is one of the BEST FCS stadiums in the country! And there is no bigger crowd than Harvard at Yale.

[Bogus Megapardus]

A plus though is many Ivy stadiums are renovated recently.....Princeton's is one of the BEST FCS stadiums in the country! And there is no bigger crowd than Harvard at Yale.

This is Dan Weiss' recruiting argument - "Sorry, kid, that Big Ivy didn't take you. But if you come to Easton, you still get to play in all their stadiums."

[Go...gate]

Ah, yes, forgot about the ol' "prep school 'red shirt' " that the IL and PL use to some extent. I assume it is still a gamble in that the student has not "committed" in the same way letters of intent are executed with BSC schools. But I'm alway curious as to how many of those coming from the various 'prep schools' were 'led there' by the school they eventually entered.

Annapolis and West Point use it for their FBS teams, too, and it is not just NAPS and USMAPS. In fact, they have contractual relationships with a number of private schools in the Northeast.

[Franks Tanks]

Annapolis and West Point use it for their FBS teams, too, and it is not just NAPS and USMAPS. In fact, they have contractual relationships with a number of private schools in the Northeast.

Lafayette used to send quite a few kids to Wyoming Seminary in Wilkes-Barre. Their time there was free based on a gift from the Kirby family (I believe). The relationship was so close that former Lafayette HC Bill Russo coached there for a few years after he left Lafayette. We don't send many kids there these days, and I think Mo White who graduated last year was the last one.

[CFBfan]

Ah, yes, forgot about the ol' "prep school 'red shirt' " that the IL and PL use to some extent. I assume it is still a gamble in that the student has not "committed" in the same way letters of intent are executed with BSC schools. But I'm alway curious as to how many of those coming from the various 'prep schools' were 'led there' by the school they eventually entered.

There are high school programs out there loaded with kids "a year older" then they should be" (Don Bosco Prep in NJ and the Gillman School in MD are 2 that most will likely recognize). A number of them actualy tell kids repeat the 8th grade if you can by age thus completely taking advantage of a rule that allows a HS that latitude NOT for athletic advantage yet that is EXACTLY what it is used/abused for 99% of the time and gives these programs/coaches a lot of kids a year older than the kids they line up against and at that age it's a HUGE unfair advantage. So, it should come as no surprise that Colleges would do this......

[blukeys]

There are high school programs out there loaded with kids "a year older" then they should be" (Don Bosco Prep in NJ and the Gillman School in MD are 2 that most will likely recognize). A number of them actualy tell kids repeat the 8th grade if you can by age thus completely taking advantage of a rule that allows a HS that latitude NOT for athletic advantage yet that is EXACTLY what it is used/abused for 99% of the time and gives these programs/coaches a lot of kids a year older than the kids they line up against and at that age it's a HUGE unfair advantage. So, it should come as no surprise that Colleges would do this......

This is happenning all the time in all sports. This includes basketball and wrestling. I know of individuals in all of these sports.

[Go...gate]

There are high school programs out there loaded with kids "a year older" then they should be" (Don Bosco Prep in NJ and the Gillman School in MD are 2 that most will likely recognize). A number of them actualy tell kids repeat the 8th grade if you can by age thus completely taking advantage of a rule that allows a HS that latitude NOT for athletic advantage yet that is EXACTLY what it is used/abused for 99% of the time and gives these programs/coaches a lot of kids a year older than the kids they line up against and at that age it's a HUGE unfair advantage. So, it should come as no surprise that Colleges would do this......

Bosco has been doing this for over two decades.

[CFBfan]

Bosco has been doing this for over two decades.

I don't know how long but at least during the "Toal era". IMO it's using the rules to cheat. The State should step in an level the playing field for all athletes and not allow for an unfair advantage for coaches and parents by manipulating the spirit of this rule

[DFW HOYA]

This is an administrative matter that can be settled. In Texas, there are three basic eligibility rules:

1. Eight consecutive semesters of eligibility starting in 9th grade. Even if the student doesn't start playing sports until 10th grade, that's all they get.
2. Any student who turns 18 before the start of the school year is automatically ineligible.
3. Any student who takes a fifth year of high school (for whatever reason) is automatically ineligible.

In addition, a JV player must have one or more years of eligibility remaining, so teams can't drop seniors onto a JV squad.

[Go...gate]

I don't know how long but at least during the "Toal era". IMO it's using the rules to cheat. The State should step in an level the playing field for all athletes and not allow for an unfair advantage for coaches and parents by manipulating the spirit of this rule

I agree; a lot of NJ schools will not play them any more.

[Wildcat80]

There are high school programs out there loaded with kids "a year older" then they should be" (Don Bosco Prep in NJ and the Gillman School in MD are 2 that most will likely recognize). A number of them actualy tell kids repeat the 8th grade if you can by age thus completely taking advantage of a rule that allows a HS that latitude NOT for athletic advantage yet that is EXACTLY what it is used/abused for 99% of the time and gives these programs/coaches a lot of kids a year older than the kids they line up against and at that age it's a HUGE unfair advantage. So, it should come as no surprise that Colleges would do this......

I encourage parents to "redshirt" their sons.....in kindergarten!

[Green26]

It was 7 years ago that we as parents went through the Ivy League/Patriot League recruiting process. And I can attest that it is confusing...even for someone with a three digit IQ xlolx . Thankfully our son, "LBKid" was a high band candidate, so he had an advantage (but maybe not--more later). Despite the fact that these schools did not have scholarships to offer, and because they were all largely recruiting from the same list of candidates, there was a much larger degree of manipulation and misinformation than we ever expected from such "hallowed" institutions. The statement made by the Harvard coach about Band 1 players, "...that kid better score a lot of touchdowns or stop a lot of touchdowns" must be the Harvard mantra. They said those exact words to the LB family when we visited. They also said (in classic Cambridge humility), "If we want a kid we usually get him". It is a delicate little game they play once they identify a young man who can play and who either can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of aid based on "need". It took us completely by surprise and I have "threatened" to write a booklet to educate the parents of potential FCS non-scholarship football players.

These schools look at the offer of admission as their "scholarships". The Yale coach estimated that of the 25 kids that were "offered" the prior year, maybe two would have gotten in without football. Well, we had no worries about LBKid getting in, but we were shocked at the attitude of a couple of the "Elite Eight". They challenged our son's real desire to play football. The assumption was that a young man with excellent grades and SAT scores could not really like playing football. During one particular meeting with a head coach he was boldly and unabashedly blatant about it. If I had known that my son had already decided that he wasn't interested in this Ivy League school I would have gone off at the coach. But being inexperienced, I politely listened to his cynical challenge to my then 18 year old son's true motives.

If these schools ever go scholarship, I think the families will be much more prepared for the "game" these coaches play. When it's about money, you expect some level of maneuvering. But when it's just about being offered a spot in a recruiting class, a naive parent (as I was) is not as well equipped to help their son navigate through the process. Bottom line, I understand how confusing this can be and I can see how, if played properly, Fordham's decision can become a huge advantage. If the PL goes all scholarship (and if Georgetown can ever find the money to participate) I could see them pullling in a lot more of the Ivy kids.

Coaches have to make sure recruits are truly intersted in playing football (or any sport for which he/she is being recruited), as opposed to using their athletic ability to gain admission to the Ivies when they probably wouldn't be admitted on their own. It is a huge advantage for admission, to be recruited by the Ivies, i.e. put on the "recruit list". However, it is not uncommon for "recruits" to use their athletic ability to gain admission, and then turn out not be committed to the sport after they arrive on campus and eventually quit. It is also not uncommon for parents to be more interested in having their kids attend the Ivies, than the kids are. If a coach puts a recruit on his/her "recruit list", which goes to the admissions office--and the recruit either doesn't come to the school after being admitted or later quits the sport--then the coach has lost one of his/her precious spots on the recruit list--and the spot is generally lost for all time. If this is a low band spot, then it really impacts the overall quality of the recruiting class. Low band players generally are impact players. This is a reason that many schools take advantage of early-decision admissions in recruiting, as the recruit can only apply to one school for early decision applications and is essentially committed to attending the school if admitted.

Note that Ivy admissions offices don't automatically admit all kids on the coach's recruit list. This had been a problem at Dartmouth in the past dozen or so years, but has improved in recent years. Ivy admissions offices issue "likely to admit" (or something like that) letters before the early February scholarship signing days, so that recruits who have scholarship offers at other schools know they won't be turning down a scholarship only to find out in early April that they didn't get admitted to the Ivy.

My view is that the Ivies should continue to follow their policies of offering only need-based scholarships. While this does put some financial pressure on middle class families, I still prefer this over the alternatives I can think of. There are many advantages of attending an Ivy, and the kid quoted in the article is correct in his views, in my opinion. Dartmouth changed my life, and I will be forever grateful.

One last thing. While I don't advocate this, I would be fine with eliminating all athletic scholarships, except for need-based scholarships.

[jimbo65]

I encourage parents to "redshirt" their sons.....in kindergarten!

Actually a form of this does go on. I likely will not explain this correctly but as I recall, parents in NY can "hold back" their kids from kindergarten. For example, let's say the rule is that if the child reaches five in 2009, they are eligible for kindergarten in 2010. Now a child born on 1/1/09 will be much more developed than one born 12/31/09 so the parents of the December baby may opt to enroll in 2011 kindergarten rather than 2010. Again, I might have screwed up the explanation but that is the sense of it. One of our children was born in December & we opted for the additional year as a toddler, so to speak.

[CFBfan]

Actually a form of this does go on. I likely will not explain this correctly but as I recall, parents in NY can "hold back" their kids from kindergarten. For example, let's say the rule is that if the child reaches five in 2009, they are eligible for kindergarten in 2010. Now a child born on 1/1/09 will be much more developed than one born 12/31/09 so the parents of the December baby may opt to enroll in 2011 kindergarten rather than 2010. Again, I might have screwed up the explanation but that is the sense of it. One of our children was born in December & we opted for the additional year as a toddler, so to speak.

Jimbo it goes beyond that. Look at some of the birth dates of incoming this year even in the PL. There are some HS freshman (I know of 2 personaly) that have their drivers permitt!! and they both get praise for their football talent...of coure!!! they are 2 years older than their classmates!! since they are stil minors by law i will leave the name of the team out as it would point them out as well.
The state really needs to step in on this one IMO. and sadly parents do "redshirt" in kindergarten as wildcat sadly stated here.

[Fordham]

NYC is actually pretty strict with the 12/31 cut off but I do know a ton of "redshirting" goes on in the burbs.

[MplsBison]

This is an administrative matter that can be settled. In Texas, there are three basic eligibility rules:

1. Eight consecutive semesters of eligibility starting in 9th grade. Even if the student doesn't start playing sports until 10th grade, that's all they get.
2. Any student who turns 18 before the start of the school year is automatically ineligible.
3. Any student who takes a fifth year of high school (for whatever reason) is automatically ineligible.

In addition, a JV player must have one or more years of eligibility remaining, so teams can't drop seniors onto a JV squad.

How every state's high school athletics/activities governing body doesn't have a set of rules very close to this is not only mind-boggling, it makes me wonder if some aren't being paid off to keep the rule books out-of-date (ie, to make it so that certain people can keep bending the rules to their advantage).

The national body for high school activites should adopt this and force every state to follow it. That simple. No excuses, no exceptions. Too bad for those few special cases that might genuinly deserve a waiver. Too much corruption without them.

[MplsBison]

Coaches have to make sure recruits are truly intersted in playing football (or any sport for which he/she is being recruited), as opposed to using their athletic ability to gain admission to the Ivies when they probably wouldn't be admitted on their own. It is a huge advantage for admission, to be recruited by the Ivies, i.e. put on the "recruit list". However, it is not uncommon for "recruits" to use their athletic ability to gain admission, and then turn out not be committed to the sport after they arrive on campus and eventually quit. It is also not uncommon for parents to be more interested in having their kids attend the Ivies, than the kids are. If a coach puts a recruit on his/her "recruit list", which goes to the admissions office--and the recruit either doesn't come to the school after being admitted or later quits the sport--then the coach has lost one of his/her precious spots on the recruit list--and the spot is generally lost for all time. If this is a low band spot, then it really impacts the overall quality of the recruiting class. Low band players generally are impact players. This is a reason that many schools take advantage of early-decision admissions in recruiting, as the recruit can only apply to one school for early decision applications and is essentially committed to attending the school if admitted.

Note that Ivy admissions offices don't automatically admit all kids on the coach's recruit list. This had been a problem at Dartmouth in the past dozen or so years, but has improved in recent years. Ivy admissions offices issue "likely to admit" (or something like that) letters before the early February scholarship signing days, so that recruits who have scholarship offers at other schools know they won't be turning down a scholarship only to find out in early April that they didn't get admitted to the Ivy.

My view is that the Ivies should continue to follow their policies of offering only need-based scholarships. While this does put some financial pressure on middle class families, I still prefer this over the alternatives I can think of. There are many advantages of attending an Ivy, and the kid quoted in the article is correct in his views, in my opinion. Dartmouth changed my life, and I will be forever grateful.

One last thing. While I don't advocate this, I would be fine with eliminating all athletic scholarships, except for need-based scholarships.

"Need-based" athletic scholarships should be banned by the NCAA, at all levels.

If a school can offer a student some institutional aid based on his financial need, and that student also happens to be an athlete (which is irrelevant to getting the aid), fine.


But the idea that a coach will only recruit you if your family makes the "right amount" of money is basically discrimination. It should be challenged in court.



Here's a very simple solution: don't use athletics in the admissions process. Then any admitted student is already there because of his/her academic ability. If they are also a great athlete, then offer to pay for their school with an athletic scholarship.

Done and done. No need for a "need-based" "recruiting list" "low-band" work-around that resembles a mafia run speakeasy.

[Green26]

"Need-based" athletic scholarships should be banned by the NCAA, at all levels.

If a school can offer a student some institutional aid based on his financial need, and that student also happens to be an athlete (which is irrelevant to getting the aid), fine.


But the idea that a coach will only recruit you if your family makes the "right amount" of money is basically discrimination. It should be challenged in court.



Here's a very simple solution: don't use athletics in the admissions process. Then any admitted student is already there because of his/her academic ability. If they are also a great athlete, then offer to pay for their school with an athletic scholarship.

Done and done. No need for a "need-based" "recruiting list" "low-band" work-around that resembles a mafia run speakeasy.

The Ivies don't have "need-based athletic scholarships". The Ivies all offer need-based scholarships to all admittees, not just athletes. The Ivies have "need-blind" admissions policies, in which the admissions office admits students without regard to financial ability to pay (i.e. the admissions offices don't know what the financial situation of the applicants are). Financial aid is awarded by a separate department, after the student is admitted. Financial aid is generally awarded based on the financial aid policy of the particular school--although the policies are relatively similar.

Coaches don't recruit based on whether the recruit's family makes the right amount of money. The coaches generally don't know how much a recruit's family makes, other than guessing based on what jobs or professions the parents may have. This being said, coaches know that recruits from certain levels of middle class families may opt to take an athletic scholarship, instead of having to pay for some portion of an Ivy education.

Your "very simple solution" makes no sense at all. It looks like you don't understand the process--and my guess is that you are someone who doesn't let facts stand in the way of your opinions. Generally, athletes receive financial aid based on the policies of the school that are applicate to all students, without fairly small variations. Prior to an antitrust lawsuit brought by the US governement against the Ivies and similar schools, the Ivies offered the exact same need-based scholarship package to an admittee who was accepted at more than one school, i.e. the amount to be contributed by the family was the same at all schools.

[Redwyn]

Naive question:

I had friends who were recruited to play lacrosse, fence, or play football for Ivy League Universities who told me they were on full scholarship for athletics. They weren't good students (below the 50% mark in our graduating class, though in their defense our HS is consistently one of the top 100 publics in the country), they weren't legacies, they weren't minorities, and all of them had parents who were doctors, lawyers, [insert 6 figure line here]. Now, instinct says to just say they were lying. However, some issues block that:

1. They had no reason to lie. I was no one of significance to them, and frankly name dropping is easy when you go to an Ivy League school. This also didn't just come from them. It came from their parents, coaches, etc..
2. Over the past decade I've heard very similar tales from both parents and students who say they were given a "full ride" by the Ivy League school who recruited them. None would have qualified for that by need or other award. The parents called them "tuition exemptions", and said that the school basically "forgot" to bill them.

So I guess my question is - Does this happen? It seems somewhat unbelievable...but then again just as believable.

For perspective - The University of Cambridge and Oxford University also technically don't recruit or give benefits to athletes, but I know for a fact that both of them basically invented pushover masters degrees for their international rowers and rugby players (grad students can compete for their universities in the UK), have subsidized awards, and Oxford was found to have completely ignored academic standards for its 2009 boatrace crew (funny how light was shed on it - turns out most of them wanted to go to Cambridge but were rejected due to academic credentials). Given this, and given that Cambridge and Harvard rotate as the #1 and #2 schools on Earth....I can't help but think that Ivy League schools recognize the importance of athletic visibility - even when name carries so much - and pursue every means necessary. Keep in mind - Ivy League athletics are so good compared to the true non-scholarship variety offered in the UK that heavyweight varsity Ivy League crews are NOT ALLOWED to race against British University crews in the Royal Henley World Championship Regatta. They are only allowed to compete in the national team category. Never found out for sure why...

[jimbo65]

Naive question:

I had friends who were recruited to play lacrosse, fence, or play football for Ivy League Universities who told me they were on full scholarship for athletics. They weren't good students (below the 50% mark in our graduating class, though in their defense our HS is consistently one of the top 100 publics in the country), they weren't legacies, they weren't minorities, and all of them had parents who were doctors, lawyers, [insert 6 figure line here]. Now, instinct says to just say they were lying. However, some issues block that:


I also have two acquaintances who both attended Harvard for free. One was a fball starter, the other a bball starter. Have no idea of their parents' $ but both paid nada for four years.

Rephrasing Orwell's Animal Farm, all potential acceptees are equal but some are more equal than others. Personally I find it odd that the mavens of the PL accept the bs handed out by the IL as to no scholarships.

[bonarae]

I was away for 5 days and this came to me on the first page of the boards. xeekx

For me, their hard-hearted policies on how they run their football programs may never, never be loosened in our lifetimes (I only hope for the best, but it's the reality right now.) I like the way the "others" (playoff-participating schools and the SWAC, for that matter) treat their football teams above the rest of their programs, but the Ivy presidents don't. xsmhx

[Green26]

Naive question:

I had friends who were recruited to play lacrosse, fence, or play football for Ivy League Universities who told me they were on full scholarship for athletics. They weren't good students (below the 50% mark in our graduating class, though in their defense our HS is consistently one of the top 100 publics in the country), they weren't legacies, they weren't minorities, and all of them had parents who were doctors, lawyers, [insert 6 figure line here]. Now, instinct says to just say they were lying. However, some issues block that:

1. They had no reason to lie. I was no one of significance to them, and frankly name dropping is easy when you go to an Ivy League school. This also didn't just come from them. It came from their parents, coaches, etc..
2. Over the past decade I've heard very similar tales from both parents and students who say they were given a "full ride" by the Ivy League school who recruited them. None would have qualified for that by need or other award. The parents called them "tuition exemptions", and said that the school basically "forgot" to bill them.

So I guess my question is - Does this happen? It seems somewhat unbelievable...but then again just as believable.

For perspective - The University of Cambridge and Oxford University also technically don't recruit or give benefits to athletes, but I know for a fact that both of them basically invented pushover masters degrees for their international rowers and rugby players (grad students can compete for their universities in the UK), have subsidized awards, and Oxford was found to have completely ignored academic standards for its 2009 boatrace crew (funny how light was shed on it - turns out most of them wanted to go to Cambridge but were rejected due to academic credentials). Given this, and given that Cambridge and Harvard rotate as the #1 and #2 schools on Earth....I can't help but think that Ivy League schools recognize the importance of athletic visibility - even when name carries so much - and pursue every means necessary. Keep in mind - Ivy League athletics are so good compared to the true non-scholarship variety offered in the UK that heavyweight varsity Ivy League crews are NOT ALLOWED to race against British University crews in the Royal Henley World Championship Regatta. They are only allowed to compete in the national team category. Never found out for sure why...

With regard to most of what you said/heard about the Ivies, I assume that most of this is not accurate. While it is easier for athletes (and also applicants in other categories) to get accepted to Ivies, the standards are still very high. Before the SAT's highest scored increased to 2400, i.e. when it was 1600, a low band football player would have to be about at the 10% level of his high school class and have almost 1100 on the SAT's to be in the lowest band (and have a chance at being accepted). This was for Dartmouth, which at the time was either 3rd or 4th in Academic Index ratings for the Ivies. AI is determined by prior year or years entering frosh classes. Historically, Harvard and Princeton have had the highest AI, followed by Yale and Dartmouth. Dartmouth was above Yale briefly, but then Yale went back above Dartmouth. A number of years ago, one or more Ivy schools, I believe Penn, was given a temporary waiver of the AI, in order to allow in more lower AI recruits and improve their team's competitiveness. Assujming it was in fact Penn, it obviously made them more competitive, and they have never looked back.

Other Ivy sports have AI requirements, but not bands. Thus, for instance, the overall AI of the team (or class, I don't know which it is) has to have a certain AI. I believe this applies only to kids on the coach's recruit list, but don't know for sure. It's not unusual for a marginal player, who has great grades and boards, to be included on a team--to bring up the AI. I assume there are minimum AI standards for non-football teams too, but don't know for sure.

As for scholarships, I just don't believe that recruits from weathy families receive full rides in the Ivies. That would violate school policies, and probably what I assume is an understanding between the Ivies and the ncaa regarding scholarships. The Ivies have considerable integrity in regard to matters like this, and I don't see how it would be possible for such things to occur. Note that the football departments/coaches don't determine who is admitted and how much of a scholarship a recruit receives. All the coaches can do is provide input, and beg. At some/many schools, the coaches have to provide their input through a non-sport advisor, as opposed to directly to the admissions and financial aid offices.

[MplsBison]

The Ivies don't have "need-based athletic scholarships". The Ivies all offer need-based scholarships to all admittees, not just athletes. The Ivies have "need-blind" admissions policies, in which the admissions office admits students without regard to financial ability to pay (i.e. the admissions offices don't know what the financial situation of the applicants are). Financial aid is awarded by a separate department, after the student is admitted. Financial aid is generally awarded based on the financial aid policy of the particular school--although the policies are relatively similar.

Coaches don't recruit based on whether the recruit's family makes the right amount of money. The coaches generally don't know how much a recruit's family makes, other than guessing based on what jobs or professions the parents may have. This being said, coaches know that recruits from certain levels of middle class families may opt to take an athletic scholarship, instead of having to pay for some portion of an Ivy education.

Your "very simple solution" makes no sense at all. It looks like you don't understand the process--and my guess is that you are someone who doesn't let facts stand in the way of your opinions. Generally, athletes receive financial aid based on the policies of the school that are applicate to all students, without fairly small variations. Prior to an antitrust lawsuit brought by the US governement against the Ivies and similar schools, the Ivies offered the exact same need-based scholarship package to an admittee who was accepted at more than one school, i.e. the amount to be contributed by the family was the same at all schools.

I didn't say anything about need-blind admissions, but it's a good point that you brought up. I'm glad that their admissions are need-blind, all admissions depts should be. They should all also be athletics-blind, in my opinion. No student should ever be admitted to school because of the fact that he is likely to play for a varsity team, even a little bit.

In my opinion, if a coach (at any level in the NCAA) wants a kid to come play for him, he should approach the student-athlete and ask him to apply for admission to the school. If the student-athlete is admitted on his academic merit, then the coach could offer him an athletic scholarship for X% of the cost of going to that school. The X% should be absoluetly blind to the student-athlete's ability (or family's ability) to pay. It should be absolutely based on the expected contribution to the team's sucess. IE, a top recruit should get a 100% of his cost paid for by the athletic scholarship and so on.


You obviously did not read LBpop's post, so I invite you to go back and read it. He very clearly shows that you are incorrect and don't know what you're talking about when you claim that Ivy coaches don't recruit based on the family's ability to pay. It makes very clear sense that coaches do in fact do this and if they know that a recruit won't qualify for (enough) need-based institutional aid from the school but the family won't be able or willing to pay for the cost, they won't even bother recruiting them. As I pointed out, this is practically discrimination and may not stand in a court room.

Recruiting should be 100% need-blind, just as admissions is.

[DFW HOYA]

Recruiting should be 100% need-blind, just as admissions is.

Unfortunately, very few schools nationwide use need-blind admissions these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_blind_admissions

[MplsBison]

Unfortunately, very few schools nationwide use need-blind admissions these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_blind_admissions

From the article:


Need-blind admission is a term in the United States denoting a college admission policy in which the admitting institution does not consider an applicant's financial situation when deciding admission. Generally, an increase in students admitted under a need-blind policy and needing financial aid requires the institution to back the policy with an ample endowment or source of funding. Being need blind is a statutory requirement for institutions to participate in an anti-trust exemption granted by Congress which remains in effect until September 30, 2015. An institution may be need blind in any given year by policy (de jure) or by circumstances (de facto).

Need-blind admissions systems are rare in the private sector where institutional funds often make up the bulk of financial aid awarded but virtually all public institutions are need blind. Most private universities cannot afford to offer financial aid to all admitted students and many will admit all students but cannot offer them sufficient aid to meet need.

So it seems almost all public schools are need-blind, which they should be.

What I can't figured out, for the life of me based on above, is what possible advantage is there for any school to not be need-blind? Just because you're need-blind doesn't mean you are obligated in any fashion to give financial aid to an admitted student that can't afford to pay the cost.

[LBPop]

Coaches have to make sure recruits are truly intersted in playing football (or any sport for which he/she is being recruited), as opposed to using their athletic ability to gain admission to the Ivies when they probably wouldn't be admitted on their own. It is a huge advantage for admission, to be recruited by the Ivies, i.e. put on the "recruit list". However, it is not uncommon for "recruits" to use their athletic ability to gain admission, and then turn out not be committed to the sport after they arrive on campus and eventually quit. It is also not uncommon for parents to be more interested in having their kids attend the Ivies, than the kids are. If a coach puts a recruit on his/her "recruit list", which goes to the admissions office--and the recruit either doesn't come to the school after being admitted or later quits the sport--then the coach has lost one of his/her precious spots on the recruit list--and the spot is generally lost for all time.

I understand the "risk" that the coaches take when they offer a kid a slot in their recruiting class. Everyone is taking a risk during the recruiting period, but I have two issues with how it is conducted by several of these schools. First, they know the territory and the "game" far better than the recruits and their parents. My son went to a highly regarded Catholic school in DC, yet none of the counselors really understood the non-scholarship recruiting routine. They knew all about I-A full scholarships, but not the Ivies and the Patriot League. My second problem is that in one case it was obvious that the coach assumed a high band kid could not be committed to football. In a perverse way, he was perpetuating the "dumb jock" myth. If we knew the routine, the process would have been very different. Bottom line...the kid did extremely well in the classroom and between the lines when healthy (which was most of the time). Part of the reason he ended up at Georgetown was that they were far more transparent than anyone else.

[MplsBison]

I understand the "risk" that the coaches take when they offer a kid a slot in their recruiting class. Everyone is taking a risk during the recruiting period, but I have two issues with how it is conducted by several of these schools. First, they know the territory and the "game" far better than the recruits and their parents. My son went to a highly regarded Catholic school in DC, yet none of the counselors really understood the non-scholarship recruiting routine. They knew all about I-A full scholarships, but not the Ivies and the Patriot League. My second problem is that in one case it was obvious that the coach assumed a high band kid could not be committed to football. In a perverse way, he was perpetuating the "dumb jock" myth. If we knew the routine, the process would have been very different. Bottom line...the kid did extremely well in the classroom and between the lines when healthy (which was most of the time). Part of the reason he ended up at Georgetown was that they were far more transparent than anyone else.

All that crap goes away if they simple say "look, we want you to play for us....if you can get admitted to school on your own, we'll pick up your costs - it's up to you, good luck with admissions".

[Franks Tanks]

All that crap goes away if they simple say "look, we want you to play for us....if you can get admitted to school on your own, we'll pick up your costs - it's up to you, good luck with admissions".

If that were the case Harvard and Princeton would have about 13 kids on their football team. Kids with perfect SAT scores and near perfect GPA's get rejected from these schools on ocassion-- they need help from the admission department to put together a team as even highly qualified applicants get rejected from some Ivies.

[DFW HOYA]

What I can't figured out, for the life of me based on above, is what possible advantage is there for any school to not be need-blind? Just because you're need-blind doesn't mean you are obligated in any fashion to give financial aid to an admitted student that can't afford to pay the cost.

Easy--if a school uses need in its admissions decision, it can choose to admit more students that are capable of paying full freight, thus the school makes more money vs. giving out financial aid.

[Green26]

I didn't say anything about need-blind admissions, but it's a good point that you brought up. I'm glad that their admissions are need-blind, all admissions depts should be. They should all also be athletics-blind, in my opinion. No student should ever be admitted to school because of the fact that he is likely to play for a varsity team, even a little bit.

In my opinion, if a coach (at any level in the NCAA) wants a kid to come play for him, he should approach the student-athlete and ask him to apply for admission to the school. If the student-athlete is admitted on his academic merit, then the coach could offer him an athletic scholarship for X% of the cost of going to that school. The X% should be absoluetly blind to the student-athlete's ability (or family's ability) to pay. It should be absolutely based on the expected contribution to the team's sucess. IE, a top recruit should get a 100% of his cost paid for by the athletic scholarship and so on.


You obviously did not read LBpop's post, so I invite you to go back and read it. He very clearly shows that you are incorrect and don't know what you're talking about when you claim that Ivy coaches don't recruit based on the family's ability to pay. It makes very clear sense that coaches do in fact do this and if they know that a recruit won't qualify for (enough) need-based institutional aid from the school but the family won't be able or willing to pay for the cost, they won't even bother recruiting them. As I pointed out, this is practically discrimination and may not stand in a court room.

Recruiting should be 100% need-blind, just as admissions is.

Regarding your first paragraph, are you saying that no athlete should be admitted at any school just because he's a good athlete?

Why would you have a policy/system where no athlete is admitted because of his athletic ability, but it he/she got admitted, then you'd give him/her a full-ride scholarship? Those two things seem inconsistent, to me.


I read LBpop's post, but it doesn't have much to do with what you and I are discussing. I did answer one thing in LBpop's post, by explaining why an Ivy coaches would be very interested in making sure a recruit is interested in playing football at the school (as well as very interested in attending the school). You obviously aren't a lawyer. A coach can recruit whomever he/she wants, as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of race, etc.

Again, I think that recruiting is largely need-blind, except perhaps when the coach knows that the recruit is likely to get and take a full ride, because his family doesn't want to pay anything for school. You are operating on largely incorrect facts/assumptions.

If top-ranked academic schools didn't lower their admissions standards a bit for athletes (as well as groups in other categories like people of color; yes, I know schools have to be careful with how some of this is done), then most of their athletic programs would not be able to compete. Do you think Stanford could compete in the Pac-10 in football and similar sports if it only admitted kids with 2200 - 2400 on the SAT's and first in their high school class?

Ivy and similar schools admit applicants who have lesser academic credentials in order to have a more diverse student body, not necessarily racial diversity.

[Green26]

From the article:



So it seems almost all public schools are need-blind, which they should be.

What I can't figured out, for the life of me based on above, is what possible advantage is there for any school to not be need-blind? Just because you're need-blind doesn't mean you are obligated in any fashion to give financial aid to an admitted student that can't afford to pay the cost.

If private schools can't afford to offer need-based scholarships to everyone they admit, then it is in their best interests to admit the best applicants who can afford to attend and the best applicants that they are willing to offer need-based scholarships to. Private schools are generally smaller, and they want to admit applicants who are likely to attend. It does them no good to admit large numbers of good applicants, to whom they can't offer need-based scholarships, because they probably won't likely attend.

[Green26]

I understand the "risk" that the coaches take when they offer a kid a slot in their recruiting class. Everyone is taking a risk during the recruiting period, but I have two issues with how it is conducted by several of these schools. First, they know the territory and the "game" far better than the recruits and their parents. My son went to a highly regarded Catholic school in DC, yet none of the counselors really understood the non-scholarship recruiting routine. They knew all about I-A full scholarships, but not the Ivies and the Patriot League. My second problem is that in one case it was obvious that the coach assumed a high band kid could not be committed to football. In a perverse way, he was perpetuating the "dumb jock" myth. If we knew the routine, the process would have been very different. Bottom line...the kid did extremely well in the classroom and between the lines when healthy (which was most of the time). Part of the reason he ended up at Georgetown was that they were far more transparent than anyone else.

But who's responsibility is it for the recruit and his family to become familiar with the process? I think it's the recruit and his family. There's also important information and learning, and a game in some respect, for getting into the Ivies and other top-rated schools. Again, I think it's the responsibilty of the kid and his/her family to learn this information.

Some of the other things you may be referring to may involve ethics, and that would vary from coach to coach. Ethics varies in coaches at scholarship schools too.

[Redwyn]

As for scholarships, I just don't believe that recruits from weathy families receive full rides in the Ivies. That would violate school policies, and probably what I assume is an understanding between the Ivies and the ncaa regarding scholarships. The Ivies have considerable integrity in regard to matters like this, and I don't see how it would be possible for such things to occur. Note that the football departments/coaches don't determine who is admitted and how much of a scholarship a recruit receives. All the coaches can do is provide input, and beg. At some/many schools, the coaches have to provide their input through a non-sport advisor, as opposed to directly to the admissions and financial aid offices.

Wasn't there an issue regarding basketball recruiting that violated AI and Ivy standards - I think it was Harvard - that would violate this idea of inherent integrity? I don't truly believe that any school is honestly rigid. Theories of human nature maintain that they would only be so long as it served their own motives. Losing football games - as the AI exemption for Penn proves - isn't in their best interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports/ncaabasketball/02harvard.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&em&en=92ef1dc5e20d1e4a&ex=1204606800

I hope you're right. I hope the Ivy League is honest. In a perfect world we would all stick to our own beliefs and ideals. However (and I was admitted to 4 of the 8 and turned them down when SBU offered guaranteed medical school, so there's no jealousy element here), I simply cannot believe that a school wouldn't take advantage of every opportunity it's given.

Merit scholarships exist at Ivy League schools. I was offered one at Cornell (and I in no way qualified for financial aid), a multi-millionaire's son who was a classmate of mine went to Princeton on one, and a close friend had every dime of his education at Columbia covered on merit (it was an award named for an alumnus). Yet no where is it really mentioned they exist outside of "diversity-focused" incentives. These are not need based on any level, and if they exist to that end, I have no doubt they can exist athletically as well. I liked the term my Cornell offer used. They offered "loan reduction" - and a substantial % reduction at that. Would have matched the 3/4 tuition scholarship I was offered at another private institution outside the Ancient Eight.

This is the last I intend to comment on this. This is about as close to school bashing as I'd ever want to go. However, I was intrigued as to where all this talk came from. To me...it just doesn't totally line up.

[CFBfan]

But who's responsibility is it for the recruit and his family to become familiar with the process? I think it's the recruit and his family. There's also important information and learning, and a game in some respect, for getting into the Ivies and other top-rated schools. Again, I think it's the responsibilty of the kid and his/her family to learn this information.

Some of the other things you may be referring to may involve ethics, and that would vary from coach to coach. Ethics varies in coaches at scholarship schools too.

Boy Green, you sure do defend the Ivies post after post.....

[Green26]

Boy Green, you sure do defend the Ivies post after post.....

It's probably because I'm the only posting (more than a few lines) who actually knows what he's talking about.

[Green26]

Wasn't there an issue regarding basketball recruiting that violated AI and Ivy standards - I think it was Harvard - that would violate this idea of inherent integrity? I don't truly believe that any school is honestly rigid. Theories of human nature maintain that they would only be so long as it served their own motives. Losing football games - as the AI exemption for Penn proves - isn't in their best interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/sports/ncaabasketball/02harvard.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5087&em&en=92ef1dc5e20d1e4a&ex=1204606800

I hope you're right. I hope the Ivy League is honest. In a perfect world we would all stick to our own beliefs and ideals. However (and I was admitted to 4 of the 8 and turned them down when SBU offered guaranteed medical school, so there's no jealousy element here), I simply cannot believe that a school wouldn't take advantage of every opportunity it's given.

Merit scholarships exist at Ivy League schools. I was offered one at Cornell (and I in no way qualified for financial aid), a multi-millionaire's son who was a classmate of mine went to Princeton on one, and a close friend had every dime of his education at Columbia covered on merit (it was an award named for an alumnus). Yet no where is it really mentioned they exist outside of "diversity-focused" incentives. These are not need based on any level, and if they exist to that end, I have no doubt they can exist athletically as well. I liked the term my Cornell offer used. They offered "loan reduction" - and a substantial % reduction at that. Would have matched the 3/4 tuition scholarship I was offered at another private institution outside the Ancient Eight.

This is the last I intend to comment on this. This is about as close to school bashing as I'd ever want to go. However, I was intrigued as to where all this talk came from. To me...it just doesn't totally line up.

I'm sorry, but aspects of your post don't ring true with me.

I don't believe anything came of what was written about Harvard hoops in the NY Times, did it? I'm not aware of any ncaa issues from that. Recruiting, but not admitting, recruits with lower academics is not a crime. I assume Harvard talked to its new coach, and he cleaned things up. If the Harvard posters have more info, please provide it.

Sorry, but the Ivies generally do not have "merit" scholarships. "Ivy League schools generally do not offer merit-based scholarships."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HwdrqNkJk5UJ:www.fcag.org/meritscholarships.html+merit+scholarships+at+ivy+l eague+schools&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Redwyn]

I'm sorry, but aspects of your post don't ring true with me.

I don't believe anything came of what was written about Harvard hoops in the NY Times, did it? I'm not aware of any ncaa issues from that. Recruiting, but not admitting, recruits with lower academics is not a crime. I assume Harvard talked to its new coach, and he cleaned things up. If the Harvard posters have more info, please provide it.

Sorry, but the Ivies generally do not have "merit" scholarships. "Ivy League schools generally do not offer merit-based scholarships."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HwdrqNkJk5UJ:www.fcag.org/meritscholarships.html+merit+scholarships+at+ivy+l eague+schools&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Amaker actually has a lot written about him both inside and outside the Ivy League. Frankly I don't follow Harvard - Stony Brook gives me plenty of drama.

And the Ivy League absolutely DOES give merit scholarships. That's why the term "generally" was used. Had they not existed, then the term "absolutely" would have been used. The fact that my HS had multiple winners of said awards tells me that they exist in substantial numbers. The Ivy League, the pride of the American liberal arts system, would have clearly used better words if they refused to give such awards.

Again, not too willing to discuss beyond this. My academic respect for the Ancient Eight is unwavering. I see them as great representatives of what American academics has to offer. Those who get rare incentives to attend are likely prodigies in their fields of focus, and will change the US after they graduate. However, to believe the rhetoric that suggests that they rise above human instinct is foolish, even to their staunchest fan.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

With regard to most of what you said/heard about the Ivies, I assume that most of this is not accurate. While it is easier for athletes (and also applicants in other categories) to get accepted to Ivies, the standards are still very high. Before the SAT's highest scored increased to 2400, i.e. when it was 1600, a low band football player would have to be about at the 10% level of his high school class and have almost 1100 on the SAT's to be in the lowest band (and have a chance at being accepted). This was for Dartmouth, which at the time was either 3rd or 4th in Academic Index ratings for the Ivies. AI is determined by prior year or years entering frosh classes. Historically, Harvard and Princeton have had the highest AI, followed by Yale and Dartmouth. Dartmouth was above Yale briefly, but then Yale went back above Dartmouth.

"Coincidentally", Yale just instituted their "scholarship everyone making below $100,000" policy the past few years. Fascinating - more scholarship money gets higher-academic recruits. Imagine that.

And the Ivy League is going to "punish" the Patriot League for offering football scholarships? xrolleyesx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't believe anything came of what was written about Harvard hoops in the NY Times, did it? I'm not aware of any ncaa issues from that. Recruiting, but not admitting, recruits with lower academics is not a crime. I assume Harvard talked to its new coach, and he cleaned things up. If the Harvard posters have more info, please provide it.

I read that a couple of years ago, and I believe the upshot ended up being that an African-American kid who was certainly capable academically and athletically to study at Harvard was shown the door and ended up in that athletic cesspool of.... Davidson. xlolx

It was a great example of how a intellectual snit over how Harvard is "expected" to be behind Penn and Princeton in basketball ended up pushing a very good academic African-American recruit out the door, stigmatizing him as an idiot jock and somehow unqualified to be at Harvard. I mean, who cares if it's borderline racist, as long as ideals are upheld, eh? xrolleyesx

[Green26]

Amaker actually has a lot written about him both inside and outside the Ivy League. Frankly I don't follow Harvard - Stony Brook gives me plenty of drama.

And the Ivy League absolutely DOES give merit scholarships. That's why the term "generally" was used. Had they not existed, then the term "absolutely" would have been used. The fact that my HS had multiple winners of said awards tells me that they exist in substantial numbers. The Ivy League, the pride of the American liberal arts system, would have clearly used better words if they refused to give such awards.

Again, not too willing to discuss beyond this. My academic respect for the Ancient Eight is unwavering. I see them as great representatives of what American academics has to offer. Those who get rare incentives to attend are likely prodigies in their fields of focus, and will change the US after they graduate. However, to believe the rhetoric that suggests that they rise above human instinct is foolish, even to their staunchest fan.

From the Wall St Journal:

"Such offers have great appeal to the many families that are not eligible for need-based aid -- the only kind offered by Ivy League colleges -- but are squeezed by current prices."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ES_AMONB7WkJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB114549432060630668.html+does+ivy+league+offer+me rit+scholarships&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"The Ivy League does not give merit scholarships. Any outside scholarships will first reduce the workstudy contribution, then loans. After that, it reduces the school grant money."

"All of harvard's FA is need based. No student gets a "full ride" which is also a misnomer, because there is a self help (3650 at Harvard) component in terms of work study and meeting a student contribution each year from summer earnings (2150). Over all the average debt of graduating from Harvard has been reduced from 16,000 to 6400."

These quotes come from one of the leading national websites involving college admissions and financial aid, CollegeConfidential.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/199967-ivy-league-merit-based-aid.html

[Redwyn]

"The Ivy League does not give merit scholarships. Any outside scholarships will first reduce the workstudy contribution, then loans. After that, it reduces the school grant money."

"All of harvard's FA is need based. No student gets a "full ride" which is also a misnomer, because there is a self help (3650 at Harvard) component in terms of work study and meeting a student contribution each year from summer earnings (2150). Over all the average debt of graduating from Harvard has been reduced from 16,000 to 6400."

These quotes come from one of the leading national websites involving college admissions and financial aid, CollegeConfidential.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/199967-ivy-league-merit-based-aid.html

I know college confidential well. The site's the easiest way to give a high school student a brain aneurysm. My favorite is the feed where the students all post their resumes and bash each other.

So basically this assertion means one of two things:
1. I'm lying, as are my two closest friends, their families, teachers, guidance counselors, and the newspaper articles covering the "storied" award that one of my friends got from Columbia. Btw, this award not only covered every dime of his expenses, it also give him access to a special study lounge on campus - a place I visited several times. It had the name of the scholarship and a pictures of every class of winner on the wall (sounds Ivy, right?)

2. They exist, and so far all you've done is show me a website from a random prep school and a board where psychotic kids and parents spew out hate mongering bull about how hard life is and that they would turn down their Princeton acceptance if only they got one from Harvard (woe is me!). Medical students have a similar board, and I tell you you basically start twitching the more you read the boards. Just not worth the loss of sanity.

To end this debate - this was the award http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/undergrad/main/organizations/RabiScholars.html
Full ride, guaranteed summer research jobs with free summer housing, first dibs on major national awards (Goldwater for example), proprietary dinners and such.

Now that we actually know that the Ivys DO HAVE MERIT AWARDS - and if Columbia has one I'd bet my lucky stars every other school has them too - can we conclude this debate with the supposition that it's more than feasible that athletes in the Ivy League could receive alumni based grants that don't qualify as scholarships but replicate their general intent (educational funding)?

[CFBfan]

From the Wall St Journal:

"Such offers have great appeal to the many families that are not eligible for need-based aid -- the only kind offered by Ivy League colleges -- but are squeezed by current prices."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ES_AMONB7WkJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB114549432060630668.html+does+ivy+league+offer+me rit+scholarships&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"The Ivy League does not give merit scholarships. Any outside scholarships will first reduce the workstudy contribution, then loans. After that, it reduces the school grant money."

"All of harvard's FA is need based. No student gets a "full ride" which is also a misnomer, because there is a self help (3650 at Harvard) component in terms of work study and meeting a student contribution each year from summer earnings (2150). Over all the average debt of graduating from Harvard has been reduced from 16,000 to 6400."

These quotes come from one of the leading national websites involving college admissions and financial aid, CollegeConfidential.

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/financial-aid-scholarships/199967-ivy-league-merit-based-aid.html

I know of 3 current Ivy football players, all at different schools amoung the 8, all from families with substanial incomes and ALL are getting "Aid".
those who think the Ivies don't give where others don't are just plain WRONG!

[DFW HOYA]

Ivies aside, there are still some schools with zero merit aid. And no Common Application, either!

[MplsBison]

Easy--if a school uses need in its admissions decision, it can choose to admit more students that are capable of paying full freight, thus the school makes more money vs. giving out financial aid.

That makes sense.

Just like using gender in the hiring process allowing a company to avoid hiring women makes sense.

[MplsBison]

If that were the case Harvard and Princeton would have about 13 kids on their football team. Kids with perfect SAT scores and near perfect GPA's get rejected from these schools on ocassion-- they need help from the admission department to put together a team as even highly qualified applicants get rejected from some Ivies.


I don't believe that there are so few student athletes that could make it into Ivy schools based on their academic ability and be good enough to play at the FCS level that the Ivy schools wouldn't be able to get enough people on the team. There are enough of these people around, the Ivy schools just have to recruit them.

Not when schools in the NESCAC, UAA, and schools like MIT, Johns Hopkins, etc. are filling full football rosters. Ivy's are no better than those schools.

[MplsBison]

Regarding your first paragraph, are you saying that no athlete should be admitted at any school just because he's a good athlete?

Why would you have a policy/system where no athlete is admitted because of his athletic ability, but it he/she got admitted, then you'd give him/her a full-ride scholarship? Those two things seem inconsistent, to me.


I read LBpop's post, but it doesn't have much to do with what you and I are discussing. I did answer one thing in LBpop's post, by explaining why an Ivy coaches would be very interested in making sure a recruit is interested in playing football at the school (as well as very interested in attending the school). You obviously aren't a lawyer. A coach can recruit whomever he/she wants, as long as they don't discriminate on the basis of race, etc.

Again, I think that recruiting is largely need-blind, except perhaps when the coach knows that the recruit is likely to get and take a full ride, because his family doesn't want to pay anything for school. You are operating on largely incorrect facts/assumptions.

If top-ranked academic schools didn't lower their admissions standards a bit for athletes (as well as groups in other categories like people of color; yes, I know schools have to be careful with how some of this is done), then most of their athletic programs would not be able to compete. Do you think Stanford could compete in the Pac-10 in football and similar sports if it only admitted kids with 2200 - 2400 on the SAT's and first in their high school class?

Ivy and similar schools admit applicants who have lesser academic credentials in order to have a more diverse student body, not necessarily racial diversity.

It's completely inconsistent to couple a merit scholarship to admission. The admission process should be a complete autonomous unit of a school that is absolutely blind to anything regarding every applicant except his/her academic ability. If someone is admitted to the school and they happen to have extraordinary ability in a certain area, then it makes perfect sense to offer that person a merit scholarship. And of course, it only makes perfect ethical sense that the amount of the scholarship should be completely blind to need and only based on ability.

LBpop's post has exact relevance to what we were discussion. Allow me to highlight the particular sentence of interest:


It is a delicate little game they play once they identify a young man who can play and who either can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of aid based on "need".

This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about and are incorrect. Ivy coaches (at least in football) do recruit on the basis of need. A player whose family can afford the cost or who will qualify for a large amount of need-based aid is more valuable to them than a player that doesn't fall into these two buckets.

This is a blatant and inexcusable case of discrimination, in my view.

[MplsBison]

If private schools can't afford to offer need-based scholarships to everyone they admit, then it is in their best interests to admit the best applicants who can afford to attend and the best applicants that they are willing to offer need-based scholarships to. Private schools are generally smaller, and they want to admit applicants who are likely to attend. It does them no good to admit large numbers of good applicants, to whom they can't offer need-based scholarships, because they probably won't likely attend.

Blatant and inexcusable case of discrimination. It's discrimination, out in the open. Absolutely no different than denying an applicant on the basis of gender or religion.

The school is in no way, shape or form obligate to provide need-based financial aid to any admitted student that can't afford the cost. It's up to them to figure out how they're going to pay.

Schools should only be admitting applicants on the basis of academic ability. That's the bottom line and it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to convince me otherwise without trying to justify discrimination.

[Green26]

I know college confidential well. The site's the easiest way to give a high school student a brain aneurysm. My favorite is the feed where the students all post their resumes and bash each other.

So basically this assertion means one of two things:
1. I'm lying, as are my two closest friends, their families, teachers, guidance counselors, and the newspaper articles covering the "storied" award that one of my friends got from Columbia. Btw, this award not only covered every dime of his expenses, it also give him access to a special study lounge on campus - a place I visited several times. It had the name of the scholarship and a pictures of every class of winner on the wall (sounds Ivy, right?)

2. They exist, and so far all you've done is show me a website from a random prep school and a board where psychotic kids and parents spew out hate mongering bull about how hard life is and that they would turn down their Princeton acceptance if only they got one from Harvard (woe is me!). Medical students have a similar board, and I tell you you basically start twitching the more you read the boards. Just not worth the loss of sanity.

To end this debate - this was the award http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/undergrad/main/organizations/RabiScholars.html
Full ride, guaranteed summer research jobs with free summer housing, first dibs on major national awards (Goldwater for example), proprietary dinners and such.

Now that we actually know that the Ivys DO HAVE MERIT AWARDS - and if Columbia has one I'd bet my lucky stars every other school has them too - can we conclude this debate with the supposition that it's more than feasible that athletes in the Ivy League could receive alumni based grants that don't qualify as scholarships but replicate their general intent (educational funding)?

The link you provided does not say it's a merit scholarship and it doesn't say it's a full ride. It says it's a "fellowship". A fellowship is not the same as a scholarship.

"In memory of 1944 Nobel Laureate, Columbia faculty physicist and alumnus, Prof. I.I. Rabi, ten incoming first-year students who demonstrate exceptional promise in the sciences are awarded RABI Fellowships for their four years at Columbia University. In addition to participating in the Rabi dinners and lecture series which bring world-renowned scientists from all fields to the Columbia campus, RABI Fellows develop close working relationships with senior faculty and conduct research projects. The fellowships provide guaranteed summer research jobs with free summer housing on campus, as well as other benefits."

This site/post says the Rabi Scholar program provides research stipends and funding, but says nothing about scholarship grants or full-ride:

"I was a accepted to MIT and Columbia Rabi Scholar's program. The Rabi Scholars program is for 10 selected students to be science research scholars, where you get research stipends and funding." http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-2012/510053-columbia-rabi-scholar-v-mit.html

Are you calling the Wall St Journal a liar?

And no we can't conclude any of the things you said.

[Green26]

Blatant and inexcusable case of discrimination. It's discrimination, out in the open. Absolutely no different than denying an applicant on the basis of gender or religion.

The school is in no way, shape or form obligate to provide need-based financial aid to any admitted student that can't afford the cost. It's up to them to figure out how they're going to pay.

Schools should only be admitting applicants on the basis of academic ability. That's the bottom line and it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to convince me otherwise without trying to justify discrimination.

Very few schools, and perhaps none, admit students only on the basis of academic ability. In the case of the Ivies, they try to build their classes based on a number of critieria in addition to academic ability, including geographic diversity, general diversity, athletic abilility, etc.

Since Columbia was discussed in an above post, I pulled this from the Columbia website:

"In the process of selection, the Committee on Admissions considers each applicant's academic potential, intellectual strength and ability to think independently. The Committee also considers the general attitudes and character of the applicant, special abilities and interests, maturity, motivation, curiosity and whether he or she is likely to make productive use of the four years at Columbia. In its final selection, Columbia seeks diversity of personalities, achievements and talents, and of economic, social, ethnic, cultural, religious, racial and geographic backgrounds."

Fargo, I must say you have some far out and odd ideas.

[Redwyn]

The link you provided does not say it's a merit scholarship and it doesn't say it's a full ride. It says it's a "fellowship". A fellowship is not the same as a scholarship.

"In memory of 1944 Nobel Laureate, Columbia faculty physicist and alumnus, Prof. I.I. Rabi, ten incoming first-year students who demonstrate exceptional promise in the sciences are awarded RABI Fellowships for their four years at Columbia University. In addition to participating in the Rabi dinners and lecture series which bring world-renowned scientists from all fields to the Columbia campus, RABI Fellows develop close working relationships with senior faculty and conduct research projects. The fellowships provide guaranteed summer research jobs with free summer housing on campus, as well as other benefits."

This site/post says the Rabi Scholar program provides research stipends and funding, but says nothing about scholarship grants or full-ride:

"I was a accepted to MIT and Columbia Rabi Scholar's program. The Rabi Scholars program is for 10 selected students to be science research scholars, where you get research stipends and funding." http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-2012/510053-columbia-rabi-scholar-v-mit.html

Are you calling the Wall St Journal a liar?

And no we can't conclude any of the things you said.

You sincerely see no problem with a fellowship being a merit scholarship? Scholarship is simply the granting of money in any form to a student based on prior achievement. These kids were recruited by admissions and given guaranteed funding in a manner that others were not given the opportunity to apply for. This is a MERIT SCHOLARSHIP NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. And what money he got exactly is of no meaning, and none of our business. He says he got money, and this award states clearly that Columbia guarantees him things well beyond that of the average acceptee, "and other benefits". Again, THIS IS A MERIT SCHOLARSHIP. I asked my friend - who I've spent every new years over the past decade with - if he thought he got a merit scholarship. His answer was an unequivocal YES.

I'm honestly a bit concerned that you're fighting the idea of this. I don't know who in the League betrayed you or hurt you or your child in some manner...but the awards exist, they're given yearly, and by definition can be called nothing but MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS. There's nothing dishonorable about it, which adds even more curiosity about why you're in such denial. I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you're so naive that a simple change to the word "fellowship" suddenly allows you to put blinders on towards something so completely obvious. Next you'll say that the Cornell Presidential Scholars program that gives personal advising, loan reductions, and guaranteed funded research positions doesn't exist. http://www.commitment.cornell.edu/cprs/default.php

By definition a merit scholarship is any financial award at all given to a student based upon prior academic achievement. This can be research funding, personal funding, guaranteed jobs (which is essentially funding), or any other award that is paid for by money. You can call it all you want, using whatever form Cornell or Columbia wants to frame them, but these are MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS. Now you can tell me Columbia or Cornell is lying - thus disproving your case that they're honest anyway - or you can continue to hide underneath a shell and insist that calling something a different word makes it something different than it is. However, should you choose to do that, answer me this. The Rabi "fellowship" is given to a student who is committed to physics or scientific study and research. Why can't I give the Redwyn "fellowship" for football achievement to any football player I want? I'll pay them a guaranteed "fitness stipend" for lifting weights on a regular basis. You just told me this was a fellowship, so DOESN'T COUNT AS A SCHOLARSHIP, right?

Don't call me a liar Green26, it's very rude. I'm now done with this thread, so you're speaking to an empty room should you choose to continue to embarrass yourself.

[Redwyn]

Very few schools, and perhaps none, admit students only on the basis of academic ability. In the case of the Ivies, they try to build their classes based on a number of critieria in addition to academic ability, including geographic diversity, general diversity, athletic abilility, etc.

Since Columbia was discussed in an above post, I pulled this from the Columbia website:

"In the process of selection, the Committee on Admissions considers each applicant's academic potential, intellectual strength and ability to think independently. The Committee also considers the general attitudes and character of the applicant, special abilities and interests, maturity, motivation, curiosity and whether he or she is likely to make productive use of the four years at Columbia. In its final selection, Columbia seeks diversity of personalities, achievements and talents, and of economic, social, ethnic, cultural, religious, racial and geographic backgrounds."

Fargo, I must say you have some far out and odd ideas.

So you basically failed debate 101, right? In order to win a debate you need to use OUTSIDE primary sources. You basically just supported the idea of justifying the existence of god by using lines out of the bible. Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

[Green26]

You sincerely see no problem with a fellowship being a merit scholarship? Scholarship is simply the granting of money in any form to a student based on prior achievement. These kids were recruited by admissions and given guaranteed funding in a manner that others were not given the opportunity to apply for. This is a MERIT SCHOLARSHIP NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. And what money he got exactly is of no meaning, and none of our business. He says he got money, and this award states clearly that Columbia guarantees him things well beyond that of the average acceptee, "and other benefits". Again, THIS IS A MERIT SCHOLARSHIP. I asked my friend - who I've spent every new years over the past decade with - if he thought he got a merit scholarship. His answer was an unequivocal YES.

I'm honestly a bit concerned that you're fighting the idea of this. I don't know who in the League betrayed you or hurt you or your child in some manner...but the awards exist, they're given yearly, and by definition can be called nothing but MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS. There's nothing dishonorable about it, which adds even more curiosity about why you're in such denial. I have too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you're so naive that a simple change to the word "fellowship" suddenly allows you to put blinders on towards something so completely obvious. Next you'll say that the Cornell Presidential Scholars program that gives personal advising, loan reductions, and guaranteed funded research positions doesn't exist. http://www.commitment.cornell.edu/cprs/default.php

By definition a merit scholarship is any financial award at all given to a student based upon prior academic achievement. This can be research funding, personal funding, guaranteed jobs (which is essentially funding), or any other award that is paid for by money. You can call it all you want, using whatever form Cornell or Columbia wants to frame them, but these are MERIT SCHOLARSHIPS. Now you can tell me Columbia or Cornell is lying - thus disproving your case that they're honest anyway - or you can continue to hide underneath a shell and insist that calling something a different word makes it something different than it is. However, should you choose to do that, answer me this. The Rabi "fellowship" is given to a student who is committed to physics or scientific study and research. Why can't I give the Redwyn "fellowship" for football achievement to any football player I want? I'll pay them a guaranteed "fitness stipend" for lifting weights on a regular basis. You just told me this was a fellowship, so DOESN'T COUNT AS A SCHOLARSHIP, right?

Don't call me a liar Green26, it's very rude. I'm now done with this thread, so you're speaking to an empty room should you choose to continue to embarrass yourself.

My complaint is that much of what you post is not accurate or reliable. It is largely based on what some people supposedly told you. It is not consistent with what is said by the Ivy schools or by the media that covers the schools. For example, you said the Rabi award was a "full-ride". That appears not to be true. It's merely a fellowship and not even a scholarship. It's for research outside of the classroom.

I love and appreciate the Ivy league. I attended an Ivy school. I played football. After I attended, 7 more of my family attended or are currently attending an Ivy school. Six of the seven played sports in college, including several in football. One of the football players was recruited, even though his family made over $100,000. His family stepped up to pay for most of his education. So much for your theory that Ivy coaches only recruit kids from weathly or poor families. I follow Ivy football and sports relatively closely. I have attended at least 2 Ivy football games for each of the past 5 years, and watched others on tv. I attend the Ivy football dinner in NYC when it is held every two years, and will be attending this year.

You are welcome to your opinions, but you don't get to make up the facts.

[Green26]

So you basically failed debate 101, right? In order to win a debate you need to use OUTSIDE primary sources. You basically just supported the idea of justifying the existence of god by using lines out of the bible. Sounds absurd, doesn't it?

Now that's pretty funny. I failed debate because I provided a primary source, i.e. a statement directly from Columbia, on what its admissions criteria is? So, are you going to tell us that Columbia doesn't know what its admission selection critieria is?

[CFBfan]

My complaint is that much of what you post is not accurate or reliable. It is largely based on what some people supposedly told you. It is not consistent with what is said by the Ivy schools or by the media that covers the schools. For example, you said the Rabi award was a "full-ride". That appears not to be true. It's merely a fellowship and not even a scholarship. It's for research outside of the classroom.

I love and appreciate the Ivy league. I attended an Ivy school. I played football. After I attended, 7 more of my family attended or are currently attending an Ivy school. Six of the seven played sports in college, including several in football. One of the football players was recruited, even though his family made over $100,000. His family stepped up to pay for most of his education. So much for your theory that Ivy coaches only recruit kids from weathly or poor families. I follow Ivy football and sports relatively closely. I have attended at least 2 Ivy football games for each of the past 5 years, and watched others on tv. I attend the Ivy football dinner in NYC when it is held every two years, and will be attending this year.

You are welcome to your opinions, but you don't get to make up the facts.

If you had a family member who made "over $100,000 and STEPPED UP to pay for MOST of his education and thought he played football he wasn't "highly valued" by the staff. I know SEVERAL kids at Ivies whose families make WELLover $150,000 to OVER $200,000 and they pay VERY Little as the Football Program STEPPED UP and provided "aid" You are very opinionated and yet very wrong Mr Ivy League!

[Green26]

If you had a family member who made "over $100,000 and STEPPED UP to pay for MOST of his education and thought he played football he wasn't "highly valued" by the staff. I know SEVERAL kids at Ivies whose families make WELLover $150,000 to OVER $200,000 and they pay VERY Little as the Football Program STEPPED UP and provided "aid" You are very opinionated and yet very wrong Mr Ivy League!

Sorry, I just don't believe you. Total BS, in my view, unless those families had multiple kids in college at the same time. I'm providing facts, not opinions. Posters like you are providing inaccurate information. My relative was good enough to start every game his last two years, and started several games his sophomore year, so I assume he was of some "value" to the coaches.

Here are some facts:

"Ivy League schools only award financial aid according to financial need, not athletic or academic ability. Ivy League schools have very high standards for acceptance and they do not give out financial awards after acceptance for anything other than family need. Ivy League coaches can, however, help student-athletes gain acceptance with academic qualifications that are much lower than the average applicant."

http://www.ncsasports.org/blog/2009/10/20/ask-coach-taylor-do-ivy-league-schools-offer-athletic-scholarships/

" Unlike most Division I athletic conferences, the Ivy League prohibits the granting of athletic scholarships; all scholarships awarded are need-based (financial aid)."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jewqfklBSAQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League+ivy+league+athletic+scholarships&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[ngineer]

Blatant and inexcusable case of discrimination. It's discrimination, out in the open. Absolutely no different than denying an applicant on the basis of gender or religion.

The school is in no way, shape or form obligate to provide need-based financial aid to any admitted student that can't afford the cost. It's up to them to figure out how they're going to pay.

Schools should only be admitting applicants on the basis of academic ability. That's the bottom line and it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to convince me otherwise without trying to justify discrimination.

Huh? Discrimination based on what that is illegal? Illegal discrimination is defined by statutory classes, i.e. gender, religion, race, handicap, creed, or age. What kind of discrimination are you whining about? In all aspects of life, we discriminate on a host of reasons and some may not be fair, but certainly not illegal. Are schools to be mandated that they MUST admit only those students with the highest SAT scores? Certainly, high school grades/rankings are, many times, meaningless because it is impossible to compare schools from Maine to California and everywhere in between. We discriminate every day in making subjective decisions and most admissions to colleges are just that. A subjective evaluation as to whether a student will be successful at the school, and in culling 12,000 applications down to a class of 1,000, there will certainly have to be a lot of 'legal' discrimination. So what "discrimination" are you whining about???

[CFBfan]

Sorry, I just don't believe you. Total BS, in my view, unless those families had multiple kids in college at the same time. I'm providing facts, not opinions. Posters like you are providing inaccurate information. My relative was good enough to start every game his last two years, and started several games his sophomore year, so I assume he was of some "value" to the coaches.

Here are some facts:

"Ivy League schools only award financial aid according to financial need, not athletic or academic ability. Ivy League schools have very high standards for acceptance and they do not give out financial awards after acceptance for anything other than family need. Ivy League coaches can, however, help student-athletes gain acceptance with academic qualifications that are much lower than the average applicant."

http://www.ncsasports.org/blog/2009/10/20/ask-coach-taylor-do-ivy-league-schools-offer-athletic-scholarships/

" Unlike most Division I athletic conferences, the Ivy League prohibits the granting of athletic scholarships; all scholarships awarded are need-based (financial aid)."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jewqfklBSAQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League+ivy+league+athletic+scholarships&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Sorry Mr know it all BUT what I posted is a FACT! So sorry if your all star relative didn't get any money but YOU are wrong here and this will be my last response to anything that you post so have a nive Ivy Life.

[MplsBison]

Huh? Discrimination based on what that is illegal? Illegal discrimination is defined by statutory classes, i.e. gender, religion, race, handicap, creed, or age. What kind of discrimination are you whining about? In all aspects of life, we discriminate on a host of reasons and some may not be fair, but certainly not illegal. Are schools to be mandated that they MUST admit only those students with the highest SAT scores? Certainly, high school grades/rankings are, many times, meaningless because it is impossible to compare schools from Maine to California and everywhere in between. We discriminate every day in making subjective decisions and most admissions to colleges are just that. A subjective evaluation as to whether a student will be successful at the school, and in culling 12,000 applications down to a class of 1,000, there will certainly have to be a lot of 'legal' discrimination. So what "discrimination" are you whining about???

Just as I thought, you'd have to resort to trying to justify discrimination to make your case.

To me it's pretty obvious that if a school admitts an applicant that is no more qualified as another applicant solely on the basis that one applicant can afford the cost without having to provide him/her financial aid while the other would require financial aid and thus will save the school some money is discrimination. The school is discriminating against the applicant who can not afford the costs without aid.

Just because that may technically not be illegal does not in any way mean it's ethically justified.


Schools should admit only the most academically qualified students. The school doesn't have to provide financial aid, it's up to the student to pay the costs.

[MplsBison]

Very few schools, and perhaps none, admit students only on the basis of academic ability. In the case of the Ivies, they try to build their classes based on a number of critieria in addition to academic ability, including geographic diversity, general diversity, athletic abilility, etc.

Since Columbia was discussed in an above post, I pulled this from the Columbia website:

"In the process of selection, the Committee on Admissions considers each applicant's academic potential, intellectual strength and ability to think independently. The Committee also considers the general attitudes and character of the applicant, special abilities and interests, maturity, motivation, curiosity and whether he or she is likely to make productive use of the four years at Columbia. In its final selection, Columbia seeks diversity of personalities, achievements and talents, and of economic, social, ethnic, cultural, religious, racial and geographic backgrounds."

Fargo, I must say you have some far out and odd ideas.

I am taking your post as your surrendering the argument to me, since you are not making a counter argument on any of the points of the discussion. You didn't even respond to the fact that LBpop's post proved that you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about in terms of Ivy coaches discriminating against players on the basis of their family's income.

[ngineer]

Just as I thought, you'd have to resort to trying to justify discrimination to make your case.

To me it's pretty obvious that if a school admitts an applicant that is no more qualified as another applicant solely on the basis that one applicant can afford the cost without having to provide him/her financial aid while the other would require financial aid and thus will save the school some money is discrimination. The school is discriminating against the applicant who can not afford the costs without aid.

Just because that may technically not be illegal does not in any way mean it's ethically justified.


Schools should admit only the most academically qualified students. The school doesn't have to provide financial aid, it's up to the student to pay the costs.

Huh? Under your proposal of admitting "only the most academically qualified students", you, too, are proposing some form of discrimination because how one defines "the most academically qualified" is quite subjective. Whatever criteria you wish to employ will be 'discrimination' in your eyes.

[Redwyn]

Huh? Under your proposal of admitting "only the most academically qualified students", you, too, are proposing some form of discrimination because how one defines "the most academically qualified" is quite subjective. Whatever criteria you wish to employ will be 'discrimination' in your eyes.

The Ivy League has been a group bent on a "certain type" of admission for centuries. Afterall, the SAT was an invention originally meant to prove that lower quality races, such as Jews and Eastern Europeans, were diluting the quality of the American student. Who were some of the first schools to embrace it? Princeton, the Cooper Union, the military colleges, and later the rest of the Ivy League. I still remember my dad's story of interviewing for Brown (he was valedictorian of one of the most competitive High Schools in the US), and being told bluntly by the interviewer that they had "enough Jewish males from Brooklyn". He was passed over in favor of a female legacy ranked over 100 places lower. Today we see an "all in the family" approach at these schools, where legacy % admission to Ivy League schools are amongst the highest in the US.

But to single the Ivy League out and say that they're the only - or even the major - culprit, is fundamentally incorrect. The ENTIRE system is inherently broken. But the fact of the matter is there really isn't a better one. I support the independence of private school admissions from a unifying entity (such as a proposed plan to have a single government admissions committee delegate acceptances ala India...this wouldn't even fly in the UK, where most if not all schools are state funded and tied much closer to the government), and as ngineer and MplsBison have astutely pointed out - there really is NO good way to prove an applicant was discriminated against. Most top level applications are very similar. Usually it's something as random as an essay point or a unique EC that attracts a school to an applicant.

During a fellowship I had in engineering at Princeton, I was concerned that being of a perceived "inferior" school like Stony Brook would impact my chances of earning a high paying job. My advisor's (he's the chair of one of the depts at Princeton) response was twofold. One - he told me that Stony Brook was ranked higher in most Engineering categories than Princeteon, specifically in MechE and Materials Eng. Second - and this was the major point - he remarked that the top 10% of any University's graduating class is fundamentally the same in quality. We take advantage of the opportunities we are given, and rarely is more than that expected of us. I like to think that this is true, which is why people can cry bloody murder all they like - the Ivy League has the right to choose, just like BU, just like Lehigh, just like Suffolk Community College.

[ngineer]

The Ivy League has been a group bent on a "certain type" of admission for centuries. Afterall, the SAT was an invention originally meant to prove that lower quality races, such as Jews and Eastern Europeans, were diluting the quality of the American student. Who were some of the first schools to embrace it? Princeton, the Cooper Union, the military colleges, and later the rest of the Ivy League. I still remember my dad's story of interviewing for Brown (he was valedictorian of one of the most competitive High Schools in the US), and being told bluntly by the interviewer that they had "enough Jewish males from Brooklyn". He was passed over in favor of a female legacy ranked over 100 places lower. Today we see an "all in the family" approach at these schools, where legacy % admission to Ivy League schools are amongst the highest in the US.

But to single the Ivy League out and say that they're the only - or even the major - culprit, is fundamentally incorrect. The ENTIRE system is inherently broken. But the fact of the matter is there really isn't a better one. I support the independence of private school admissions from a unifying entity (such as a proposed plan to have a single government admissions committee delegate acceptances ala India...this wouldn't even fly in the UK, where most if not all schools are state funded and tied much closer to the government), and as ngineer and MplsBison have astutely pointed out - there really is NO good way to prove an applicant was discriminated against. Most top level applications are very similar. Usually it's something as random as an essay point or a unique EC that attracts a school to an applicant.

During a fellowship I had in engineering at Princeton, I was concerned that being of a perceived "inferior" school like Stony Brook would impact my chances of earning a high paying job. My advisor's (he's the chair of one of the depts at Princeton) response was twofold. One - he told me that Stony Brook was ranked higher in most Engineering categories than Princeteon, specifically in MechE and Materials Eng. Second - and this was the major point - he remarked that the top 10% of any University's graduating class is fundamentally the same in quality. We take advantage of the opportunities we are given, and rarely is more than that expected of us. I like to think that this is true, which is why people can cry bloody murder all they like - the Ivy League has the right to choose, just like BU, just like Lehigh, just like Suffolk Community College.

Agreed there. The only 'advantage' of going to some of the schools you mention is not so much the 'better education' but the excellent "networking" those schools provide. They open a lot of doors to opportunities, but the candidate still has to sell him/herself.

[busybee14]

Sorry, I just don't believe you. Total BS, in my view, unless those families had multiple kids in college at the same time. I'm providing facts, not opinions. Posters like you are providing inaccurate information. My relative was good enough to start every game his last two years, and started several games his sophomore year, so I assume he was of some "value" to the coaches.

Here are some facts:

"Ivy League schools only award financial aid according to financial need, not athletic or academic ability. Ivy League schools have very high standards for acceptance and they do not give out financial awards after acceptance for anything other than family need. Ivy League coaches can, however, help student-athletes gain acceptance with academic qualifications that are much lower than the average applicant."

http://www.ncsasports.org/blog/2009/10/20/ask-coach-taylor-do-ivy-league-schools-offer-athletic-scholarships/

" Unlike most Division I athletic conferences, the Ivy League prohibits the granting of athletic scholarships; all scholarships awarded are need-based (financial aid)."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jewqfklBSAQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League+ivy+league+athletic+scholarships&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Green, I know this is how it is should work with the Ivies, need based aid only. But I have seen first hand that when push comes to shove that "need" becomes a little more like merit $$ and those numbers can change ALOT when a kid is sitting in with a Head Coach and that coach really,really wants a commitment then and there.

[Green26]

Green, I know this is how it is should work with the Ivies, need based aid only. But I have seen first hand that when push comes to shove that "need" becomes a little more like merit $$ and those numbers can change ALOT when a kid is sitting in with a Head Coach and that coach really,really wants a commitment then and there.

How much is "ALOT"? How many times have you seen this "first hand"? How do you think a coach increases what the financial aid office has offered, especially when some/most schools don't allow direct contact between the coaches and admissions/financial aid offices?

[MplsBison]

Huh? Under your proposal of admitting "only the most academically qualified students", you, too, are proposing some form of discrimination because how one defines "the most academically qualified" is quite subjective. Whatever criteria you wish to employ will be 'discrimination' in your eyes.

I wasn't making an argument that schools should not be allowed to discriminate on any basis. I was only making an argument that they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of an applicant's income (or their family's income).

It makes perfect sense that an academic institution should discriminate on the basis of academic ability. There's nothing unethical or invalid about that.

(note that having imperfect information about applicants academic ability is a red herring)


Allowing them to discriminate on any other basis (at least any other basis that comes to my mind at this moment like gender, religion, sexual orientation, income, etc.) is unethical and should not be allowed.

[MplsBison]

The Ivy League has been a group bent on a "certain type" of admission for centuries. Afterall, the SAT was an invention originally meant to prove that lower quality races, such as Jews and Eastern Europeans, were diluting the quality of the American student. Who were some of the first schools to embrace it? Princeton, the Cooper Union, the military colleges, and later the rest of the Ivy League. I still remember my dad's story of interviewing for Brown (he was valedictorian of one of the most competitive High Schools in the US), and being told bluntly by the interviewer that they had "enough Jewish males from Brooklyn". He was passed over in favor of a female legacy ranked over 100 places lower. Today we see an "all in the family" approach at these schools, where legacy % admission to Ivy League schools are amongst the highest in the US.

But to single the Ivy League out and say that they're the only - or even the major - culprit, is fundamentally incorrect. The ENTIRE system is inherently broken. But the fact of the matter is there really isn't a better one. I support the independence of private school admissions from a unifying entity (such as a proposed plan to have a single government admissions committee delegate acceptances ala India...this wouldn't even fly in the UK, where most if not all schools are state funded and tied much closer to the government), and as ngineer and MplsBison have astutely pointed out - there really is NO good way to prove an applicant was discriminated against. Most top level applications are very similar. Usually it's something as random as an essay point or a unique EC that attracts a school to an applicant.

During a fellowship I had in engineering at Princeton, I was concerned that being of a perceived "inferior" school like Stony Brook would impact my chances of earning a high paying job. My advisor's (he's the chair of one of the depts at Princeton) response was twofold. One - he told me that Stony Brook was ranked higher in most Engineering categories than Princeteon, specifically in MechE and Materials Eng. Second - and this was the major point - he remarked that the top 10% of any University's graduating class is fundamentally the same in quality. We take advantage of the opportunities we are given, and rarely is more than that expected of us. I like to think that this is true, which is why people can cry bloody murder all they like - the Ivy League has the right to choose, just like BU, just like Lehigh, just like Suffolk Community College.

But you already hinted at why it is, in fact, better to be in the top 10% at an Ivy School than it is to be in the top 10% at a public: the people who control the hiring for all the top jobs come from the Ivy schools. Hence, to be frmo the Ivy school means you'll get hired at a better job, even if you are no more qualified.

[busybee14]

How much is "ALOT"? How many times have you seen this "first hand"? How do you think a coach increases what the financial aid office has offered, especially when some/most schools don't allow direct contact between the coaches and admissions/financial aid offices?
There is contact between the two and in most cases they work hand in hand in getting select players in(tier system ) .I have seen a 10-12K swing in the numbers, from the origanal fafsa/css submitted aid numbers given to a player to the final # given by the coach.
To answer your other question .I have no idea how they do this but I used to be involved in HS recruiting for a # of years and this kinda stuff does take place. If a kid is willing to sign and the program really has him as a top target they will make it easier on the player.

[Green26]

There is contact between the two and in most cases they work hand in hand in getting select players in(tier system ) .I have seen a 10-12K swing in the numbers, from the origanal fafsa/css submitted aid numbers given to a player to the final # given by the coach.
To answer your other question .I have no idea how they do this but I used to be involved in HS recruiting for a # of years and this kinda stuff does take place. If a kid is willing to sign and the program really has him as a top target they will make it easier on the player.

A swing of that amount is actually not a huge amount, compared to the cost of an Ivy. Tuition/fees alone at the Ivies are about $40,000. With room and board, a bit under $55,000. When it's all said and done, the cost for my daughter at Dartmouth, including rugby, sorority, singing group, travel and spending money, is about $65,000 per year. The modern day financial aid offices of Ivies will look at financial aid calculations/grant amounts from other comparable schools, and sometimes make adjustments, for any student. This is referred to as a "squeeze play". The schools don't advertise this.

[busybee14]

A swing of that amount is actually not a huge amount, compared to the cost of an Ivy. Tuition/fees alone at the Ivies are about $40,000. With room and board, a bit under $55,000. When it's all said and done, the cost for my daughter at Dartmouth, including rugby, sorority, singing group, travel and spending money, is about $65,000 per year. The modern day financial aid offices of Ivies will look at financial aid calculations/grant amounts from other comparable schools, and sometimes make adjustments, for any student. This is referred to as a "squeeze play". The schools don't advertise this.
Agreed. The Meeting I was privy to had a Student athlete and his family at 26-28k for tuition/R&B (out of 55,000)after federal aid sheet was sent from program to student.That number was knocked down to around 11-12 out of pocket upon committing. I know the family normally would not have been considered for that much aid if any at all.
Best of luck to your Daughter.