5 ms·

Next step: Ending use of athletic ability in admissions.

OkayPhysicist 3y ago
Sports programs at university pay for themselves. They pay for themselves because people buy tickets to games, which they do to see exceptional athletes.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Maybe at schools with big football/basketball programs. At a school like MIT which was being discussed yesterday, sports certainly do not directly pay for themselves.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  Do legacy admissions not pay for themselves?
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    I didn't say anything about legacy admissions. In fact, I'm all in on not-exclusively-academic-merit based admissions for private universities. I will happily trade a few bottom-of-the-rung merit-based admissions in exchange for students that either benefit me in some way (by subsidizing my education and/or providing good networking opportunities) or try and make up for the mistreatment of disadvantaged groups.
- paxys 3y ago
  Sports programs at the top ~20 universities pay for themselves (and that too just the top sports). The rest are a money sink.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Football and (men's) basketball pay for themselves. The other sports do not. At many smaller universities, not even football and basketball can achieve net revenue for sports. Source: look at databases like https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-spor...
- Brusco_RF 3y ago
  I get that. I just never really understood why higher education and semi-pro athletics are so deeply linked together. They are totally different things!
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > Sports programs at university pay for themselves. I don't see why this even matters (besides the fact that it's not really true except for the biggest sports at some of the biggest sport schools). The debate is over whether it's fair that some students get the benefits that come with being an Ivy League grad without having the academic prowess to otherwise be admitted. Whether or not they are able to cover their costs is immaterial to that discussion. I actually heard someone else make a similar argument for children of big donors, i.e. that schools rely on those big donors for their missions. And I'm like "You're just arguing that you're cool with nearly all forms of corruption and bribery as long as the money is put to a good use."
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    It boils down to this: If you have some fraction of your students who get in, not on their primary merits as students, but for some other reason that benefits the rest of the student body in some way, eliminating that fraction of the students benefits a handful of students who were at the very top of the waitlist to get in, at the cost of the benefits those preferentially selected students provided. In both athletics and the kids of rich donors cases, I'd be happy to defend that being a bad trade-off. The networking value of the rich kids going to the same university as me far outweighs the slight increase in average academic prowess of the university (emphasis on slight: remember, these are students who ranked below every other student in the merit-based application pool). Athletics is a smaller effect size than the rich kids, but at the end of the day by providing very valuable labor to the university for approximately free, they completely pay for the sports programs (some of which the merit-admitted enjoyed, such as having a very large gym open 24 hours a day), in addition to feeding money back into the university, subsidizing everyone else's education. Couple that with the fact that these students are disproportionately NOT taking up seats in the most competitive programs, and it's still a net positive for the student body.
    - vkou 3y ago
      I can make the same argument for AA. A diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, including students who managed to overcome a lot more adversity than the average rich kid, or white-collar family admittee will make for a better, richer learning experience for everyone.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Arguably a lot of categories would pay for themselves, but I'm assuming you don't have a Youtuber or pro gamer program at Carnegie Mellon for instance.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- _blz2 3y ago
  what business is the university in? Education or selling sports tickets?
- vkou 3y ago
  > Sports programs at university pay for themselves. Then spin them out as a sports club, owned by the university. Don't waste the athlete's times with classes, and don't waste class space with athletes that can't cut it. (The reason that doesn't happen is because the athletes will actually start asking for a share of the billions of dollars earned by the club.)
- wrp 3y ago
  Sports programs used to be a net income source, but I think that ended with Title IX, because schools became forced to spend on non-income-producing programs. However, athletic programs are still given tremendous emphasis by schools because success in sports is effective in attracting donors. Whatever administrators say, college athletics is not at all about building character. It's about drawing money.
ghaff 3y ago
Why should athletics be uniquely disadvantaged among activities that aren't exclusively academic? Perhaps you think that a test result is all that should count though in which case we'll have to agree to disagree.
- DaSHacka 3y ago
  I'd assume it's because academic ability and knowledge makes more sense for determining admissions in an academic context, and has a higher chance of being relevant after the student graduates. This is unlike athletics where unless you go pro, the skill becomes functionally useless once you enter the workforce.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    But schools will also take into account things like being a concert pianist, volunteer activities, etc. You can argue that they should just admit the "smartest" students as well as they're able to determine same but basically no university does that. Selective schools do obviously look at academics; it's just not the only thing they look at.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > the skill becomes functionally useless once you enter the workforce. This is laughably false and makes me think you've either never participated in organized athletics or have never had a job. The most important trait for success in the workforce is grit. The same is true for athletics at the highest level. Yes, some of the athletes made it on genetics alone but the vast majority had to work incredibly hard to become a college athlete. Being a successful athlete translates very well into the workforce.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      And teamwork. (Which admittedly doesn't apply as much to some sports.)
    - ben7799 3y ago
      This is the standard justification sales and MBA types use. They are missing that it takes grit to get through a lot of tough degree programs as well. People in those degree programs constantly talk about those who move over to easier degrees in business as lacking grit. Sports is mostly used as an in-club in the workplace. If you work in an engineering first company it's crazy to see the dichotomy from how sales values past athletic accomplishments versus how R&D does. It is also beyond bizarre how often high school and college athletic success is not correlated with health & fitness once high school/college is finished.
nluken 3y ago
I go back and forth on this. Athletics definitely have outsize influence on college admissions that should be diminished, but surely it should still count for something, right? Most people wouldn’t argue against considering artists’ portfolios and musicians’ performances in admissions. What makes athletics a less important pursuit?
- msla 3y ago
  > Most people wouldn’t argue against considering artists’ portfolios and musicians’ performances in admissions. I would, unless it was an arts college. The point is, schools are institutions with a purpose. For most of them, that purpose is education, not playing games. Therefore, being able to play games shouldn't have any relevance in whether you're admitted to those schools.
  - simplyluke 3y ago
    The presence of athletics at these institutions clearly demonstrates that it's part of their purpose, just as the sciences, humanities, and arts/music are.
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      Sure but we are talking about what the purpose should be not what it is.
collinc777 3y ago
Culturally, the separation of athletics and education is going to be extremely difficult to accomplish. Although not everyone is a fan, Football is the cornerstone of American culture.
motohagiography 3y ago
People against athletic admissions have zero clue about what excellence requires and means. It's an attitude I can only describe as disgusting because it creates a prejudice against people who have actually worked at something and taken risks to succeed. It is equivalent to banning music scholarships. Who benefits from removing those who actually develop a physical competence and commit to training and competition?
- msla 3y ago
  > Who benefits from removing those who actually develop a physical competence and commit to training and competition? The people who are there for academics, as opposed to being there to play a game. There are only so many places in a class. Reserve them for people who go to a school to learn.
- kelipso 3y ago
  If you want to play sports, go join a league and practice excellence or whatever..
- philip1209 3y ago
  The federal funding going to these universities is to subsidize education, not athletics.
- janalsncm 3y ago
  Would you say the same in reverse? Should baseball teams also not discriminate based on athletic ability? Academic excellence requires dedication and commitment as well, perhaps we should reserve a few spots on the team for strong students.
  - nluken 3y ago
    Not sure if you’re being serious but that is indeed how it works at many places. I was straight up told that I could get a spot on some schools’ track teams over others who were faster than me because my test scores would increase the team average
rank0 3y ago
The people receiving athletic scholarships to elite universities have accomplished something amazing. It requires extreme dedication, teamwork, sacrifice, and an understanding of competition/iterative improvement. Applicants who are equally successful in other pursuits also get credit as they should. An elite artist/musician, community leader, or committed activists are valuable to society and universities should be free to encourage extracurricular excellence in their student body. They are also free to not hold those values and admit purely on test scores + gpa if they like.

Sports programs at university pay for themselves. They pay for themselves because people buy tickets to games, which they do to see exceptional athletes.

ghaff 3y ago
Maybe at schools with big football/basketball programs. At a school like MIT which was being discussed yesterday, sports certainly do not directly pay for themselves.
ZoomerCretin 3y ago
Do legacy admissions not pay for themselves?
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  I didn't say anything about legacy admissions. In fact, I'm all in on not-exclusively-academic-merit based admissions for private universities. I will happily trade a few bottom-of-the-rung merit-based admissions in exchange for students that either benefit me in some way (by subsidizing my education and/or providing good networking opportunities) or try and make up for the mistreatment of disadvantaged groups.
paxys 3y ago
Sports programs at the top ~20 universities pay for themselves (and that too just the top sports). The rest are a money sink.
jcranmer 3y ago
Football and (men's) basketball pay for themselves. The other sports do not. At many smaller universities, not even football and basketball can achieve net revenue for sports. Source: look at databases like https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/ https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-spor...
Brusco_RF 3y ago
I get that. I just never really understood why higher education and semi-pro athletics are so deeply linked together. They are totally different things!
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. I don't see why this even matters (besides the fact that it's not really true except for the biggest sports at some of the biggest sport schools). The debate is over whether it's fair that some students get the benefits that come with being an Ivy League grad without having the academic prowess to otherwise be admitted. Whether or not they are able to cover their costs is immaterial to that discussion. I actually heard someone else make a similar argument for children of big donors, i.e. that schools rely on those big donors for their missions. And I'm like "You're just arguing that you're cool with nearly all forms of corruption and bribery as long as the money is put to a good use."
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  It boils down to this: If you have some fraction of your students who get in, not on their primary merits as students, but for some other reason that benefits the rest of the student body in some way, eliminating that fraction of the students benefits a handful of students who were at the very top of the waitlist to get in, at the cost of the benefits those preferentially selected students provided. In both athletics and the kids of rich donors cases, I'd be happy to defend that being a bad trade-off. The networking value of the rich kids going to the same university as me far outweighs the slight increase in average academic prowess of the university (emphasis on slight: remember, these are students who ranked below every other student in the merit-based application pool). Athletics is a smaller effect size than the rich kids, but at the end of the day by providing very valuable labor to the university for approximately free, they completely pay for the sports programs (some of which the merit-admitted enjoyed, such as having a very large gym open 24 hours a day), in addition to feeding money back into the university, subsidizing everyone else's education. Couple that with the fact that these students are disproportionately NOT taking up seats in the most competitive programs, and it's still a net positive for the student body.
  - vkou 3y ago
    I can make the same argument for AA. A diversity of backgrounds and perspectives, including students who managed to overcome a lot more adversity than the average rich kid, or white-collar family admittee will make for a better, richer learning experience for everyone.
makeitdouble 3y ago
Arguably a lot of categories would pay for themselves, but I'm assuming you don't have a Youtuber or pro gamer program at Carnegie Mellon for instance.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
_blz2 3y ago
what business is the university in? Education or selling sports tickets?
vkou 3y ago
> Sports programs at university pay for themselves. Then spin them out as a sports club, owned by the university. Don't waste the athlete's times with classes, and don't waste class space with athletes that can't cut it. (The reason that doesn't happen is because the athletes will actually start asking for a share of the billions of dollars earned by the club.)
wrp 3y ago
Sports programs used to be a net income source, but I think that ended with Title IX, because schools became forced to spend on non-income-producing programs. However, athletic programs are still given tremendous emphasis by schools because success in sports is effective in attracting donors. Whatever administrators say, college athletics is not at all about building character. It's about drawing money.

ghaff 3y ago

Why should athletics be uniquely disadvantaged among activities that aren't exclusively academic? Perhaps you think that a test result is all that should count though in which case we'll have to agree to disagree.

DaSHacka 3y ago
I'd assume it's because academic ability and knowledge makes more sense for determining admissions in an academic context, and has a higher chance of being relevant after the student graduates. This is unlike athletics where unless you go pro, the skill becomes functionally useless once you enter the workforce.
- ghaff 3y ago
  But schools will also take into account things like being a concert pianist, volunteer activities, etc. You can argue that they should just admit the "smartest" students as well as they're able to determine same but basically no university does that. Selective schools do obviously look at academics; it's just not the only thing they look at.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  > the skill becomes functionally useless once you enter the workforce. This is laughably false and makes me think you've either never participated in organized athletics or have never had a job. The most important trait for success in the workforce is grit. The same is true for athletics at the highest level. Yes, some of the athletes made it on genetics alone but the vast majority had to work incredibly hard to become a college athlete. Being a successful athlete translates very well into the workforce.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    And teamwork. (Which admittedly doesn't apply as much to some sports.)
  - ben7799 3y ago
    This is the standard justification sales and MBA types use. They are missing that it takes grit to get through a lot of tough degree programs as well. People in those degree programs constantly talk about those who move over to easier degrees in business as lacking grit. Sports is mostly used as an in-club in the workplace. If you work in an engineering first company it's crazy to see the dichotomy from how sales values past athletic accomplishments versus how R&D does. It is also beyond bizarre how often high school and college athletic success is not correlated with health & fitness once high school/college is finished.

nluken 3y ago

I go back and forth on this. Athletics definitely have outsize influence on college admissions that should be diminished, but surely it should still count for something, right? Most people wouldn’t argue against considering artists’ portfolios and musicians’ performances in admissions. What makes athletics a less important pursuit?

msla 3y ago
> Most people wouldn’t argue against considering artists’ portfolios and musicians’ performances in admissions. I would, unless it was an arts college. The point is, schools are institutions with a purpose. For most of them, that purpose is education, not playing games. Therefore, being able to play games shouldn't have any relevance in whether you're admitted to those schools.
- simplyluke 3y ago
  The presence of athletics at these institutions clearly demonstrates that it's part of their purpose, just as the sciences, humanities, and arts/music are.
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    Sure but we are talking about what the purpose should be not what it is.

collinc777 3y ago

Culturally, the separation of athletics and education is going to be extremely difficult to accomplish. Although not everyone is a fan, Football is the cornerstone of American culture.

motohagiography 3y ago

People against athletic admissions have zero clue about what excellence requires and means. It's an attitude I can only describe as disgusting because it creates a prejudice against people who have actually worked at something and taken risks to succeed. It is equivalent to banning music scholarships. Who benefits from removing those who actually develop a physical competence and commit to training and competition?

msla 3y ago
> Who benefits from removing those who actually develop a physical competence and commit to training and competition? The people who are there for academics, as opposed to being there to play a game. There are only so many places in a class. Reserve them for people who go to a school to learn.
kelipso 3y ago
If you want to play sports, go join a league and practice excellence or whatever..
philip1209 3y ago
The federal funding going to these universities is to subsidize education, not athletics.
janalsncm 3y ago
Would you say the same in reverse? Should baseball teams also not discriminate based on athletic ability? Academic excellence requires dedication and commitment as well, perhaps we should reserve a few spots on the team for strong students.
- nluken 3y ago
  Not sure if you’re being serious but that is indeed how it works at many places. I was straight up told that I could get a spot on some schools’ track teams over others who were faster than me because my test scores would increase the team average

rank0 3y ago

The people receiving athletic scholarships to elite universities have accomplished something amazing. It requires extreme dedication, teamwork, sacrifice, and an understanding of competition/iterative improvement. Applicants who are equally successful in other pursuits also get credit as they should. An elite artist/musician, community leader, or committed activists are valuable to society and universities should be free to encourage extracurricular excellence in their student body. They are also free to not hold those values and admit purely on test scores + gpa if they like.