Athletic Ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some sports at harvard the athletes are dominated by international students. So its not even American athletes getting the boost.

Correct.

The odds of American kids being athletically recruited to Ivies for niche sports such as fencing, squash, field hockey,etc… are slim because of this.

Harvard Rosters
Men's squash: 8 foreign 4 US
Women's squash: 5 foreign 9 US
Men's fencing: 1 foreign 13 US
Women's fencing: 0 foreign 15 US
Field hockey: 13 foreign 13 US

Doesn't look like the odds are too bad for US students in niche sports.

I’m all for international athletes making these sports better and more competitive but these results show that the number of roster spots that kids from this country can fill are lower than what might be otherwise expected. This makes athletic recruiting even more difficult for many of these sports.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2021RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This report gives participation of international athletes playing specific sports. Really the big one is tennis (63% in Division I) followed by ice hockey (39%) and men's soccer (37%).

Note that D1 men's fencing is only 20% international and women's 16%. Not a huge threat from foreigners.

There are under 1,000 athletes playing college squash so really you shouldn't worry about international athletes shutting out US kids from something so insignificant.

Honestly, seems like playing football is the best route for a male in the Ivies. Every school has a team, they need to recruit a ton of players, participation is down (at least in UMC areas) due to concussion risk and you have almost no foreign competition. Sure, your kid may have CTE down the road...but that's a problem for another day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some sports at harvard the athletes are dominated by international students. So its not even American athletes getting the boost.

Correct.

The odds of American kids being athletically recruited to Ivies for niche sports such as fencing, squash, field hockey,etc… are slim because of this.

Harvard Rosters
Men's squash: 8 foreign 4 US
Women's squash: 5 foreign 9 US
Men's fencing: 1 foreign 13 US
Women's fencing: 0 foreign 15 US
Field hockey: 13 foreign 13 US

Doesn't look like the odds are too bad for US students in niche sports.

I’m all for international athletes making these sports better and more competitive but these results show that the number of roster spots that kids from this country can fill are lower than what might be otherwise expected. This makes athletic recruiting even more difficult for many of these sports.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2021RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This report gives participation of international athletes playing specific sports. Really the big one is tennis (63% in Division I) followed by ice hockey (39%) and men's soccer (37%).

Note that D1 men's fencing is only 20% international and women's 16%. Not a huge threat from foreigners.

There are under 1,000 athletes playing college squash so really you shouldn't worry about international athletes shutting out US kids from something so insignificant.

Honestly, seems like playing football is the best route for a male in the Ivies. Every school has a team, they need to recruit a ton of players, participation is down (at least in UMC areas) due to concussion risk and you have almost no foreign competition. Sure, your kid may have CTE down the road...but that's a problem for another day.

No lax or sailing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some sports at harvard the athletes are dominated by international students. So its not even American athletes getting the boost.

Correct.

The odds of American kids being athletically recruited to Ivies for niche sports such as fencing, squash, field hockey,etc… are slim because of this.

Harvard Rosters
Men's squash: 8 foreign 4 US
Women's squash: 5 foreign 9 US
Men's fencing: 1 foreign 13 US
Women's fencing: 0 foreign 15 US
Field hockey: 13 foreign 13 US

Doesn't look like the odds are too bad for US students in niche sports.

I’m all for international athletes making these sports better and more competitive but these results show that the number of roster spots that kids from this country can fill are lower than what might be otherwise expected. This makes athletic recruiting even more difficult for many of these sports.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2021RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This report gives participation of international athletes playing specific sports. Really the big one is tennis (63% in Division I) followed by ice hockey (39%) and men's soccer (37%).

Note that D1 men's fencing is only 20% international and women's 16%. Not a huge threat from foreigners.

There are under 1,000 athletes playing college squash so really you shouldn't worry about international athletes shutting out US kids from something so insignificant.

Honestly, seems like playing football is the best route for a male in the Ivies. Every school has a team, they need to recruit a ton of players, participation is down (at least in UMC areas) due to concussion risk and you have almost no foreign competition. Sure, your kid may have CTE down the road...but that's a problem for another day.

No lax or sailing

Except Ivy lax teams are often ranked in the top 20 in the country, so you are competing against the best athletes in the sport. They participate in the NCAA Division I championship tournament, with Princeton and Cornell making it to the semifinals and finals respectively (MD won the championship...UMD definitely a high target school for LAX players).

Ivy football teams are competing to be the best Ivy football team...and that's it. The 300th best HS quarterback (maybe even lower) would be a top Ivy prospect, while the 300th best LAX (I don't know the equivalent position) player wouldn't even get a glance from an Ivy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some sports at harvard the athletes are dominated by international students. So its not even American athletes getting the boost.

Correct.

The odds of American kids being athletically recruited to Ivies for niche sports such as fencing, squash, field hockey,etc… are slim because of this.

Harvard Rosters
Men's squash: 8 foreign 4 US
Women's squash: 5 foreign 9 US
Men's fencing: 1 foreign 13 US
Women's fencing: 0 foreign 15 US
Field hockey: 13 foreign 13 US

Doesn't look like the odds are too bad for US students in niche sports.

I’m all for international athletes making these sports better and more competitive but these results show that the number of roster spots that kids from this country can fill are lower than what might be otherwise expected. This makes athletic recruiting even more difficult for many of these sports.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2021RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This report gives participation of international athletes playing specific sports. Really the big one is tennis (63% in Division I) followed by ice hockey (39%) and men's soccer (37%).

Note that D1 men's fencing is only 20% international and women's 16%. Not a huge threat from foreigners.

There are under 1,000 athletes playing college squash so really you shouldn't worry about international athletes shutting out US kids from something so insignificant.

Honestly, seems like playing football is the best route for a male in the Ivies. Every school has a team, they need to recruit a ton of players, participation is down (at least in UMC areas) due to concussion risk and you have almost no foreign competition. Sure, your kid may have CTE down the road...but that's a problem for another day.

CTE risk is not high for a typical player for an Ivy --- no pop warner because kid doing other things. Just high school and college. Also people pay attention to concussions and most UMC parents would not let the kid play anymore if they had several.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

We like organized youth sports in America and often see it as better than letting our kids veg out on tablets, phones, or TV. Physical outdoor activity is supposed to be good for kids, etc. Since kids don't roam around and play outside like they used to, organized sports are a way to make that happen for people. Elite boarding schools in the US have always valued / forced sports and physical activity. too. I think other talents are valued, too, but they don't draw the crowd or excitement of a football or basketball rivalry game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In some sports at harvard the athletes are dominated by international students. So its not even American athletes getting the boost.

Correct.

The odds of American kids being athletically recruited to Ivies for niche sports such as fencing, squash, field hockey,etc… are slim because of this.

Harvard Rosters
Men's squash: 8 foreign 4 US
Women's squash: 5 foreign 9 US
Men's fencing: 1 foreign 13 US
Women's fencing: 0 foreign 15 US
Field hockey: 13 foreign 13 US

Doesn't look like the odds are too bad for US students in niche sports.

I’m all for international athletes making these sports better and more competitive but these results show that the number of roster spots that kids from this country can fill are lower than what might be otherwise expected. This makes athletic recruiting even more difficult for many of these sports.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/demographics/2021RES_ISATrendsDivSprt.pdf

This report gives participation of international athletes playing specific sports. Really the big one is tennis (63% in Division I) followed by ice hockey (39%) and men's soccer (37%).

Note that D1 men's fencing is only 20% international and women's 16%. Not a huge threat from foreigners.

There are under 1,000 athletes playing college squash so really you shouldn't worry about international athletes shutting out US kids from something so insignificant.

Honestly, seems like playing football is the best route for a male in the Ivies. Every school has a team, they need to recruit a ton of players, participation is down (at least in UMC areas) due to concussion risk and you have almost no foreign competition. Sure, your kid may have CTE down the road...but that's a problem for another day.

CTE risk is not high for a typical player for an Ivy --- no pop warner because kid doing other things. Just high school and college. Also people pay attention to concussions and most UMC parents would not let the kid play anymore if they had several.

Yeah, but you are missing the big picture...how many UMC parents won't even let their kid even remotely consider playing tackle football to begin with because of the headline risk. Compare that to 20 years ago and you will see a massive difference in participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

We like organized youth sports in America and often see it as better than letting our kids veg out on tablets, phones, or TV. Physical outdoor activity is supposed to be good for kids, etc. Since kids don't roam around and play outside like they used to, organized sports are a way to make that happen for people. Elite boarding schools in the US have always valued / forced sports and physical activity. too. I think other talents are valued, too, but they don't draw the crowd or excitement of a football or basketball rivalry game.

I would have thought that until my kid started participating in the FIRST Robotics competitions. Those matches draw tons of people and they create a very "pro" sports atmosphere...lots of music, fans in costumes. Way more entertaining than you would think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

We like organized youth sports in America and often see it as better than letting our kids veg out on tablets, phones, or TV. Physical outdoor activity is supposed to be good for kids, etc. Since kids don't roam around and play outside like they used to, organized sports are a way to make that happen for people. Elite boarding schools in the US have always valued / forced sports and physical activity. too. I think other talents are valued, too, but they don't draw the crowd or excitement of a football or basketball rivalry game.

I would have thought that until my kid started participating in the FIRST Robotics competitions. Those matches draw tons of people and they create a very "pro" sports atmosphere...lots of music, fans in costumes. Way more entertaining than you would think.

That does sound fun! I guess I was thinking about big games like MI/OSU, etc., which draw in a lot of students and $. When you think about it, really only certain sports really draw a crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

We like organized youth sports in America and often see it as better than letting our kids veg out on tablets, phones, or TV. Physical outdoor activity is supposed to be good for kids, etc. Since kids don't roam around and play outside like they used to, organized sports are a way to make that happen for people. Elite boarding schools in the US have always valued / forced sports and physical activity. too. I think other talents are valued, too, but they don't draw the crowd or excitement of a football or basketball rivalry game.

I would have thought that until my kid started participating in the FIRST Robotics competitions. Those matches draw tons of people and they create a very "pro" sports atmosphere...lots of music, fans in costumes. Way more entertaining than you would think.

That does sound fun! I guess I was thinking about big games like MI/OSU, etc., which draw in a lot of students and $. When you think about it, really only certain sports really draw a crowd.

Watch battle bots on TV...the FIRST competitions down have the robots fighting one another (though there is now an HS circuit for that which looks awesome), but the atmosphere is similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended an Ivy (though not Harvard) and counted plenty of athletes among my friends. I assure you that the overwhelming majority of them were phenomenal students in addition to being talented athletes. Outside of luring some top football and basketball recruits, top colleges do not generally have to lower their admission standards much, if at all, to bring in athletes.

But why this worship of sports as opposed to other talents? It makes no sense and only is this country is it a thing. But a thing it is so, oh well.

What other talents? If anyone has a talent and are outstanding at it they are in.

Part of why it is a thing here is that sports are lower class in most other countries meaning the best athletes do not go to college and play there. We have a different system. It is a better system but it is different.

It is a zero sum game. The football team needs what they need. Who cares if another is a better writer than the quarterback? Throwing a football is more desirable for some reason and the QB gets the spot even if he is not is a better position to leverage the academic opportunities available.

I mean, if you're bothering to have a football team, you might as well try to have a decent QB. QBs can write essays, too. I'm aware of a FB player recruited to multiple Ivies who is not really what I would consider an outstanding player but does apparently get good grades in rigorous classes.

Sure but is the QB best positioned to take advantage of an outstanding writing program when that is not their interest? Doubt it. But all these schools want to recruit athletes...they just do

Can the outstanding writer can play QB? Do you think being good at one automatically excludes being good at the other? If they have the sport, they need someone to play it. If you don't think they should have the sport, should they also not have other extracurricular activities?

Who cares? This is an institution of higher learning. Can you major in football?