Why do college sports exist?

[Anonymous]

I wonder about this all the time. I fully get why students would like to be on intramural or sports teams while at college, and it can be personally enriching for those who participate - like acapella, music, art, drama. But I don't see a strong rationale for recruiting athletes for most of the sports that are currently recruited for. Obviously there are exceptions for some sports where it makes more sense. But what is the purpose of recruiting for squash? My college recruited for that sport and no one I met over 4 years ever watched a match or cared how we did in that sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder about this all the time. I fully get why students would like to be on intramural or sports teams while at college, and it can be personally enriching for those who participate - like acapella, music, art, drama. But I don't see a strong rationale for recruiting athletes for most of the sports that are currently recruited for. Obviously there are exceptions for some sports where it makes more sense. But what is the purpose of recruiting for squash? My college recruited for that sport and no one I met over 4 years ever watched a match or cared how we did in that sport.

But people associated with that sport probably contributed more money to the school than people who are not associated with a sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

Many kids have zero interest in 95% of the things that happen on campus, or actively dislike them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

I had zero interest in those weird singing groups, but I’m glad the other students were able to participate and use the performance facilities to share their passion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

I would find this argument more compelling if D3 athletes didn't get special admissions consideration. And don't tell me that standards are the same--that's the same argument people make about legacies.

The fact is that D3 college athletes are disproportionately white and wealthy, like legacies. The schools are building in a wealthy base for parents and alumni giving.

I'm sorry your kid didn't make the varsity team in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see financial aid data on recruited athletes vs non-athletes at SLACs.

It's in the school's common data set

Are you sure? Financial aid breakdowns by participation in athletics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

I mean, in what other countries is there such an emphasis on college sports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see financial aid data on recruited athletes vs non-athletes at SLACs.

SLACs don't give athletic scholarships. Athletes can earn merit scholarships if they have academic merit. So all your data would show is the degree to which athletes have academic merit. Good luck proving that they got merit scholarships even though they lacked merit, which is obviously what you think is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's backdoor affirmative action for pampered white kids who otherwise wouldn't have the grades to get in.

Athletes have higher gpa and graduation rates than non-athletes. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

I mean, in what other countries is there such an emphasis on college sports?

Well in what other country is there an emphasis on college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see financial aid data on recruited athletes vs non-athletes at SLACs.

SLACs don't give athletic scholarships. Athletes can earn merit scholarships if they have academic merit. So all your data would show is the degree to which athletes have academic merit. Good luck proving that they got merit scholarships even though they lacked merit, which is obviously what you think is the case.

There is FA and private scholarships

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The weirdest ones are like golf & tennis. Few spectators, few athletes involved, & lots of foreign athletes. So we have a tennis team so a few kids from Sweden & Australia can play in front of 10 people?

Maybe colleges are interested in many different kinds of excellence instead of just the types that you think they should be allowed to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see financial aid data on recruited athletes vs non-athletes at SLACs.

SLACs don't give athletic scholarships. Athletes can earn merit scholarships if they have academic merit. So all your data would show is the degree to which athletes have academic merit. Good luck proving that they got merit scholarships even though they lacked merit, which is obviously what you think is the case.

There is no such data. Why I would like to see the financial aid data on recruited athletes is that it would prove or disprove the thesis that athletics are a backdoor way for schools to enroll full pay students. In other words, they are making “good at squash” a variable for admission, and then lo and behold being good at squash is highly correlated with not needing financial aid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

I'm also paying for theater, orchestra, dance, and a lot of other things my kid couldn't care less about and never even watches let alone participates in. Yet none of this makes me as butthurt as sports makes people on DCUM, and I am baffled why this is so.