"Don't Send Your Kid to the Ivy League: The nation's top colleges are turning our kids into zombies"
http://www.newrepublic.com

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11874...dium=email

Some good lines in this article.

Interesting read.

"the ever-growing cost of manufacturing children who are fit to compete"

excellent article George

"...thriving sector devoted to producing essay-ready summers..."

"...professors and students have largely entered into...a non-aggression pact..."

"...about a third of graduates went into financing or consulting..."

It's often been argued at Rice that D1-top level sports helps us avoid this trap

It's an argument against the ivies, and as nice as it might sound... against a magnolia league

(07-23-2014 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's often been argued at Rice that D1-top level sports helps us avoid this trap.
It's an argument against the ivies, and as nice as it might sound... against a magnolia league

I think it's a totally valid argument. I've been making it since I was an undergrad, which is quite a few years ago.

It's ironic, all of this test prep, ancillary business to help your kid into an elite school where they become incredibly good students but zombie-like, is very much like the state of education in China, where they are currently trying to reform their education system to create more creative and knowledge-seeking students, ie, be more like the US.

the whole college admission process as well as the cost of education is a complete disaster. I could go on and on. My son who would have been 4th generation Rice and went to a top flight nationally ranked high school in Houston with outstanding SAT's got waitlisted at Rice. Where is all this money going in these colleges?

(07-23-2014 05:46 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  the whole college admission process as well as the cost of education is a complete disaster. I could go on and on. My son who would have been 4th generation Rice and went to a top flight nationally ranked high school in Houston with outstanding SAT's got waitlisted at Rice. Where is all this money going in these colleges?

Wtf? How can they waitlist a 4th generation legacy? That does not make a lick of sense.

My opinion is the prevalence of student loans the last couple of decades. Student debt is now over $1T. You can't tell me that sort of money pumped into tuition isn't inflationary.

(07-23-2014 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's often been argued at Rice that D1-top level sports helps us avoid this trap.
It's an argument against the ivies, and as nice as it might sound... against a magnolia league

I think it's a totally valid argument. I've been making it since I was an undergrad, which is quite a few years ago.

For Football players yes, Olympic sports (men's side) not so much.

Why does our athletic history concentrate on only our paltry offerings of current sports? Nothing about Butler Perryman hitchhiking to TAMU to win the 1939 SWC Diving crown when Rice didn't even field a team. Or the 1956 SWC Championship Fencing team.

An attempt to revive Fencing was rebuffed in 2001.

http://news.rice.edu/2001/10/04/hamza-ha...o-success/

This after men's and women's diving was eliminated in the early 1990s and men's swimming dumped in 1999. Forget about the backstroke, if you are male and want to play collegiate sports, concentrate on Football even if you are the size of ND's Rudy!

It was a great read. And emphasizes the arms race in elite education.

That parallels the arms race in P5 sports.

Until the University Presidents (or responsible and influential alums) get involved and re-think both of those areas we are doomed to an ever-upward-spiraling scenario of out of control cost, obscenely bloated athletic budgets, meaningless touts on college admission resumes, semi-professional teams sponsored by enormous state universities and the production of educated zombies.

(07-24-2014 08:53 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's often been argued at Rice that D1-top level sports helps us avoid this trap.
It's an argument against the ivies, and as nice as it might sound... against a magnolia league

I think it's a totally valid argument. I've been making it since I was an undergrad, which is quite a few years ago.

For Football players yes, Olympic sports (men's side) not so much.

Why does our athletic history concentrate on only our paltry offerings of current sports? Nothing about Butler Perryman hitchhiking to TAMU to win the 1939 SWC Diving crown when Rice didn't even field a team. Or the 1956 SWC Championship Fencing team.

An attempt to revive Fencing was rebuffed in 2001.

http://news.rice.edu/2001/10/04/hamza-ha...o-success/

This after men's and women's diving was eliminated in the early 1990s and men's swimming dumped in 1999. Forget about the backstroke, if you are male and want to play collegiate sports, concentrate on Football even if you are the size of ND's Rudy!

If the one of the reasons to maintain a D1 athletic program is to foster economic diversity among the student body then the sports that you reference would have the opposite effect.

(07-24-2014 10:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 08:53 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's often been argued at Rice that D1-top level sports helps us avoid this trap.
It's an argument against the ivies, and as nice as it might sound... against a magnolia league

I think it's a totally valid argument. I've been making it since I was an undergrad, which is quite a few years ago.

For Football players yes, Olympic sports (men's side) not so much.

Why does our athletic history concentrate on only our paltry offerings of current sports? Nothing about Butler Perryman hitchhiking to TAMU to win the 1939 SWC Diving crown when Rice didn't even field a team. Or the 1956 SWC Championship Fencing team.

An attempt to revive Fencing was rebuffed in 2001.

http://news.rice.edu/2001/10/04/hamza-ha...o-success/

This after men's and women's diving was eliminated in the early 1990s and men's swimming dumped in 1999. Forget about the backstroke, if you are male and want to play collegiate sports, concentrate on Football even if you are the size of ND's Rudy!

If the one of the reasons to maintain a D1 athletic program is to foster economic diversity among the student body then the sports that you reference would have the opposite effect.

I get your point, swimmer... but that is probably only really true of swimming, golf and baseball, which make up only perhaps 15 male scholarships. For track, basketball and many women's sports it is probably about the same or even more diverse than men's football. The challenge is that probably 50-75% of the total number of scholarships for men go to football.

Football has by far the largest number of scholarships so it has the most opportunities... but an inner-city kid is going to have a tougher time playing football than basketball in high school and competing with suburban schools and their players.... and while there are fewer scholarships per team, more colleges play scholarship basketball than scholarship football. I suspect sports like swimming, diving, gymnastics and water polo are also pretty poorly supported in most high schools in the country...

in other words, there are lots of ways to 'skin the cat' if you have options... and only a few paths if you don't.

It's pretty hard to add diversity through sports like swimming and golf that aren't particularly diverse, especially in high school.

(07-24-2014 11:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 10:47 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 08:53 AM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's often been argued at Rice that D1-top level sports helps us avoid this trap.
It's an argument against the ivies, and as nice as it might sound... against a magnolia league

I think it's a totally valid argument. I've been making it since I was an undergrad, which is quite a few years ago.

For Football players yes, Olympic sports (men's side) not so much.

Why does our athletic history concentrate on only our paltry offerings of current sports? Nothing about Butler Perryman hitchhiking to TAMU to win the 1939 SWC Diving crown when Rice didn't even field a team. Or the 1956 SWC Championship Fencing team.

An attempt to revive Fencing was rebuffed in 2001.

http://news.rice.edu/2001/10/04/hamza-ha...o-success/

This after men's and women's diving was eliminated in the early 1990s and men's swimming dumped in 1999. Forget about the backstroke, if you are male and want to play collegiate sports, concentrate on Football even if you are the size of ND's Rudy!

If the one of the reasons to maintain a D1 athletic program is to foster economic diversity among the student body then the sports that you reference would have the opposite effect.

I get your point, swimmer... but that is probably only really true of swimming, golf and baseball, which make up only perhaps 15 male scholarships. For track, basketball and many women's sports it is probably about the same or even more diverse than men's football. The challenge is that probably 50-75% of the total number of scholarships for men go to football.

Football has by far the largest number of scholarships so it has the most opportunities... but an inner-city kid is going to have a tougher time playing football than basketball in high school and competing with suburban schools and their players.... and while there are fewer scholarships per team, more colleges play scholarship basketball than scholarship football. I suspect sports like swimming, diving, gymnastics and water polo are also pretty poorly supported in most high schools in the country...

in other words, there are lots of ways to 'skin the cat' if you have options... and only a few paths if you don't.

It's pretty hard to add diversity through sports like swimming and golf that aren't particularly diverse, especially in high school.

Diverse? Which country, are we a regional, direction school or a world class university?
Olympic sports span the world, during my time at Rice we had swimmers from Iran, Mexico, Pakistan and Singapore walk on. I don't see a lot of Football players from outside of North America.

(07-24-2014 04:46 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Diverse? Which country, are we a regional, direction school or a world class university?
Olympic sports span the world, during my time at Rice we had swimmers from Iran, Mexico, Pakistan and Singapore walk on. I don't see a lot of Football players from outside of North America.

You seem to have a point you want to make and aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying.

First, I said sports... so I don't know why you are arguing with me when you so obviously agree. You also point out what I said and that is that there were zero scholarships given to men from any of those countries for swimming.

Yes, football (and baseball for that matter) are predominantly north american sports... so you aren't going to recruit many athletes from other countries that are particularly skilled at these sports... and while Rice IS a world class university, we are in North America... and unfortunately for swimmers... football, basketball and baseball capture far more media attention than COLLEGE Olympic sports.

Yes, there are people from other countries, but according to the article, they generally fit the same profile as Americans... predominantly with professional parents. I don't know if that fits with the swimmers you are speaking of, but that only reinforces my point that sports increases our diversity.

You're talking geographic diversity... but the article isn't really talking about geography. It is talking about differences in backgrounds and perspectives... predominantly socio-economic.


Football captures the vast majority of male scholarships... and I suspect this is the issue that you have... but the fact remains that football, basketball, volleyball, soccer and track, while still popular with children of professionals, are going to be more popular with children of non-professionals than fencing, swimming, diving, gymnastics and even baseball.

(07-24-2014 05:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 04:46 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  Diverse? Which country, are we a regional, direction school or a world class university?
Olympic sports span the world, during my time at Rice we had swimmers from Iran, Mexico, Pakistan and Singapore walk on. I don't see a lot of Football players from outside of North America.

You seem to have a point you want to make and aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying.

First, I said sports... so I don't know why you are arguing with me when you so obviously agree. You also point out what I said and that is that there were zero scholarships given to men from any of those countries for swimming.

Yes, football (and baseball for that matter) are predominantly north american sports... so you aren't going to recruit many athletes from other countries that are particularly skilled at these sports... and while Rice IS a world class university, we are in North America... and unfortunately for swimmers... football, basketball and baseball capture far more media attention than COLLEGE Olympic sports.

Yes, there are people from other countries, but according to the article, they generally fit the same profile as Americans... predominantly with professional parents. I don't know if that fits with the swimmers you are speaking of, but that only reinforces my point that sports increases our diversity.

You're talking geographic diversity... but the article isn't really talking about geography. It is talking about differences in backgrounds and perspectives... predominantly socio-economic.


Football captures the vast majority of male scholarships... and I suspect this is the issue that you have... but the fact remains that football, basketball, volleyball, soccer and track, while still popular with children of professionals, are going to be more popular with children of non-professionals than fencing, swimming, diving, gymnastics and even baseball.

I don't have an issue with "athleticships" but as an institution athletics are just another extracurricular that should be open to all. I get the social engineering piece that Title IX and our PC administration want to comply with. Reading further in the article it speaks to the discrimination against "majority" who are from the heartland "not part of the East Coast or economic elite." Shut up and let football rule? since obviously Bobby and Rick led us to the promised land?

I'll give Dr. K a pass since his vision is far better than anything I've seen Augie, Bobby or Ric provide during the xx years I have been associated with Rice. But Rice is better than just cowing to the dictates of The Big 12 and the BCS (should be the Bull**itCS)! The Olympic ideal is to allow all to test themselves on the field (court, or pool) against the best. Even at minimal funding, increased athletic offerings will draw more applicants who may play during their Rice experience and are predisposed to support all athletics.

(07-25-2014 05:29 PM)exowlswimmer Wrote:  I don't have an issue with "athleticships" but as an institution athletics are just another extracurricular that should be open to all. I get the social engineering piece that Title IX and our PC administration want to comply with. Reading further in the article it speaks to the discrimination against "majority" who are from the heartland "not part of the East Coast or economic elite." Shut up and let football rule? since obviously Bobby and Rick led us to the promised land?

I'll give Dr. K a pass since his vision is far better than anything I've seen Augie, Bobby or Ric provide during the xx years I have been associated with Rice. But Rice is better than just cowing to the dictates of The Big 12 and the BCS (should be the Bull**itCS)! The Olympic ideal is to allow all to test themselves on the field (court, or pool) against the best. Even at minimal funding, increased athletic offerings will draw more applicants who may play during their Rice experience and are predisposed to support all athletics.

None of this has anything to do with the point of the article or my response... which is that unlike fencing and swimming and gymnastics and most Olympic sports, football and basketball (in particular) played at the most competitive level (as opposed to the ivies) creates more (particularly) economic diversity of the students.

Yes, we can and should and I have often argued in favor of increasing Olympic sports, and frankly, that is (imo) a big part of the Stanford model... and it MAY increase our yield somewhat with international students... but it does not differentiate us from the other elite academic institutions by attracting a more diverse crowd... in fact, it makes us MORE and not less like them....

If you want to increase economic diversity and differentiate yourself from the other elite educational schools, expanding Olympic sports is NOT how you do it.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't expand Olympic sports. That is merely a different goal and conversation

This is precisely what makes Rice unique. We are one of a VERY small number of schools who straddle this line between colleges for the elite student, and colleges for the elite athlete. Far too many schools attract elite athletes but don't really try and educate them... in fact, some make it difficult for elite athletes who also happen to be pretty darn good students to educate themselves... and YES, expanding Olympic sports would likely help with this. Many of the large state schools who are solid academically and can hide a few hundred 'sub-par' students are the ones who make it difficult for their better students who are also top athletes to succeed in the classroom.

I'd also add that increasing our success and exposure in sports like football and men's basketball (in particular) would be the primary mechanism for generating additional funding for the expansion of Olympic sports.