Ivy League

[LaxThoughts]

I have direct experience in the Ivies ... and having footed the bill, I am more than aware of the need-based only policy. I don't know about the specific numbers/limits, but these can vary by school. And PS no merit scholarships either, so they keep it even.

Right, NO money outside of need based...I'm quite aware of the formulas and they are very generous, at all the Ivies, though most so at HPYD. Families with up to $200k in family income, million dollar homes, can still get some support. 100% free if family income less than $75k.

Absolutely on the level of involvement from "friends" groups, although I was a bit shocked at what is required of families outside of tuition. Maybe not required, but without these funds/support, the budgets for these programs do not balance.

No, the parents' contribution is not expected to be much if anything, the alumni carry 95+% of the load. Every once in a while there is a super wealthy parent who chips up big, but that's not expected. The parents generally raise most of their contribution by organizing and selling various team oriented apparel/swag etc.

On the tuition point, I know first-hand from parents that men's players get support for tuition at multiple Ivies. In fact, one parent told me ... "why would my son go to Penn State and get a 25% athletic scholarship ... we did better on money at XXXX Ivy". Dirty little Ivy secret, I guess.

This one is 100% wrong. You are undoubtedly hearing a parent referencing having tapped the generous need based formula, not something "secret" or special to athletes. This is a super big deal at the Ivies and would be a major scandal if found.

And finally, I know that many schools are doing their best to make college more affordable, but at $85K/year (many schools, not just Ivies in this range) many working families don't qualify for need-based aid and simply do not make enough money for this to be an option. So, you get a lot of kids at full price and a lot of kids on a full ride ... and very few kids in the middle. I don't have an answer, but a problem nonetheless.

Not sure what you mean by "working families". Do you mean families between $65k and $200k?? Or do you mean families above $200K?

I'd urge anyone in the $65-$200k family income range to investigate for themselves at the Ivies they hope to have their kid consider. They are not identical and the HPY group tend to be the first movers in expanding the amount of aid in a bit of an arms race to attract the very top desired applicants regardless of income, but all are very generous.

By example, a family at Harvard, where my son went, earning $150k is expected to pay not more than 10% of family income ($15k for the math challenged). 55% of their students receive financial aid, with 20% full ride, 35% receiving partial. This is indeed far better than a 25% ride at BigStateU. Even a couple hundred families above $200k receive some aid due to extenuating circumstances (eg multiple children, special costs) https://college.harvard.edu/guides/fina ... fact-sheet

Indeed, the average family contribution at Harvard is under $13k.

My wife's and my alma mater is close to these #'s.

BTW, don't go to the coaches to ask for their assistance in the financial aid process...the best they can and should do is give you the financial aid office telephone #, website, etc. They need to keep their hands clean of that, so don't put them in the awkward position of even talking about it. But it's really not hard to learn what you can expect...that said, the application for financial aid doesn't happen until after actual acceptance, so this does require some faith and patience, which it's understandable that not everyone has.

The value question is not for the families receiving the very substantial (and in some cases complete) aid. Rather, it is for the families that do not qualify for aid but for whom $80,000 per year and rising annually (perhaps multiplied by several children) is a heavy financial burden. In the case of an athlete, the institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile -- tilts the calculus significantly for many families and the students themselves.

[MDlaxfan76]

I have direct experience in the Ivies ... and having footed the bill, I am more than aware of the need-based only policy. I don't know about the specific numbers/limits, but these can vary by school. And PS no merit scholarships either, so they keep it even.

Right, NO money outside of need based...I'm quite aware of the formulas and they are very generous, at all the Ivies, though most so at HPYD. Families with up to $200k in family income, million dollar homes, can still get some support. 100% free if family income less than $75k.

Absolutely on the level of involvement from "friends" groups, although I was a bit shocked at what is required of families outside of tuition. Maybe not required, but without these funds/support, the budgets for these programs do not balance.

No, the parents' contribution is not expected to be much if anything, the alumni carry 95+% of the load. Every once in a while there is a super wealthy parent who chips up big, but that's not expected. The parents generally raise most of their contribution by organizing and selling various team oriented apparel/swag etc.

On the tuition point, I know first-hand from parents that men's players get support for tuition at multiple Ivies. In fact, one parent told me ... "why would my son go to Penn State and get a 25% athletic scholarship ... we did better on money at XXXX Ivy". Dirty little Ivy secret, I guess.

This one is 100% wrong. You are undoubtedly hearing a parent referencing having tapped the generous need based formula, not something "secret" or special to athletes. This is a super big deal at the Ivies and would be a major scandal if found.

And finally, I know that many schools are doing their best to make college more affordable, but at $85K/year (many schools, not just Ivies in this range) many working families don't qualify for need-based aid and simply do not make enough money for this to be an option. So, you get a lot of kids at full price and a lot of kids on a full ride ... and very few kids in the middle. I don't have an answer, but a problem nonetheless.

Not sure what you mean by "working families". Do you mean families between $65k and $200k?? Or do you mean families above $200K?

I'd urge anyone in the $65-$200k family income range to investigate for themselves at the Ivies they hope to have their kid consider. They are not identical and the HPY group tend to be the first movers in expanding the amount of aid in a bit of an arms race to attract the very top desired applicants regardless of income, but all are very generous.

By example, a family at Harvard, where my son went, earning $150k is expected to pay not more than 10% of family income ($15k for the math challenged). 55% of their students receive financial aid, with 20% full ride, 35% receiving partial. This is indeed far better than a 25% ride at BigStateU. Even a couple hundred families above $200k receive some aid due to extenuating circumstances (eg multiple children, special costs) https://college.harvard.edu/guides/fina ... fact-sheet

Indeed, the average family contribution at Harvard is under $13k.

My wife's and my alma mater is close to these #'s.

BTW, don't go to the coaches to ask for their assistance in the financial aid process...the best they can and should do is give you the financial aid office telephone #, website, etc. They need to keep their hands clean of that, so don't put them in the awkward position of even talking about it. But it's really not hard to learn what you can expect...that said, the application for financial aid doesn't happen until after actual acceptance, so this does require some faith and patience, which it's understandable that not everyone has.

The value question is not for the families receiving the very substantial (and in some cases complete) aid. Rather, it is for the families that do not qualify for aid but for whom $80,000 per year and rising annually (perhaps multiplied by several children) is a heavy financial burden. In the case of an athlete, the institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile -- tilts the calculus significantly for many families and the students themselves.

I think you are correct that for the reasonably affluent family (not many families actually think of themselves as "affluent", after all that third car costs real money as do all those special camps, tutors, etc) there are less expensive options than sending your kid to an Ivy. In state BigU is certainly a less expensive option. No argument there, and all the more so if you have a passel of kids, though that does factor into the Ivy grant equation. But if you're living in say, Connecticut, earning $300k with a big mortgage and a couple of hopefully college bound kids, Ivies do indeed appear expensive. And so, getting a partial athletic scholarship somewhere can sound pretty darn good...if you get it.

But I continue to laugh at the second point you're trying to make, the "institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile."

It's simply ridiculous that the group of institutions which have chosen to admit and graduate the highest percentage of athletes in their student bodies of any D1 league in the nation, the highest #'s of D1 teams supported per school, can be considered "ambivalent" or "openly hostile" to athletes.

But hey, I do "get it" that people assume that to be the case. But it's quite mistaken.

Sure, there's pressure from the purely academic contingent to reduce the percentages of athletes from the way, way higher percentages that currently exist...but that's also true at all universities' faculties. Including those with big time revenue sports. Even those with net profits from those big time sports (lax, mens or women's, is not a profit generator anywhere).

And sure, the ethic at Ivies is that there are to be no special academic accommodations given for athletes versus any other students, the members of the glee clubs, the marching band, the robotics club or whatever. Everyone is a student.

Totally get that if one wants to have special accommodations, special treatment, special tutors, special living quarters, special financial aid, the Ivies aren't for you.

But let's stop with the baloney that the Ivies are not supportive of sports. They have higher per capita participation than any other D1 league in the country and none of the sports they support generate a profit...they don't do that because they're "hostile" to sports and athletes.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to why more of the Ivy women's programs have not recently been regular participants in quarters and final fours, whereas the Ivy men have done so more regularly, with all 7 (men don't have a Columbia team) currently appearing in top 25 polls right now, I think this has much more to do with dispersion effects. (and certainly not due to "hostile" to (female?) athletes, Covid restrictions, or other nonsense).

The men have fewer total D1 options, especially fewer "attractive school" D1 options, than do the women. The competitive battle for the athletes who can play top D1 ball on the men's side is more concentrated into a smaller set, and only so many players can start, so more of the top men end up at Ivies.

For instance, I count 8 schools in this week's current Top 20 on the women's side which don't even have a men's D1 program.

[watcherinthewoods]

I have direct experience in the Ivies ... and having footed the bill, I am more than aware of the need-based only policy. I don't know about the specific numbers/limits, but these can vary by school. And PS no merit scholarships either, so they keep it even.

Right, NO money outside of need based...I'm quite aware of the formulas and they are very generous, at all the Ivies, though most so at HPYD. Families with up to $200k in family income, million dollar homes, can still get some support. 100% free if family income less than $75k.

Absolutely on the level of involvement from "friends" groups, although I was a bit shocked at what is required of families outside of tuition. Maybe not required, but without these funds/support, the budgets for these programs do not balance.

No, the parents' contribution is not expected to be much if anything, the alumni carry 95+% of the load. Every once in a while there is a super wealthy parent who chips up big, but that's not expected. The parents generally raise most of their contribution by organizing and selling various team oriented apparel/swag etc.

On the tuition point, I know first-hand from parents that men's players get support for tuition at multiple Ivies. In fact, one parent told me ... "why would my son go to Penn State and get a 25% athletic scholarship ... we did better on money at XXXX Ivy". Dirty little Ivy secret, I guess.

This one is 100% wrong. You are undoubtedly hearing a parent referencing having tapped the generous need based formula, not something "secret" or special to athletes. This is a super big deal at the Ivies and would be a major scandal if found.

And finally, I know that many schools are doing their best to make college more affordable, but at $85K/year (many schools, not just Ivies in this range) many working families don't qualify for need-based aid and simply do not make enough money for this to be an option. So, you get a lot of kids at full price and a lot of kids on a full ride ... and very few kids in the middle. I don't have an answer, but a problem nonetheless.

Not sure what you mean by "working families". Do you mean families between $65k and $200k?? Or do you mean families above $200K?

I'd urge anyone in the $65-$200k family income range to investigate for themselves at the Ivies they hope to have their kid consider. They are not identical and the HPY group tend to be the first movers in expanding the amount of aid in a bit of an arms race to attract the very top desired applicants regardless of income, but all are very generous.

By example, a family at Harvard, where my son went, earning $150k is expected to pay not more than 10% of family income ($15k for the math challenged). 55% of their students receive financial aid, with 20% full ride, 35% receiving partial. This is indeed far better than a 25% ride at BigStateU. Even a couple hundred families above $200k receive some aid due to extenuating circumstances (eg multiple children, special costs) https://college.harvard.edu/guides/fina ... fact-sheet

Indeed, the average family contribution at Harvard is under $13k.

My wife's and my alma mater is close to these #'s.

BTW, don't go to the coaches to ask for their assistance in the financial aid process...the best they can and should do is give you the financial aid office telephone #, website, etc. They need to keep their hands clean of that, so don't put them in the awkward position of even talking about it. But it's really not hard to learn what you can expect...that said, the application for financial aid doesn't happen until after actual acceptance, so this does require some faith and patience, which it's understandable that not everyone has.

The value question is not for the families receiving the very substantial (and in some cases complete) aid. Rather, it is for the families that do not qualify for aid but for whom $80,000 per year and rising annually (perhaps multiplied by several children) is a heavy financial burden. In the case of an athlete, the institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile -- tilts the calculus significantly for many families and the students themselves.

I think you are correct that for the reasonably affluent family (not many families actually think of themselves as "affluent", after all that third car costs real money as do all those special camps, tutors, etc) there are less expensive options than sending your kid to an Ivy. In state BigU is certainly a less expensive option. No argument there, and all the more so if you have a passel of kids, though that does factor into the Ivy grant equation. But if you're living in say, Connecticut, earning $300k with a big mortgage and a couple of hopefully college bound kids, Ivies do indeed appear expensive. And so, getting a partial athletic scholarship somewhere can sound pretty darn good...if you get it.

But I continue to laugh at the second point you're trying to make, the "institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile."

It's simply ridiculous that the group of institutions which have chosen to admit and graduate the highest percentage of athletes in their student bodies of any D1 league in the nation, the highest #'s of D1 teams supported per school, can be considered "ambivalent" or "openly hostile" to athletes.

But hey, I do "get it" that people assume that to be the case. But it's quite mistaken.

Sure, there's pressure from the purely academic contingent to reduce the percentages of athletes from the way, way higher percentages that currently exist...but that's also true at all universities' faculties. Including those with big time revenue sports. Even those with net profits from those big time sports (lax, mens or women's, is not a profit generator anywhere).

And sure, the ethic at Ivies is that there are to be no special academic accommodations given for athletes versus any other students, the members of the glee clubs, the marching band, the robotics club or whatever. Everyone is a student.

Totally get that if one wants to have special accommodations, special treatment, special tutors, special living quarters, special financial aid, the Ivies aren't for you.

But let's stop with the baloney that the Ivies are not supportive of sports. They have higher per capita participation than any other D1 league in the country and none of the sports they support generate a profit...they don't do that because they're "hostile" to sports and athletes.

Hostile is too strong a characterization, but ambivalent can certainly be argued. I would say from an administrative perspective, a "necessary evil fits the bill". From a quantitative perspective, all you need to do is look at funding of athletics as a % of budget, Ivies vs, non-Ivies. Again, our family was SHOCKED to discover the % of Ivy athletic budgets that are covered by Friends groups.

You can monkey with the need-based aid numbers all you want, but there are many studies that show the people in the middle are losing out at access to the non-state "elite" schools due to cost ...it's full pay and 100% aid with shrinking group in the middle. Save us all the admissions "spin".

And you are FLAT wrong about tuition support from donors in the Ivies on the men's side. It is real and exists.

I am reading your comments as defensive. It is not my intention to malign the Ivies ... my daughter's academic experience EXCEEDED expectations in every way. Her school was an outstanding match for her and we are so grateful to the coach who recruited her. 100% life-changing. I am however, referencing some hard realities about how the sausage gets made.

[MDlaxfan76]

I have direct experience in the Ivies ... and having footed the bill, I am more than aware of the need-based only policy. I don't know about the specific numbers/limits, but these can vary by school. And PS no merit scholarships either, so they keep it even.

Right, NO money outside of need based...I'm quite aware of the formulas and they are very generous, at all the Ivies, though most so at HPYD. Families with up to $200k in family income, million dollar homes, can still get some support. 100% free if family income less than $75k.

Absolutely on the level of involvement from "friends" groups, although I was a bit shocked at what is required of families outside of tuition. Maybe not required, but without these funds/support, the budgets for these programs do not balance.

No, the parents' contribution is not expected to be much if anything, the alumni carry 95+% of the load. Every once in a while there is a super wealthy parent who chips up big, but that's not expected. The parents generally raise most of their contribution by organizing and selling various team oriented apparel/swag etc.

On the tuition point, I know first-hand from parents that men's players get support for tuition at multiple Ivies. In fact, one parent told me ... "why would my son go to Penn State and get a 25% athletic scholarship ... we did better on money at XXXX Ivy". Dirty little Ivy secret, I guess.

This one is 100% wrong. You are undoubtedly hearing a parent referencing having tapped the generous need based formula, not something "secret" or special to athletes. This is a super big deal at the Ivies and would be a major scandal if found.

And finally, I know that many schools are doing their best to make college more affordable, but at $85K/year (many schools, not just Ivies in this range) many working families don't qualify for need-based aid and simply do not make enough money for this to be an option. So, you get a lot of kids at full price and a lot of kids on a full ride ... and very few kids in the middle. I don't have an answer, but a problem nonetheless.

Not sure what you mean by "working families". Do you mean families between $65k and $200k?? Or do you mean families above $200K?

I'd urge anyone in the $65-$200k family income range to investigate for themselves at the Ivies they hope to have their kid consider. They are not identical and the HPY group tend to be the first movers in expanding the amount of aid in a bit of an arms race to attract the very top desired applicants regardless of income, but all are very generous.

By example, a family at Harvard, where my son went, earning $150k is expected to pay not more than 10% of family income ($15k for the math challenged). 55% of their students receive financial aid, with 20% full ride, 35% receiving partial. This is indeed far better than a 25% ride at BigStateU. Even a couple hundred families above $200k receive some aid due to extenuating circumstances (eg multiple children, special costs) https://college.harvard.edu/guides/fina ... fact-sheet

Indeed, the average family contribution at Harvard is under $13k.

My wife's and my alma mater is close to these #'s.

BTW, don't go to the coaches to ask for their assistance in the financial aid process...the best they can and should do is give you the financial aid office telephone #, website, etc. They need to keep their hands clean of that, so don't put them in the awkward position of even talking about it. But it's really not hard to learn what you can expect...that said, the application for financial aid doesn't happen until after actual acceptance, so this does require some faith and patience, which it's understandable that not everyone has.

The value question is not for the families receiving the very substantial (and in some cases complete) aid. Rather, it is for the families that do not qualify for aid but for whom $80,000 per year and rising annually (perhaps multiplied by several children) is a heavy financial burden. In the case of an athlete, the institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile -- tilts the calculus significantly for many families and the students themselves.

I think you are correct that for the reasonably affluent family (not many families actually think of themselves as "affluent", after all that third car costs real money as do all those special camps, tutors, etc) there are less expensive options than sending your kid to an Ivy. In state BigU is certainly a less expensive option. No argument there, and all the more so if you have a passel of kids, though that does factor into the Ivy grant equation. But if you're living in say, Connecticut, earning $300k with a big mortgage and a couple of hopefully college bound kids, Ivies do indeed appear expensive. And so, getting a partial athletic scholarship somewhere can sound pretty darn good...if you get it.

But I continue to laugh at the second point you're trying to make, the "institution's attitude toward its athletes -- at Ivies ranging from ambivalent to openly hostile."

It's simply ridiculous that the group of institutions which have chosen to admit and graduate the highest percentage of athletes in their student bodies of any D1 league in the nation, the highest #'s of D1 teams supported per school, can be considered "ambivalent" or "openly hostile" to athletes.

But hey, I do "get it" that people assume that to be the case. But it's quite mistaken.

Sure, there's pressure from the purely academic contingent to reduce the percentages of athletes from the way, way higher percentages that currently exist...but that's also true at all universities' faculties. Including those with big time revenue sports. Even those with net profits from those big time sports (lax, mens or women's, is not a profit generator anywhere).

And sure, the ethic at Ivies is that there are to be no special academic accommodations given for athletes versus any other students, the members of the glee clubs, the marching band, the robotics club or whatever. Everyone is a student.

Totally get that if one wants to have special accommodations, special treatment, special tutors, special living quarters, special financial aid, the Ivies aren't for you.

But let's stop with the baloney that the Ivies are not supportive of sports. They have higher per capita participation than any other D1 league in the country and none of the sports they support generate a profit...they don't do that because they're "hostile" to sports and athletes.

Hostile is too strong a characterization, but ambivalent can certainly be argued. I would say from an administrative perspective, a "necessary evil fits the bill". From a quantitative perspective, all you need to do is look at funding of athletics as a % of budget, Ivies vs, non-Ivies. Again, our family was SHOCKED to discover the % of Ivy athletic budgets that are covered by Friends groups.

You can monkey with the need-based aid numbers all you want, but there are many studies that show the people in the middle are losing out at access to the non-state "elite" schools due to cost ...it's full pay and 100% aid with shrinking group in the middle. Save us all the admissions "spin".

And you are FLAT wrong about tuition support from donors in the Ivies on the men's side. It is real and exists.

I am reading your comments as defensive. It is not my intention to malign the Ivies ... my daughter's academic experience EXCEEDED expectations in every way. Her school was an outstanding match for her and we are so grateful to the coach who recruited her. 100% life-changing. I am however, referencing some hard realities about how the sausage gets made.

Let me say again that there would be an enormous scandal if any Ivy was caught providing athletic scholarships (much less to men not women). It's simply not true. Of course, I can't prove it any more than I can prove that the 2020 election wasn't stolen from Trump, but hey, that's the reality of not being able to "prove" a negative. But in this matter, I've never seen a single validated report, at any Ivy, of any special money going to an athlete inappropriately. And you betcha there'd be a hullabaloo if it EVER occurred.

I don't think you are intentionally making a baseless and scurrilous accusation, though that's what it is, but rather simply misunderstood what someone had said. But hey, if there's proof that such has happened, by all means, let's 'out' that offense in specific. It's not remotely ok and would not be accepted by anyone in the Ivies, whether Administration, AD, Board...nobody.

and yikes, imagine the hullabaloo if such infractions had a sexist angle as well!!!
Title IX violations do still exist, but wow, that would blow the roof off.

Yes, the Friends programs contribute a substantial amount of money to support their program (Friends support both men and women's from a single pot of money raised, nearly entirely from alums). Ever seen Hopkins' Friends program? Dwarfs most Ivies.

But the point isn't that alumni support is essential, it's that so many sports are supported by the colleges and universities. None make a nickel, all cost the schools a lot of money. That's a choice these schools make, supported by their Boards.

Moreover, they decide to allocate a very high percentage of their admissions to D1 athletes, slots that could otherwise go to some other 'deserving' applicant. And yes, these admission slots come with the recognition that the admitted students, on average, don't have as high an academic profile as the general pop of admissions, inclusive of them.

Of course, that generates some "ambivalence", heck even "hostility" from some quarters of the Ivy community. Understandable that they want their sons and daughters who are, say, lab rats and perfect SAT scores to have a better chance of gaining admission. But the Ivies have chosen to have a balance that dramatically favors athletes versus nearly every other D1 school in the nation.

On the money, I think there's some truth that for the upper middle class, 'affluent' family living in a high cost region the cash outlay can be quite daunting. There's indeed a "middle" range (though it's very far from America's actual median income) that tuitions are really difficult to bear. And lots of lax playing families indeed fall into that category of reasonably high income, but high cost regions. True.

[watcherinthewoods]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

[MDlaxfan76]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

Thanks, hope my analogy was not misunderstood.

But this would indeed be an enormous scandal if true and surely somewhere, somehow, someone would have blown the whistle if there was any such pattern of doing this. Much less for the men, not the women.

Could someone have cheated? That's in the realm of possibility, though remote, but certainly not a pattern of such.

I'm not asking you to betray on here a specific person, a friend's confidence. But, wow, I'd have another talk with that friend about how they felt about doing something clearly in contravention of Ivy rules...heck, NCAA rules.

Boosters can't pay the tuition of an athlete at any NCAA school, and there are very clear guidelines as to how much any school can provide in athletic aid, with very clear reporting requirements. The Ivies don't do it at all, everything flows through the need-based aid.

[LaxThoughts]

But the point isn't that alumni support is essential, it's that so many sports are supported by the colleges and universities. None make a nickel, all cost the schools a lot of money. That's a choice these schools make, supported by their Boards.

Moreover, they decide to allocate a very high percentage of their admissions to D1 athletes, slots that could otherwise go to some other 'deserving' applicant. And yes, these admission slots come with the recognition that the admitted students, on average, don't have as high an academic profile as the general pop of admissions, inclusive of them.

Of course, that generates some "ambivalence", heck even "hostility" from some quarters of the Ivy community. Understandable that they want their sons and daughters who are, say, lab rats and perfect SAT scores to have a better chance of gaining admission. But the Ivies have chosen to have a balance that dramatically favors athletes versus nearly every other D1 school in the nation.

On the money, I think there's some truth that for the upper middle class, 'affluent' family living in a high cost region the cash outlay can be quite daunting. There's indeed a "middle" range (though it's very far from America's actual median income) that tuitions are really difficult to bear. And lots of lax playing families indeed fall into that category of reasonably high income, but high cost regions. True.

We may be talking about different things. Yes, the Ivies field all these teams that cost money, but that amount is simply a rounding error (if that) compared to their endowments and operating budgets. More to my point, the lack of support to athletics already existed in giving athletes no priority in class registrations (making it much more difficult for them to fulfill requirements in certain majors) and a frequent pattern of professors (sometimes matter-of-factly, sometimes gleefully) providing inadequate accommodations necessitates by athletic travel schedules. The picture was clarified further during COVID, when the Ivies prevented their athletes from having any semblance of a 2021 season, with excuses ranging from claimed "safety" (when everyone else did just fine) to the prohibition of extending any accommodation to athletes that is not provided to all students (e.g., frequent testing that was required by other conferences to allow competition). My main point is that, although some still may choose the Ivies and may have ample reasons to do so, the recent experience -- combined with the increased sophistication of students as consumers -- is likely opening eyes to the exact nature of an athlete's life at one of these schools.

[wlaxphan20]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

Thanks, hope my analogy was not misunderstood.

But this would indeed be an enormous scandal if true and surely somewhere, somehow, someone would have blown the whistle if there was any such pattern of doing this. Much less for the men, not the women.

Could someone have cheated? That's in the realm of possibility, though remote, but certainly not a pattern of such.

I'm not asking you to betray on here a specific person, a friend's confidence. But, wow, I'd have another talk with that friend about how they felt about doing something clearly in contravention of Ivy rules...heck, NCAA rules.

Boosters can't pay the tuition of an athlete at any NCAA school, and there are very clear guidelines as to how much any school can provide in athletic aid, with very clear reporting requirements. The Ivies don't do it at all, everything flows through the need-based aid.

I just have a genuine question. The BC roster lists "scholarship funds" (named after the donors) under the player that receives that scholarship fund. Would this not be a way for a booster to pay tuition for an athlete? I get that a booster simply cutting a check to an athlete for tuition is against the rules, but is this just an enormous loophole? I'm sure other schools have such scholarship funds, but BC is the only one that lists them which is why I used them as an example.

[Can Opener]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

Thanks, hope my analogy was not misunderstood.

But this would indeed be an enormous scandal if true and surely somewhere, somehow, someone would have blown the whistle if there was any such pattern of doing this. Much less for the men, not the women.

Could someone have cheated? That's in the realm of possibility, though remote, but certainly not a pattern of such.

I'm not asking you to betray on here a specific person, a friend's confidence. But, wow, I'd have another talk with that friend about how they felt about doing something clearly in contravention of Ivy rules...heck, NCAA rules.

Boosters can't pay the tuition of an athlete at any NCAA school, and there are very clear guidelines as to how much any school can provide in athletic aid, with very clear reporting requirements. The Ivies don't do it at all, everything flows through the need-based aid.

+1 MD

If this stuff was going on, something would have leaked.

[MDlaxfan76]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

Thanks, hope my analogy was not misunderstood.

But this would indeed be an enormous scandal if true and surely somewhere, somehow, someone would have blown the whistle if there was any such pattern of doing this. Much less for the men, not the women.

Could someone have cheated? That's in the realm of possibility, though remote, but certainly not a pattern of such.

I'm not asking you to betray on here a specific person, a friend's confidence. But, wow, I'd have another talk with that friend about how they felt about doing something clearly in contravention of Ivy rules...heck, NCAA rules.

Boosters can't pay the tuition of an athlete at any NCAA school, and there are very clear guidelines as to how much any school can provide in athletic aid, with very clear reporting requirements. The Ivies don't do it at all, everything flows through the need-based aid.

I just have a genuine question. The BC roster lists "scholarship funds" (named after the donors) under the player that receives that scholarship fund. Would this not be a way for a booster to pay tuition for an athlete? I get that a booster simply cutting a check to an athlete for tuition is against the rules, but is this just an enormous loophole? I'm sure other schools have such scholarship funds, but BC is the only one that lists them which is why I used them as an example.

I wouldn't have any insights to what Boston College has set up, but there's not supposed to be any athletic specific aid beyond the allotment provided for by the NCAA...it's possible that these funds were endowed after a named donor at some earlier point and then allocated, but it can't exceed in total the allotment allowed by the NCAA.

I haven't seen that practice anywhere else, but it certainly is conceivable. But doesn't increase total aid available. I'd be extremely surprised if BC was doing anything actually beyond the rules.

[wlaxphan20]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

Thanks, hope my analogy was not misunderstood.

But this would indeed be an enormous scandal if true and surely somewhere, somehow, someone would have blown the whistle if there was any such pattern of doing this. Much less for the men, not the women.

Could someone have cheated? That's in the realm of possibility, though remote, but certainly not a pattern of such.

I'm not asking you to betray on here a specific person, a friend's confidence. But, wow, I'd have another talk with that friend about how they felt about doing something clearly in contravention of Ivy rules...heck, NCAA rules.

Boosters can't pay the tuition of an athlete at any NCAA school, and there are very clear guidelines as to how much any school can provide in athletic aid, with very clear reporting requirements. The Ivies don't do it at all, everything flows through the need-based aid.

I just have a genuine question. The BC roster lists "scholarship funds" (named after the donors) under the player that receives that scholarship fund. Would this not be a way for a booster to pay tuition for an athlete? I get that a booster simply cutting a check to an athlete for tuition is against the rules, but is this just an enormous loophole? I'm sure other schools have such scholarship funds, but BC is the only one that lists them which is why I used them as an example.

I wouldn't have any insights to what Boston College has set up, but there's not supposed to be any athletic specific aid beyond the allotment provided for by the NCAA...it's possible that these funds were endowed after a named donor at some earlier point and then allocated, but it can't exceed in total the allotment allowed by the NCAA.

I haven't seen that practice anywhere else, but it certainly is conceivable. But doesn't increase total aid available. I'd be extremely surprised if BC was doing anything actually beyond the rules.

Yes I assumed it was well within the rules because they went so far as to list each scholarship fund on each players bio. I have about as much insight as you, but thanks for the additional context!

[MDlaxfan76]

But the point isn't that alumni support is essential, it's that so many sports are supported by the colleges and universities. None make a nickel, all cost the schools a lot of money. That's a choice these schools make, supported by their Boards.

Moreover, they decide to allocate a very high percentage of their admissions to D1 athletes, slots that could otherwise go to some other 'deserving' applicant. And yes, these admission slots come with the recognition that the admitted students, on average, don't have as high an academic profile as the general pop of admissions, inclusive of them.

Of course, that generates some "ambivalence", heck even "hostility" from some quarters of the Ivy community. Understandable that they want their sons and daughters who are, say, lab rats and perfect SAT scores to have a better chance of gaining admission. But the Ivies have chosen to have a balance that dramatically favors athletes versus nearly every other D1 school in the nation.

On the money, I think there's some truth that for the upper middle class, 'affluent' family living in a high cost region the cash outlay can be quite daunting. There's indeed a "middle" range (though it's very far from America's actual median income) that tuitions are really difficult to bear. And lots of lax playing families indeed fall into that category of reasonably high income, but high cost regions. True.

We may be talking about different things. Yes, the Ivies field all these teams that cost money, but that amount is simply a rounding error (if that) compared to their endowments and operating budgets. More to my point, the lack of support to athletics already existed in giving athletes no priority in class registrations (making it much more difficult for them to fulfill requirements in certain majors) and a frequent pattern of professors (sometimes matter-of-factly, sometimes gleefully) providing inadequate accommodations necessitates by athletic travel schedules. The picture was clarified further during COVID, when the Ivies prevented their athletes from having any semblance of a 2021 season, with excuses ranging from claimed "safety" (when everyone else did just fine) to the prohibition of extending any accommodation to athletes that is not provided to all students (e.g., frequent testing that was required by other conferences to allow competition). My main point is that, although some still may choose the Ivies and may have ample reasons to do so, the recent experience -- combined with the increased sophistication of students as consumers -- is likely opening eyes to the exact nature of an athlete's life at one of these schools.

In reading through your posts to date, this does seem to be a recurring theme for you.

Are you an Ivy grad, have a kid playing ball at an Ivy? Bad experience? Or no experience, fan of another school/league?

You are ignoring that the schools have chosen to have much higher percentages of athletes as a percentage of their admissions, including providing substantial admission advantage to these applicants. Plus they spend money on many more teams than most D1 schools. Yes, it's a small % of their endowments. That's also why their need-based aid is so incredibly generous. But the big deal is the percentage of admissions held for athletes. Much higher than most D1 schools.

Those are major strategic choices they certainly don't have to make, indeed for schools that are among the very most selective in the country it really is saying something that they have chosen to value athletes this way. Of course, I can and do make all sorts of arguments that Ivy athletes tend to be quite successful in their lives beyond college, so it's actually a valid component IMO to selection of the future leaders to educate. Grades and test scores are not the only way to select...

But you are quite right that the Ivies are pretty obstinate about not making special allowances for athletes over other students, including lots of students with heavy extracurricular challenges of their own, just not sports.

Ivy athletes (both men and women) know that going in, or sure should know, that they won't get special allowances the way they would at BigLaxU, Big StateU. You're going to be competing directly with extremely bright classmates, each with their own special something that got them selected over other very qualified and motivated students. Professors will be very demanding and aren't going to give you an A just for showing up. No one is going to come give you special tutoring that isn't available to other students. Your housing is going to be the same as other students.

Don't get me wrong, I've grumbled that Ivies could do a few small things to make life a little easier for athletes without sacrificing their core ethics about not having favoritism for athletes.

But the big bottomline is that Ivy athletes need to navigate with great personal discipline a challenging environment with high competition on and off the field, they need to learn really good time management skills, as just getting enough sleep can be a challenge at times given the workload. But you come out of that experience well prepared to step up into the real world, uncoddled, ready to compete with the best at whatever path you take.

But it's certainly not for every athlete and it's definitely not the only way to prepare for success in life. Tons of opportunity out there to do so. The Ivies are but one path.

The COVID thing has gotten very, very old at this point. The Ivy men are kicking butt way beyond folks' expectations, recruiting is incredibly strong and hasn't missed a beat...and yet just a couple of months ago, we were hearing this same complaining and predictions of disaster over on the men's thread. Despite all the teeth gnashing and predictions of mass defections and no ability to recruit, the facts are proving quite the opposite.

IMO, it was just wishful thinking by non-Ivy fans.
Apparently it's not yet stopped here on the women's thread.

[Dr. Tact]

But the big bottomline is that Ivy athletes need to navigate with great personal discipline a challenging environment with high competition on and off the field, they need to learn really good time management skills, as just getting enough sleep can be a challenge at times given the workload. But you come out of that experience well prepared to step up into the real world, uncoddled, ready to compete with the best at whatever path you take.

But it's certainly not for every athlete and it's definitely not the only way to prepare for success in life. Tons of opportunity out there to do so. The Ivies are but one path.

Very well thought out and written response. I focused on the above for two reasons. One, the competition off the field is tremendous. That alone made it difficult for my D to realistically think about going. Two, there are other fantastic schools out there. You don't need to have an Ivy to be successful in your education or in life. I subscribe to Malcom Gladwell's Big Fish/Small Pond theory, but don't look down on any scholar athlete that went Ivy. It is a tough choice for 17/18 year olds....

[tothedraw]

I just have a genuine question. The BC roster lists "scholarship funds" (named after the donors) under the player that receives that scholarship fund. Would this not be a way for a booster to pay tuition for an athlete? I get that a booster simply cutting a check to an athlete for tuition is against the rules, but is this just an enormous loophole? I'm sure other schools have such scholarship funds, but BC is the only one that lists them which is why I used them as an example.
[/quote]

I wouldn't have any insights to what Boston College has set up, but there's not supposed to be any athletic specific aid beyond the allotment provided for by the NCAA...it's possible that these funds were endowed after a named donor at some earlier point and then allocated, but it can't exceed in total the allotment allowed by the NCAA.

I haven't seen that practice anywhere else, but it certainly is conceivable. But doesn't increase total aid available. I'd be extremely surprised if BC was doing anything actually beyond the rules.
[/quote]

https://flynnfund.bceagles.com/- BC has a designated fund to support athletes. Families can choose to donate enough money to cover an athletes tuition for a year. North has the Hale Family Flynn Fund, M Hasselbeck the Kenneth Zenkel Flynn Fund scholarship. The Flynn Fund is also used to purchase equipment and fund team trips.

[MDlaxfan76]

But the big bottomline is that Ivy athletes need to navigate with great personal discipline a challenging environment with high competition on and off the field, they need to learn really good time management skills, as just getting enough sleep can be a challenge at times given the workload. But you come out of that experience well prepared to step up into the real world, uncoddled, ready to compete with the best at whatever path you take.

But it's certainly not for every athlete and it's definitely not the only way to prepare for success in life. Tons of opportunity out there to do so. The Ivies are but one path.

Very well thought out and written response. I focused on the above for two reasons. One, the competition off the field is tremendous. That alone made it difficult for my D to realistically think about going. Two, there are other fantastic schools out there. You don't need to have an Ivy to be successful in your education or in life. I subscribe to Malcom Gladwell's Big Fish/Small Pond theory, but don't look down on any scholar athlete that went Ivy. It is a tough choice for 17/18 year olds....

+1, it's not a fit for every student-athlete. And lots of great paths. (my point re lax and women is that there are even more such for D1 aspirant women than there are on the men's side).

I dunno that Gladwell's theory applies perfectly though, as it's a pretty tiny pool of kids who go through the Ivy gauntlet relative to the very large pool of athletes that did not. It's definitely going to catch most recruiter's attention that student-athlete 'Sally' went to Harvard over Maryland (chosen only for their different shades of crimson/red). If you're saying that "Sally" can probably have an easier path, maybe with higher grades, at say, UMD than Harvard, that's probably right, even though UMD is markedly larger than Harvard (UMD is the big pond)...but that's unlikely to overcome the other factor.

But in no way does that mean that if "Sally" chooses to go to UMD and gets A's in engineering and technology she's not going to crush it going forward...she very likely will!

[MDlaxfan76]

I just have a genuine question. The BC roster lists "scholarship funds" (named after the donors) under the player that receives that scholarship fund. Would this not be a way for a booster to pay tuition for an athlete? I get that a booster simply cutting a check to an athlete for tuition is against the rules, but is this just an enormous loophole? I'm sure other schools have such scholarship funds, but BC is the only one that lists them which is why I used them as an example.

I wouldn't have any insights to what Boston College has set up, but there's not supposed to be any athletic specific aid beyond the allotment provided for by the NCAA...it's possible that these funds were endowed after a named donor at some earlier point and then allocated, but it can't exceed in total the allotment allowed by the NCAA.

I haven't seen that practice anywhere else, but it certainly is conceivable. But doesn't increase total aid available. I'd be extremely surprised if BC was doing anything actually beyond the rules.

https://flynnfund.bceagles.com/- BC has a designated fund to support athletes. Families can choose to donate enough money to cover an athletes tuition for a year. North has the Hale Family Flynn Fund, M Hasselbeck the Kenneth Zenkel Flynn Fund scholarship. The Flynn Fund is also used to purchase equipment and fund team trips.

[/quote][/quote]
Presumably, and according to NCAA rules, none of that actually expands the pool of dollars BC can otherwise provide to athletes for scholarships. But it does allow donors to designate that their dollars go to support athletes rather than say, tuba players, or a new science lab...someone else writes these designated purpose checks...donors like the ability to designate...

[MDlaxfan76]

The courts have said repeatedly that fraud did not impact the outcome of the 2020 election.

I am not in a position to publicly reveal information shared with me in confidence by friends ... call me old-fashioned but people's finances are not for public discussion. I would also like to think I would consciously avoid making unsubstantiated and scurrilous accusations. In truth, I am intimately familiar with paying for an Ivy education and I did not misinterpret these conversations.

Thanks, hope my analogy was not misunderstood.

But this would indeed be an enormous scandal if true and surely somewhere, somehow, someone would have blown the whistle if there was any such pattern of doing this. Much less for the men, not the women.

Could someone have cheated? That's in the realm of possibility, though remote, but certainly not a pattern of such.

I'm not asking you to betray on here a specific person, a friend's confidence. But, wow, I'd have another talk with that friend about how they felt about doing something clearly in contravention of Ivy rules...heck, NCAA rules.

Boosters can't pay the tuition of an athlete at any NCAA school, and there are very clear guidelines as to how much any school can provide in athletic aid, with very clear reporting requirements. The Ivies don't do it at all, everything flows through the need-based aid.

+1 MD

If this stuff was going on, something would have leaked.

It's interesting that that there's even any question.
Boy, it'd be a heck of a scandal...and can you imagine a sexist angle too?!

[LaxThoughts]

In reading through your posts to date, this does seem to be a recurring theme for you.

Are you an Ivy grad, have a kid playing ball at an Ivy? Bad experience? Or no experience, fan of another school/league?

You are ignoring that the schools have chosen to have much higher percentages of athletes as a percentage of their admissions, including providing substantial admission advantage to these applicants. Plus they spend money on many more teams than most D1 schools. Yes, it's a small % of their endowments. That's also why their need-based aid is so incredibly generous. But the big deal is the percentage of admissions held for athletes. Much higher than most D1 schools.

Those are major strategic choices they certainly don't have to make, indeed for schools that are among the very most selective in the country it really is saying something that they have chosen to value athletes this way. Of course, I can and do make all sorts of arguments that Ivy athletes tend to be quite successful in their lives beyond college, so it's actually a valid component IMO to selection of the future leaders to educate. Grades and test scores are not the only way to select...

But you are quite right that the Ivies are pretty obstinate about not making special allowances for athletes over other students, including lots of students with heavy extracurricular challenges of their own, just not sports.

Ivy athletes (both men and women) know that going in, or sure should know, that they won't get special allowances the way they would at BigLaxU, Big StateU. You're going to be competing directly with extremely bright classmates, each with their own special something that got them selected over other very qualified and motivated students. Professors will be very demanding and aren't going to give you an A just for showing up. No one is going to come give you special tutoring that isn't available to other students. Your housing is going to be the same as other students.

Don't get me wrong, I've grumbled that Ivies could do a few small things to make life a little easier for athletes without sacrificing their core ethics about not having favoritism for athletes.

But the big bottomline is that Ivy athletes need to navigate with great personal discipline a challenging environment with high competition on and off the field, they need to learn really good time management skills, as just getting enough sleep can be a challenge at times given the workload. But you come out of that experience well prepared to step up into the real world, uncoddled, ready to compete with the best at whatever path you take.

But it's certainly not for every athlete and it's definitely not the only way to prepare for success in life. Tons of opportunity out there to do so. The Ivies are but one path.

The COVID thing has gotten very, very old at this point. The Ivy men are kicking butt way beyond folks' expectations, recruiting is incredibly strong and hasn't missed a beat...and yet just a couple of months ago, we were hearing this same complaining and predictions of disaster over on the men's thread. Despite all the teeth gnashing and predictions of mass defections and no ability to recruit, the facts are proving quite the opposite.

IMO, it was just wishful thinking by non-Ivy fans.
Apparently it's not yet stopped here on the women's thread.

I agree with most of your comments, and appreciate your considered response. I graduated from a "little" Ivy, and was in no danger of being recruited for my athletic prowess or being offered an athletic scholarship anywhere. Daughter was recruited by and considered Ivies, but decided on a different path for several reasons, including (1) wanting a big-time sports environment for all sports and (2) exactly one of your points -- being wary of competing academically with high achievers who would not have a full-time athletic commitment. I agree also that navigating the athletic commitment and a demanding academic load with no accommodations can be a valuable experience. We do have contacts in women's lacrosse programs at multiple Ivies, and it does appear that their experience during the last two years has been much more compromised than at non-Ivies due to the Ivies' Covid measures. Those measures appear to stem more from those institutions' political leanings than from any well-founded health concerns. Swaths of classes took last year off (an ordeal in itself given some Ivies' refusal -- at least initially -- to allow the athletes to take the year off to save eligibility and return), significantly eroding team camaraderie with those who stayed. I do not pretend to know for certain how this will affect recruiting (and, unlike you, have no knowledge about the men's side). My only point is that I expect the dramatically different approach the Ivies took toward Covid to open some eyes more widely. The eventual decisions may not be different. We will see. Or maybe we won't.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thanks for the response. Hope your daughter had or is having a terrific experience, on and off the field! Lots of opportunities out there for motivated student-athlete. Ivy is but one path.

I suspect you'd say the same about the "political leanings" of the 'little Ivies' (NESCAC?) which also took a tough perspective on COVID restrictions.

I don't know as much about the Ivy women's teams' experiences, though they faced exactly the same constraints as the men, as some teams may not have made the same choices about how to handle the adversities they faced. My general understanding is that, like the men, there were a variety of responses, whether that included sticking around for a fifth year, taking time away from school, living together off campus somewhere, or staying on campus and working through it together there.

There's no question that institutions which regularly make special accommodations for athletes had less disruption to the ability to play during the pandemic, especially pre-vaccine ubiquity and while high hospitalization rates. I disagree with calling this "political leanings" but lets put that aside and simply agree that there was a real difference.

But here's where I think there may be some missing appreciation for what this actually means in the life experiences of the Ivy athletes. Yes, there were great memories, carefree memories, missed by having the adversity of tough COVID restrictions. But facing such adversity together as a team was also a different opportunity to grow up together, to face that life is often 'unfair', certainly filled with unexpected adversities.

I can only report from the men's side that while there was lots of frustration and challenge with the restrictions, by and large there was key leadership that led their teams to fight through it together.

Less time on the field together than at BigLaxU schools is already a drawback for Ivies, without the pandemic, but way worse with the pandemic...sure...and it was, therefore, expected that the Ivies would have a miserable 2022 season relative to the national prominence they were achieving in 2020 before the season abruptly stopped...all the more so because so many of those star players from 2020 had moved on, some to play in grad school for competitor programs outside the Ivies. But though those realities existed, the Ivy men are off to a terrific start.

And yeah, the Ivies aren't suffering any loss of appeal to recruits...at least not among those who value the Ivy opportunity in the first place. Tremendous players are continuing to find the Ivies appealing.