Athlete's academic minimums

[urfan1]

Using Harvard as an example? Wow. Interesting. No, that is not my point at all. Didn't President Ayers say that he didn't want to add sports at the expense of regular students? I agree with that decision, and I agreed with the decision to add lacrosse and drop the other two sports. Disagree with that all you want, but why is everyone acting like I am just making things up, or saying something that is wrong?

To accept that you have to accept the underlying premise that "regular" students are somehow better than student athletes. We can both cite examples of each group to support our position, but I refuse to be that close minded to place that label of inferiority on our student athletes. The ultimate goal is to assist our students to be successful in their lives, and athletics are a great lesson of life that "regular" students will never experience. So I for one will never accept Ayers decision to drop two sports because athletes are somehow inferior to "regular: students.

 

[urfan1]

Using Harvard as an example? Wow. Interesting. No, that is not my point at all. Didn't President Ayers say that he didn't want to add sports at the expense of regular students? I agree with that decision, and I agreed with the decision to add lacrosse and drop the other two sports. Disagree with that all you want, but why is everyone acting like I am just making things up, or saying something that is wrong?

Go back and read my post -- the conference supports 35 varsity sports, how many does UR offer? How many does the A-10 support?

 

[keefusb]

All you have to do is go to Forbes or USN&WR and look at the 25 or so national liberal arts colleges ranked above us academically. Then go look at their athlete-to-non-athlete ratios. You will find that most of them have a higher ratio than we do. Yes, many of these schools are D3, but some of them are D1. The overarching point being that this sacred ratio has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to academic achievement or academic reputation. Anyone who thinks otherwise has overdeveloped their bong skills.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[keefusb]

There is a statement somewhere in the UR catalog of goals, objectives, etc. that says that varsity sports exist at the University to "enrich the student experience". That statement would seem to point to the idea that more athletic opportunities (i.e. teams) would lead to more enriching experiences. The whole 13% ratio is a steaming pile of BS that an otherwise reasoned and respectable Ed Ayers pulled out of his ass to justify the unjustifiable act of cutting two long-tenured high academic achieving men's varsity sports. Period.

I like fan1 will never accept Ayers's decision nor the false logic behind it.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[VT4700]

All you have to do is go to Forbes or USN&WR and look at the 25 or so national liberal arts colleges ranked above us academically. Then go look at their athlete-to-non-athlete ratios. You will find that most of them have a higher ratio than we do. Yes, many of these schools are D3, but some of them are D1. The overarching point being that this sacred ratio has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER to academic achievement or academic reputation. Anyone who thinks otherwise has overdeveloped their bong skills.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

Which of these top 25 schools are D1 and our peers? Davidson? Anyone else? We have a lot of sports for our size. A lot. Anyway, some of you are missing my point. Colleges want diversity. Small schools like us likely do not want to just add 50-100 athletes to their enrollment at the expense of non athletes. Just like they would not want to just add all students from a certain state or area at the expense of others. You don't just all of a sudden say let's add 100 Virginia students at the expense of out of state students. And, if you don't do this, it doesn't mean Virginia students are not smart.
Again, I never said our athletes were not smart. What I did say was they are smart and I am proud of that. But, with a school of 3,000 students, you don't just add a couple sports without considering the fact it would mean less enrollment numbers for non athletes.
Anytime a school drops a sport, it will be controversial, and plenty of schools have dropped sports. Some will agree and some will disagree. I can see why our dropping soccer and track would upset some people, but I agreed with the decision at the time, and I still do. Doesn't mean I am right or wrong, but I can see why you have to consider finances and student body make up as a whole as well as other factors when making these tough decisions.

 

[urfan1]

Frankly I believe more athletes would add more diversity to the student body. Not less.

 

[GKiller]

I said most of our peers. I did not say all of them. If you can find an example like Davidson that has a higher ratio than us, great. Good for them. How does that make what I said wrong?

Never actually said it was wrong. Asked if u had something proving it right. You are a big documentation guy on this board right? Because what little I’ve seen dispute that premise entirely. Keefusb brought up another example. Most peer schools our size i expect have higher ratios. If that is incorrect fine I’d like to see where u r getting your info. Of course much larger peer schools will have less, that’s just math. But schools that r traditionally labeled our peer schools will be closer to UR enrollment size.

 

[ur2K]

Lots of "ours" , "us", and "we" from someone who probably didn't even go to UR.

 

[fatherspider]

Frankly I believe more athletes would add more diversity to the student body. Not less.

That may be true and would be great if all of those athletes entered by the same academic standards are non athletes. But its not the case and means that the more athletes we allow in under the higher academic threshold, our overall standards are lowered. This is made more impactful because of our small enrollment. It really is a rock/hardplace situation for schools like UR.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I think the majority agree that the reasons/excuses given by the administration on dropping soccer and track in favor of Lacrosse were total BS. First we were told it’s a money issue - yet we pride ourselves on being a stable financial school with a 60k a year tuition and a 2.5 billion endowment. In short - UR is not struggling for money. Furthermore - if you look at the UR financial statements on the controller website - the school turned a profit of 13 million in 2018. Again - not struggling for money.
Then we were fed excuse of the student-athlete ratio. Then the next excuse of having to add women’s sports for title IX (more money).
Overall - I think it just points to the overlying theme, along with this post topic of higher academic requirements than most of our peers that as much we as fans hope and wish, athletics is not the priority at UR. Plain and simple.

 

[Eight Legger]

Small schools like us likely do not want to just add 50-100 athletes to their enrollment at the expense of non athletes. Just like they would not want to just add all students from a certain state or area at the expense of others. You don't just all of a sudden say let's add 100 Virginia students at the expense of out of state students. And, if you don't do this, it doesn't mean Virginia students are not smart.
Again, I never said our athletes were not smart. What I did say was they are smart and I am proud of that. But, with a school of 3,000 students, you don't just add a couple sports without considering the fact it would mean less enrollment numbers for non athletes.

You're missing the points, which are that many of the students from the sports that were cut a) could have gotten into UR as "regular students" and b) achieved academically at a higher rate WHILE AT UR than the average "regular" student. So your argument falls flat. It's why many of us didn't agree with Ayers' logic, since it was demonstrably flawed.

 

[MolivaManiac]

Re: Spider Trap's post:

(cue the "we wouldn't spend all this money on facilities if athletics weren't a priority" circular conversation response)

 

[SpiderTrap]

UR does spend money on facilities. But they wait until they delay as long as possible. Football stadium was a few years late. Robins center renovation were past due. Baseball improvements were put on hold (they were supposed to have terrace in outfield and they can never get lights sorted out). Basketball practice facility - finally happening but original plan was several years ago. So they spend - but usually waiting to do so.

 

[MrTbone]

Never said they don't or couldn't. You need to read my posts better and do more research before always rushing to disagree.

Here’s what you said:

“We don't have tens of thousands of students each year who can do internships and pursue things that athletes cannot pursue.“

You specifically said these are things that athletes cannot pursue which is erroneous. What am I missing?

 

[VT4700]

Here’s what you said:

“We don't have tens of thousands of students each year who can do internships and pursue things that athletes cannot pursue.“

You specifically said these are things that athletes cannot pursue which is erroneous. What am I missing?

Wow, you sure do love looking for the tiniest little thing to get on me for. Even if you are wrong about it. It is laughable. I have seen so many people say so many wrong things on here, and you just let them go. But, when you think I said something wrong, boy do you love letting me have it. And the funny thing is, you are usually wrong about it. You said I said our athletes cannot pursue non-athletic endeavors. I never said that.

What you copied is not close to what you said I said. Sure, there are plenty of things that our non-athletes pursue that our athletes can pursue. But, there are also things that our non athletes pursue that our athletes, due to practice time and other athletic commitments, simply do not have the time or chance to pursue.

 

[urfan1]

Wow, you sure do love looking for the tiniest little thing to get on me for. Even if you are wrong about it. It is laughable. I have seen so many people say so many wrong things on here, and you just let them go. But, when you think I said something wrong, boy do you love letting me have it. And the funny thing is, you are usually wrong about it. You said I said our athletes cannot pursue non-athletic endeavors. I never said that.

What you copied is not close to what you said I said. Sure, there are plenty of things that our non-athletes pursue that our athletes can pursue. But, there are also things that our non athletes pursue that our athletes, due to practice time and other athletic commitments, simply do not have the time or chance to pursue.

And the athletes gain discipline, perspective, strength, teamwork, organization, focus, determination, resolve, and many more things non-athletes will not have the opportunity to experience at any where near the same level.

 

[VT4700]

And the athletes gain discipline, perspective, strength, teamwork, organization, focus, determination, resolve, and many more things non-athletes will not have the opportunity to experience at any where near the same level.

I agree. No question about it.

 

[MrTbone]

Wow, you sure do love looking for the tiniest little thing to get on me for. Even if you are wrong about it. It is laughable. I have seen so many people say so many wrong things on here, and you just let them go. But, when you think I said something wrong, boy do you love letting me have it. And the funny thing is, you are usually wrong about it. You said I said our athletes cannot pursue non-athletic endeavors. I never said that.

What you copied is not close to what you said I said. Sure, there are plenty of things that our non-athletes pursue that our athletes can pursue. But, there are also things that our non athletes pursue that our athletes, due to practice time and other athletic commitments, simply do not have the time or chance to pursue.

I’m gonna go find the worlds tiniest violin...if you don’t want me to challenge your statements then do a better job before you hit “post.” I’m clearly not the only one picking apart your argument.

You just doubled down on the assertion that our athletes are unable to pursue non-athletic pursuits that the regular student might be able to. What are you including in this? I know it’s not internships or scientific research because I know of examples of each that student athletes are doing. So what are you talking about? Btw, if that’s not what you meant, then that’s a fine exit from the discussion. What’s above seems largely indefensible.

 

[keefusb]

Which of these top 25 schools are D1 and our peers? Davidson?

As far as our administration is concerned, our peers are schools like Williams, Swarthmore, Vassar, Colgate, Davidson, W&L, Lafayette, etc. The fact that most are not D1 vs D3 is immaterial. All of these schools have higher athlete-to-non-athlete ratios than we do. Furthermore, at UR the athletes historically perform at a higher level academically than the non-athletes do, and the kids that used to play soccer and track most likely did not need any academic "adjustments" in order to be accepted at UR.

The argument that we wanted to keep the ratio at 13% or whatever is simply BS, and a majority of the posters on this forum would agree with me.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[SpiderTrap]

Agree with Keef.

 

[GKiller]

As far as our administration is concerned, our peers are schools like Williams, Swarthmore, Vassar, Colgate, Davidson, W&L, Lafayette, etc. The fact that most are not D1 vs D3 is immaterial. All of these schools have higher athlete-to-non-athlete ratios than we do. Furthermore, at UR the athletes historically perform at a higher level academically than the non-athletes do, and the kids that used to play soccer and track most likely did not need any academic "adjustments" in order to be accepted at UR.

The argument that we wanted to keep the ratio at 13% or whatever is simply BS, and a majority of the posters on this forum would agree with me.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

Keefusb I think VT4700 just made that up re: ratio of most peer schools. Throw crap up on the wall and see what sticks.

I will say I personally heard Ayers say the athletes do not perform as well as non athletes academically. To clarify this was in regards to soccer specifically. I was at an event where he spoke to a small group of UR alumni & he got challenged about dropping soccer. I believe a couple were soccer alums but I can't say for certain. Someone brought up soccer's high GPA and he made that comment. That it wasn't as high as other non athlete students. Now I will say Ayers was completely flustered at this time, it was obvious he did not want to be discussing the topic and even made a comment to that effect too. It could have been a comment to help extricate himself from the topic I don't know. He came across quite poorly and it changed my impression of him. Not that he didn't have a right to his thoughts & decisions but simply how it handled the questioning was disappointing, which was also fair and professional imo.

 

[VT4700]

Keefusb I think VT4700 just made that up re: ratio of most peer schools. Throw crap up on the wall and see what sticks.

I will say I personally heard Ayers say the athletes do not perform as well as non athletes academically. To clarify this was in regards to soccer specifically. I was at an event where he spoke to a small group of UR alumni & he got challenged about dropping soccer. I believe a couple were soccer alums but I can't say for certain. Someone brought up soccer's high GPA and he made that comment. That it wasn't as high as other non athlete students. Now I will say Ayers was completely flustered at this time, it was obvious he did not want to be discussing the topic and even made a comment to that effect too. It could have been a comment to help extricate himself from the topic I don't know. He came across quite poorly and it changed my impression of him. Not that he didn't have a right to his thoughts & decisions but simply how it handled the questioning was disappointing, which was also fair and professional imo.

My goodness, how funny for this argument Vassar and Swarthmore are our peers. Yep, I'm sure you guys would be thrilled if Hardt came out and announced those are our peers. Unreal.

And, no, I don't make things up. Geez, it's not that hard to figure out. We are a small school, so our athletes to non athletes ratio will be higher than most. And, yes, well higher than most of our "peers".

 

[kneepadmckinney]

VT, my entire point was that -- at UR specifically -- the ratio should be totally irrelevant to any decision to keep or not keep a sport. I've yet to hear any good reason why a higher ratio of student athletes is bad, and evidence at UR is that the athletic teams perform quite well in the class room, both individually and as a group.

 

[VT4700]

VT, my entire point was that -- at UR specifically -- the ratio should be totally irrelevant to any decision to keep or not keep a sport. I've yet to hear any good reason why a higher ratio of student athletes is bad, and evidence at UR is that the athletic teams perform quite well in the class room, both individually and as a group.

I hear you, and at a big school it likely will matter very little. If you have 20,000 students and 19,500 non athletes, adding another 50-100 athletes to the ratio would not change things. But, with barely over 3,000 students and 400-500 athletes, you only have so much wiggle room here. We have several programs available, as all schools do, for non athletes to pursue that very few athletes can pursue (no matter what you might have read on this board). Non athletes can travel to conferences, get funding for research, and get paid for internships. Non athletes can go to class and then go the lab for 8 hours a day. Athletes can still pursue things, but they just can't pursue all the things a non athlete can do. Do we really want to take away from any of these? I am just giving my opinion here, but that is why I think the ratio matters for us. I agree with being concerned about the ratio. No worries if you don't. No one has to be right or wrong here.

Let's say we do not add 50 students at the top of their class who made 1400 on their SATs and instead added 50 athletes. Even if these athletes also made 1400 and were at the top of their class (and stats say they won't all be like this), those 50 athletes have sports commitments that the non athletes will not have. And, playing sports is a year round thing. You better be working hard at your sport in the off season, or you will be way behind during the season. Doesn't mean athletes are not smart and cannot do great things, but this is why schools have academic scholarships and athletic scholarships. To not be worried about our ratio being too high would be like saying all scholarships are the same, and they are not.

 

[GKiller]

My goodness, how funny for this argument Vassar and Swarthmore are our peers. Yep, I'm sure you guys would be thrilled if Hardt came out and announced those are our peers. Unreal.

And, no, I don't make things up. Geez, it's not that hard to figure out. We are a small school, so our athletes to non athletes ratio will be higher than most. And, yes, well higher than most of our "peers".

I didn't name those schools myself. Not inclined to compare us to them, as we are more unique as a small school with D1 athletics. However the fact remains those schools are traditionally identified as peer schools and you can't discount either. You just can't come up with your own list of peer schools.

But just look at smaller D1 peer schools. Keefusb named some, I know of others with higher ratios. Bucknell is another. Look at the Patriot League peer schools, look at Davidson, look at some Ivies I don't care. Pulling out schools with lot larger enrollments it is impossible to not be at higher ratio, but most of our established peers are of similar size as UR. If you want to count a UVA, a Wake, a Georgetown that's fine, but that in no way qualifies as most.

Show me a link. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it. But the evidence I've seen disputes what you say. You are regularly asking for documentation on this board but when the reverse occurs you got nothing. If it's not hard to figure out I'm sure there is something with that data.

 

[VT4700]

I didn't name those schools myself. Not inclined to compare us to them, as we are more unique as a small school with D1 athletics. However the fact remains those schools are traditionally identified as peer schools and you can't discount either. You just can't come up with your own list of peer schools.

But just look at smaller D1 peer schools. Keefusb named some, I know of others with higher ratios. Bucknell is another. Look at the Patriot League peer schools, look at Davidson, look at some Ivies I don't care. Pulling out schools with lot larger enrollments it is impossible to not be at higher ratio, but most of our established peers are of similar size as UR. If you want to count a UVA, a Wake, a Georgetown that's fine, but that in no way qualifies as most.

Show me a link. If I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it. But the evidence I've seen disputes what you say. You are regularly asking for documentation on this board but when the reverse occurs you got nothing. If it's not hard to figure out I'm sure there is something with that data.

I can't show you a link because there is no official definition of our peers. When I think peers, I guess I am looking at state schools like W&M, VCU, JMU, ODU, GMU, etc. It's all opinion, so peers can be looked at different ways. Athletically, academically, location? Yes, those schools are bigger than ours and should therefore have a smaller ratio. I get that. But, because we are a small school, we don't have the luxury of not worrying about a ratio. It is what it is. The numbers are there. Doesn't mean we have to agree on everything, and no one is right or wrong for looking at the numbers one way or the other.

 

[GKiller]

I can't show you a link because there is no official definition of our peers. When I think peers, I guess I am looking at state schools like W&M, VCU, JMU, ODU, GMU, etc. It's all opinion, so peers can be looked at different ways. Athletically, academically, location? Yes, those schools are bigger than ours and should therefore have a smaller ratio. I get that. But, because we are a small school, we don't have the luxury of not worrying about a ratio. It is what it is. The numbers are there. Doesn't mean we have to agree on everything, and no one is right or wrong for looking at the numbers one way or the other.

VCU ODU GMU. And they would need to have like 4000 competing athletes to have a higher ratio than us. And 2 of them don't even have football. Peer schools good lord...LOL you win.

 

[VT4700]

VCU ODU GMU. And they would need to have like 4000 competing athletes to have a higher ratio than us. And 2 of them don't even have football. Peer schools good lord...LOL you win.

Sorry. Was not trying to win anything. If I were trying to win, I would not have said no one is right and no one is wrong here. Just my opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Wood Hall]

hmm. learn something new every day.

Five members of my high school graduating class of 270 went to Cornell. It's a great school.

 

[whampas]

Five members of my high school graduating class of 270 went to Cornell. It's a great school.

Passed through Ithaca last week and took a quick driving tour of Cornell. I didn't realize that you could major in most anything there. Hugh Veterinary School among the lot.

 

[SpiderK]

UR’s number one admission prerequisite is that you cannot come from a public school in the Richmond Metro area. Lol

 

[keefusb]

UR’s number one admission prerequisite is that you cannot come from a public school in the Richmond Metro area. Lol

Actually, there are a number of students from the Maggie L. Walker Governor's School who end up at UR.

The rest of the RVA public schools are pretty much a no-go.


#NoMoreMooneyTruthing

 

[Section 204and5]

UR’s number one admission prerequisite is that you cannot come from a public school in the Richmond Metro area. Lol

As long as you consider Chesterfield County part of the Richmond Metro area I can tell you from personal experience that this is simply not true. And the financial aid we received was outstanding.

 

[SpiderK]

As long as you consider Chesterfield County part of the Richmond Metro area I can tell you from personal experience that this is simply not true. And the financial aid we received was outstanding.

It’s absolutely true.

 

[Section 204and5]

It’s absolutely true.

You must have missed the part about "personal experience." This is the last time I'll respond to your unfounded assertion, but my son entered UR with three other kids from the same Chesterfield public high school not to mention other students from Henrico public schools. That is simply a fact but I'll leave you to believe whatever fantasy you wish to believe.

 

[Eight Legger]

I know of two students from Deep Run and Trinity Episcopal who will have graduated in the past two years. Not to mention a number of local kids who are athletes.

 

[urfan1]

TE is local but not public -- but there are some local publics

 

[VT4700]

I know of two students from Deep Run and Trinity Episcopal who will have graduated in the past two years. Not to mention a number of local kids who are athletes.

I was thinking about all the athletes as well. So, we allow local athletes from public schools, but not non athletes? Couldn't we get sued for not allowing kids from certain schools?

 

[Eight Legger]

Yeah, obviously there's no block on students from metro Richmond, public or privates. I just don't think a ton of them typically apply.

 

[spiderman]

not every state has as many solid state schools to chose from as Virginia.
which is why we've always drawn so well from the northeast.