In a recent posting someone suggested that the Ivy League schools should drop
 its
"polyannic" ban on athletic scholarships. I respectfully disagree.
 
The Ivy League athletes represent the highest level of the term
student-athlete (which is not, to my knowledge, copyrighted). The student part
comes first then the athlete. [By the way, the first statement of this paragraph
 should be followed by, "with the probable exception of the service academies"]
 
If there is any integrity left in college athletics, it could likely be found in
 the Ivy League schools (and Division III). Remember, colleges are supposed to
educate and the NC** seemed to be moving away from that until recent reforms
 (which may be too little, too late). The whole scene of big-time college
 athletics
(especially football and hoops) has been corrupted by television money. I'm not
 saying it wasn't corrupt before but it's been taken to a higher level.
 
In conclusion, I think the Ivy League would be well-advised to retain its
"student-athlete" and "no athletic scholarships" reputation. If students want to
 go to college only to become pro athletes then they can go somewhere else; if
 they want to become educated citizens, they can go Ivy.
 
[Just a note so as not to offend about 420 of you, my last statement wasn't
 intended as a slam on non-Ivy institutions but rather a complement on the Ivy
 itself.]
 
 
Bri
Clarkson '95
[log in to unmask]
SURVEY: [log in to unmask]
 
BTW-An addition to my posting, Georgetown's hoops program is so powerful that
its players are not required...or rather not allowed, to be interviewed by
members of the admissions dept. A few years ago, the admissions dept. was
 slammed by Coach John Thompson when they tried to interview one of his
 potential recrutis. Does this indicate who wears the pants in that institution?
 I don't want this
to happen to the Ivy League