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