[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 08:16:05 08/29/17 Tue
Your two key complaints here seem to be financial aid and the academic index.
Yes, there has been a massive financial aid expansion in the Ivy League starting in 2008 when Ivy educations were made free for those earning $60K or less. This wasn't done to help athletic teams be more competitive, but rather to help the institutions make an Ivy education accessible for all. Is your point that financial aid should have applied for non-athletes, but all athletes should continue to pay full? Or that the HYP expansion of fin aid was athletically motivated? Both are ridiculous.
As for making the playing field level, I'm all for it (though it's not as slanted as people think anymore). I'd like to see full athletic scholarships. But failing that, leveling the playing field is tricky, given the anti-trust ruling regarding the previous candidate-level financial aid discussions.
As for the academic index, Cornell has been the biggest beneficiary of an unequal playing field for years. The last thing that non-HYPs would want is a level playing field (though most other Ivies have closed the AI gap enough that differences aren't as big as they used to be and the floor at 183 now is pretty darn restricting). If your argument is that you liked the good old days when a low, low floor (169) allowed Cornell to essentially have a somewhat exclusive niche of the pond in which to fish and now that's gone with the floor at 183, that's fine, but that's a sign of RISING academic standards that have adversely impacted Cornell.
Sometimes I feel like Ivy fans won't be happy until the entire league is terrible and the champion is essentially a random draw among eight equally horrible teams.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]