Sammy Silva joins Bowerman TC - Does Harvard waste more talent than anyone in the country?

Ivyguy wrote:

Speaking as a non-fan (for a variety of reasons) of Harvard*, I still think a little nuance is called for in discussions like these.

I coached in the League for a few years and I can safely say that *every* Ivy has had multiple talents that just didn't pan out. If Harvard seems more prominent in this regard (percentage-wise, I doubt that it is), it's probably just that they do a better job of bringing in top-flight talent--so we pay more attention to their athletes' careers.

Over the last few years Saretsky et al. have established their women's t&f program as the class of the Ivies--they're doing something right--and have elevated the men's program to where it's often spoken of (along with Penn) as a strong candidate to break up the Cornell/Princeton hegemony in the near future.

However, I actually doubt that the focus-on-academics thing plays a significantly larger role at Harvard than elsewhere in the League. Many Ivy athletes are multiple-achieving individuals who find--as people do at all college levels--that the discipline and schedule-structuring that sports promote also pay off in academic success.

And in any case, as long as you don't actually flunk out (tough to do at Harvard) you've got a very good shot at graduating with honors--something like three-quarters of their grads do--so I don't think the academic pressure there need be overwhelming.

*For inquiring minds that want to know: no, I was not dinged by Harvard admissions. I didn't apply there; I attended a different Ivy (turning down Stanford and Caltech to do so).

Non IvyGuy wrote:

Ivyguy wrote:

Speaking as a non-fan (for a variety of reasons) of Harvard*, I still think a little nuance is called for in discussions like these.

I coached in the League for a few years and I can safely say that *every* Ivy has had multiple talents that just didn't pan out. If Harvard seems more prominent in this regard (percentage-wise, I doubt that it is), it's probably just that they do a better job of bringing in top-flight talent--so we pay more attention to their athletes' careers.

Over the last few years Saretsky et al. have established their women's t&f program as the class of the Ivies--they're doing something right--and have elevated the men's program to where it's often spoken of (along with Penn) as a strong candidate to break up the Cornell/Princeton hegemony in the near future.

However, I actually doubt that the focus-on-academics thing plays a significantly larger role at Harvard than elsewhere in the League. Many Ivy athletes are multiple-achieving individuals who find--as people do at all college levels--that the discipline and schedule-structuring that sports promote also pay off in academic success.

And in any case, as long as you don't actually flunk out (tough to do at Harvard) you've got a very good shot at graduating with honors--something like three-quarters of their grads do--so I don't think the academic pressure there need be overwhelming.

*For inquiring minds that want to know: no, I was not dinged by Harvard admissions. I didn't apply there; I attended a different Ivy (turning down Stanford and Caltech to do so).

Thanks for establishing from the get go that you have no idea what you're talking about: " in the last few years Saretsky et al have established their women's t&f program as the class of the Ivies". Saves us the trouble of taking seriously anything you have to say about Harvard.