Slate: "Is Wesleyan Compromising ... to build an athletics cash cow?"

Started by Ron Boerger, December 21, 2017, 11:19:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulNewman

And I thought you didn't consider yourself knowledgeable about the NESCACs  ;)

We can agree to disagree.  You are correct on the one point, which I have endorsed in the past wondering about Tufts and Hopkins as UAAs.  In every other regard, and if you go by what people on the East Coast and New England actually live and think, the Ivies and NESCACs are cut of the same cloth if different sizes of cloth.  There is a tremendous geographic overlap and even Princeton and Penn have the "feel" of New England.  The crossover for applicants I'm sure also is higher between Ivies and NESCACs versus UAAs.  It is hard to minimize the cultural aspect....or what it is like to actually attend these schools.  I would guess most would say the NESCACs are more similar to the Ivies than the UAAs, and to some extent it is perhaps because the "colleges" of these schools are very well separated from the graduate programs.  There is also the enormous history of the New England prep schools which also correlates with Ivies and NESCACs. 

What NESCAC and UAA DO share is the relative alleged excellence from top to bottom.  The Centennial and NCAC cannot match the top to bottom reputation of the aforementioned.  And the other great LACs -- Carleton, Pomona, Oberlin, Kenyon, Grinnell, Macalester are overall pretty different than that NESCACs -- perhaps similar to Stanford, Duke, Rice, Vandy, G'Town, Notre Dame, etc being different than the Ivies.  Certainly every bit as good in most cases but a little different all the same.

The fact that this thread started with Wesleyan is fascinating....probably at least by reputation the least focused NESCAC on athletics, and closer in some ways to Oberlin and Vassar than to other NESCACs.

PaulNewman

One might argue that Tufts is more UAA-like than Brandeis....and I'd guess that Tufts could gain admission to the AAU if wanted to bad enough.

Anyway, the UAA in my view was a real stroke of genius...a real national feel as opposed to the very geographic Ivy/NESCAC.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 05:01:05 PM
And I thought you didn't consider yourself knowledgeable about the NESCACs  ;)

I'm not. Their identity as liberal arts colleges is commonly known by everyone who is at least moderate familiar with the D3 national scene. Besides, you can't post in the D3 men's basketball national boards for very long without some NESCAC alumnus posting that whole "we have the best liberal arts colleges in the nation" bragging point.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 05:01:05 PMWe can agree to disagree.  You are correct on the one point, which I have endorsed in the past wondering about Tufts and Hopkins as UAAs.  In every other regard, and if you go by what people on the East Coast and New England actually live and think, the Ivies and NESCACs are cut of the same cloth if different sizes of cloth.  There is a tremendous geographic overlap and even Princeton and Penn have the "feel" of New England.  The crossover for applicants I'm sure also is higher between Ivies and NESCACs versus UAAs.  It is hard to minimize the cultural aspect....or what it is like to actually attend these schools.  I would guess most would say the NESCACs are more similar to the Ivies than the UAAs, and to some extent it is perhaps because the "colleges" of these schools are very well separated from the graduate programs.  There is also the enormous history of the New England prep schools which also correlates with Ivies and NESCACs.

The "one point" is by far the most important point of all, because it's the point that involves the mission, structure, and function of the schools in question. Culture, geography, athletics ... all of those aspects, important as they are, are secondary to the actual nature of those institutions. UAA and Ivy League schools are peers in their most important facet, academics, as is reflected in their common AAU membership. The NESCAC schools stand apart from them in that regard.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 05:04:25 PM
One might argue that Tufts is more UAA-like than Brandeis....and I'd guess that Tufts could gain admission to the AAU if wanted to bad enough.

I'm not so sure about that. Tufts is obviously a great school, and it appears to have many of the requirements checked off (including a med school and affiliated hospitals, which is what seems to have submarined the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's membership). It seems like a logical prospective member to me, too. However, the AAU is extremely zealous in its gatekeeping. Syracuse University left the AAU because it felt that the organization was moving the goalposts when it changed its membership requirements regarding federally-funded research.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

PaulNewman

Ummmm, no.  They are also VERY similar with academics and mission....and hence the huge crossover of applicants.  Not sure how you get to decide what factors are Tier 1 factors and what is Tier 2.

And Tufts would easily fall in the middle to top-middle of the UAA prestige wise.  Tufts would have no problem with AAU IF they wanted it.  Anyway, Tufts is more like the UAA than Brandeis arguably...that was my point.

At least we've established that our continuing to disagree has zero to do with age and NPU athletics.

WUPHF

In the learn something new everyday category, I did not realize Brandeis was so small (I knew it was small, but it is small) and that Tufts was so big.  Tufts is not much smaller than Case Western Reserve.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 05:33:19 PM
Ummmm, no.  They are also VERY similar with academics and mission....and hence the huge crossover of applicants.  Not sure how you get to decide what factors are Tier 1 factors and what is Tier 2.

The very existence of large and extensive graduate schools -- graduate schools that contain a huge share of the overall resources of faculty and funding of their respective universities -- at Ivy League schools disproves your point. If you're pursuing a doctorate in molecular biology or a master's degree in nuclear medicine, the NESCAC isn't even on your radar. You're talking about UAA and Ivy League schools. That's the whole point -- colleges and universities exist for academic purposes (at least that's the general idea, although certain D1 men's basketball and football types would disagree about that), and it's the academic and missional aspects that make the UAA and the Ivy League kindred spirits and AAU peers.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 05:33:19 PMAnd Tufts would easily fall in the middle to top-middle of the UAA prestige wise.  Tufts would have no problem with AAU IF they wanted it.

I'm not discounting Tufts' prestige at all. I've already attested to it. I'm simply wary of pronouncements made without any evidence presented that presume to speak for a remarkably insular and self-protective clique of institutions that is notorious for pulling up the drawbridge for reasons that some people in academia consider to be spurious or contrived. (Not saying that I agree with the disaffected, just that that's the argument that's been put forth by people from schools such as Nebraska and Syracuse.)

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 05:33:19 PMAt least we've established that our continuing to disagree has zero to do with age and NPU athletics.

True dat. :D
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

PaulNewman

You seem to like citing data when you believe the data "proves" some point of yours....but when data is presented that contradicts your point or points you seem to simply ignore or dismiss it (e.g. no matter how widespread the use of "professionalization" as an adjective for youth or college sports you just continued to say it's inappropriate.

In any case, you are just plain wrong on this other issue.  As the majority of folks who attend these school or who live in the Northeast.  Are you suggesting the NESCACs aren't "academic"?  Do you think they produce any of the graduate students, MDs, lawyers, Ph.Ds at Ivy and UAA grad schools?  This is no knock on the UAA schools (I love them and I had a kid graduate from one), but in the Northeast and New England we think of Ivies and NESCAC going together (including mission) more so than the UAAs.  You are confusing undergrad and grad programs.

You keep arguing in tautologies.  And you completely missed the larger point regarding why I chimed in on this thread....the "professionalization" or if you prefer "seriousalization" of athletic programs and facilities even in D3, and even at the esteemed, academic NESCACs. 

Syracuse and Nebraska...in same sentence with Tufts?  OK.

PaulNewman

"If you're pursuing a doctorate in molecular biology or a master's degree in nuclear medicine, the NESCAC isn't even on your radar."

Say what???  How many freshmen in college start out thinking doctorate in molecular biology?  At any school, research-heavy or otherwise?  Not many.  And of course if you're thinking doctorate in molecular biology you aren't thinking NESCAC because those schools don't offer doctorates.  Duh!  On the other hand, attending a NESCAC is a perfectly fine way to find one's way into a molecular biology Ph.D. program.  The issue is undergrad to undergrad, not moving the bar to undergrad versus graduate.

WUPHF

Earlier, as I was looking at Tufts.edu, and while I was looking at the various PhD programs, I happened to notice that they have a PhD program in Biology with a specialization in Genetics and Molecular Biology.

https://ase.tufts.edu/biology/graduate/researchGenetics.htm

smedindy

Grad schools and PhD programs aren't that common in D-3. The UAA is an odd bird in D-3. I think most schools are where they want to be in terms of conferences and the match to the type of schools and program - or qualifying for an auto bid.

It shows elitism that association is an pretty presitgious group of schools (the AAU), and that Tufts is similar to them somehow besmirches Tufts.

My controversial opinion - the NESCAC is no better or worse for students than any other D-3 school. I know in the past I've poked fun at the OAC from an NCAC perspective, but my work at a D-2 state school that serves the underserved population kind of changed my thought process on this. Reputation means nothing if your students don't emerge as leaders and learners. I have seen the same result at CWU as I have at Wabash - it can definitely be transformative for students.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Johns Hopkins left the UAA (where it was a part-time/schedule member anyway; they didn't play a full schedule of games - i.e. they only played a single-round of basketball games) because travel wasn't in their best interest. They didn't want to spend the money or the time traveling. The UAA has tried HARD to get JHU back in the fold ... to no avail. There is no interest.

On the contrary, W&L would LOVE to be in the UAA, but have been thwarted ... or basically ignored best I can tell. The UAA has no interest.

One of the keys when it comes to UAA schools is being in a major metropolitan area - thus why the UAA wants JHU back. They have a school in the Baltimore (and Washington, DC) metroplex. That is a feather in their caps and opens a great door with recruiting.

As for Tufts ... many of the points Sager has presented (AAU ... talk about not only a word twist, but an acronym oddity) are accurate, PaulNewmann, as much as you may not want to agree with them. AAU membership I am sure is part of the equation ... the other part is that the UAA only wants (whether they will say it or not) school in each metroplex. It is pointless to have two because then they are competing against one another in a lot of ways. Brandeis as the Boston area ... for now.

Also another point, before arguing whether Tufts should or shouldn't be in the UAA ... did anyone consider asking Tufts if they wanted to be IN the UAA? There is a very, very real chance that Tufts, like JHU, is NOT interested in that kind of travel schedule each year. They also may not want to take on the costs associated with that schedule.

This point would also be made if you think about the fact that MIT and CalTech are NOT part of the UAA. Those institutions do NOT spend a lot of money with their athletic departments to travel (or for other bells and whistles, though that is changing). The most obvious choice would seem to be MIT and Caltech in terms of AAU and other reasons ... but, that doesn't mean MIT, Caltech, JHU, etc. are interested themselves.

Another thing to consider, how many sports should a school participate in the UAA? You might be surprised if you look at the UAA how many of the sports do NOT have AQs or are listed, but the schools don't really compete in the UAA together (i.e. football and other sports). Rochester is a good example, they are only involved in the UAA in a handful of sports - the rest are in the Liberty League (which Rochester is a founding member).

To be honest, I have been wondering of late how close the UAA is to dissolving as we know it. Just a thought to put in the minds of those who care ... if the UAA were to lose one school (I do have one in mind, but not going to spin the rumor mill), it could put things in motion that would result in the UAA maybe ending as we currently know it - maybe staying around for some reasons, but not as an AQ conference. There are not a lot of options for the UAA if it were to lose membership.

That said ... I know of a school in another major metropolitan that is apparently angling to be in the UAA. They have made tremendous strides to raise their institution to a Tier 1 research school ... and apparently the idea of being in the UAA is attractive to them - or at least I have been told. We shall see.

Final thought, PaulNewman - while I appreciate your passion, I find it odd that you tend to want to fight and argue anyone who presents a counterpoint to you. Most of the time, those counterpoints are factual and come from a strong background in understanding the landscape and nuiances not only in Division III but in other particulars. You have a habit, for example, of not liking what Sager has to say and either moving the goalposts of the argument or trying to argue back something arcane.

Case in point:

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 08:40:41 PM
"If you're pursuing a doctorate in molecular biology or a master's degree in nuclear medicine, the NESCAC isn't even on your radar."

Say what???  How many freshmen in college start out thinking doctorate in molecular biology?  At any school, research-heavy or otherwise?  Not many.  And of course if you're thinking doctorate in molecular biology you aren't thinking NESCAC because those schools don't offer doctorates.  Duh!  On the other hand, attending a NESCAC is a perfectly fine way to find one's way into a molecular biology Ph.D. program.  The issue is undergrad to undergrad, not moving the bar to undergrad versus graduate.

Do you really think Sager is talking about freshmen? While I would contend there absolutely are freshmen and more than many of us realize who know exactly what their road is going to be through Ph.D. (and how many), Sager's bigger point had to do with the institutions. The argument was whether NESCAC schools are on the same level in terms of Tier 1 and such as the UAAs and Ivies. They are not. If ANY student is thinking about a "doctorate in molecular biology or a master's degree in nuclear medicine," they are not even considering Amherst, Williams, Tufts, etc. Sure, they might consider NESCACs if they don't have a clue about their overall direction or simply want to go pre-med, but once it comes to the doctorate ... they are gone.

However, I would also contend that if a high school student is considering a complicated doctorate in the future, they are eliminating schools like those in the NESCAC because they realize that isn't the right track for them. Simply put for the most part, the students at MIT are not also looking at Amherst.

If I am wrong, I am sure someone in the know will tell me ... but my point is, you shifted the argument. Instead of taking the general argument Sager is making, you shifted it (or made it arcane) to be only freshmen.

It is okay to discuss things, but you don't have to be so vitriol in your writing when people disagree or bring up points that maybe squash your argument. It has happened to me many a time and I learn from it. It is okay if your perspective is adjusted because someone points out something (like how DIII actually works and the top 20% of institutions in some ranking don't actually control things in the division as you argue or perceive) that changes it. Again, happens to me often and I've made it my business (without it paying like a business) to know as much as I possibly can know about how the NCAA and Division III works - in fact, learned something new today that changed my understanding and perception with the process of something very important.

My main point ... relax a bit. Argue something if you wish, but don't treat people like they are horrible for disagreeing with you, pointing out flaws in your argument, or simply stating something isn't accurate. It would make for a more enjoyable conversation.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: smedindy on September 25, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
Grad schools and PhD programs aren't that common in D-3. The UAA is an odd bird in D-3. I think most schools are where they want to be in terms of conferences and the match to the type of schools and program - or qualifying for an auto bid.

It shows elitism that association is an pretty presitgious group of schools (the AAU), and that Tufts is similar to them somehow besmirches Tufts.

My controversial opinion - the NESCAC is no better or worse for students than any other D-3 school. I know in the past I've poked fun at the OAC from an NCAC perspective, but my work at a D-2 state school that serves the underserved population kind of changed my thought process on this. Reputation means nothing if your students don't emerge as leaders and learners. I have seen the same result at CWU as I have at Wabash - it can definitely be transformative for students.

You are absolutely right ... if students don't get what they pay for (per se) out of a school, then there is no point and it doesn't matter the "prestige." Furthermore, one can get a terrific education and prepared for the rest of their careers at a LOT of schools. Sometimes the "letterhead" only means so much. Sometimes, people think they can get further because of the name on the degree - that isn't actually as accurate in the real world as people hope it would be (and I wish it was less important).
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PM
You seem to like citing data when you believe the data "proves" some point of yours....but when data is presented that contradicts your point or points you seem to simply ignore or dismiss it (e.g. no matter how widespread the use of "professionalization" as an adjective for youth or college sports you just continued to say it's inappropriate.

What data? You've presented none on this issue of institutional identities. You've simply made assertions.

I never denied that there were periodicals that used the term "professionalization" to refer to youth soccer. I simply said that I've never heard or read that term used, that I'm sure a lot of other people haven't, either, and that the word "professional" bears a very specific meaning in everyday conversation among most people that's different than what you were getting at. That's why I thought (and think) that it's dangerous to use that term when it can be so easily construed as referring to pay-to-play. At best, it's an infelicitous choice of terminology, no matter how often it's used or by whom.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMIn any case, you are just plain wrong on this other issue.  As the majority of folks who attend these school or who live in the Northeast.  Are you suggesting the NESCACs aren't "academic"?

Oh, come on. Now you're putting words in my mouth. You know darned well that I meant "academic" in the structural and missional sense, not in the sense that NESCAC schools aren't up to snuff in terms of quality. Making an assertion like that would be absolutely ridiculous; snobby though some of their alumni may be, there is absolutely no doubt that NESCAC schools offer some of the finest liberal arts education in the world, not just the country.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMDo you think they produce any of the graduate students, MDs, lawyers, Ph.Ds at Ivy and UAA grad schools?

This is really getting ridiculous.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMThis is no knock on the UAA schools (I love them and I had a kid graduate from one), but in the Northeast and New England we think of Ivies and NESCAC going together (including mission) more so than the UAAs.

Regional familiarity is no trump card. What matters is the actual structure and mission of the schools.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMYou are confusing undergrad and grad programs.

Quite the contrary. I'm simply asserting that grad programs exist, and that they're crucial to the identity of research universities. You keep waving them off and dismissing their importance in this discussion. Yet over half of the students enrolled at Ivy League schools are graduate students. They are the very reason that the term "research university" (and an organization like the AAU) exists.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMYou keep arguing in tautologies.

I'm forced to repeat myself because you keep denying the central importance of the basic structural and missional aspects of the Ivy League schools that make them research universities rather than liberal arts colleges. Believe me, I'd rather not continue to beat my head against this brick wall you're putting up. In fact, this will be the last time that I do so.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMAnd you completely missed the larger point regarding why I chimed in on this thread....the "professionalization" or if you prefer "seriousalization" of athletic programs and facilities even in D3, and even at the esteemed, academic NESCACs. 

I didn't miss it. I'm simply not arguing about it. There's a difference.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 07:40:33 PMSyracuse and Nebraska...in same sentence with Tufts?  OK.

Follow what's been going on with the AAU in terms of membership issues over the course of this decade. I didn't make this stuff up. It is what it is.

Quote from: PaulNewman on September 24, 2018, 08:40:41 PM
"If you're pursuing a doctorate in molecular biology or a master's degree in nuclear medicine, the NESCAC isn't even on your radar."

Say what???  How many freshmen in college start out thinking doctorate in molecular biology?  At any school, research-heavy or otherwise?  Not many.  And of course if you're thinking doctorate in molecular biology you aren't thinking NESCAC because those schools don't offer doctorates.  Duh!  On the other hand, attending a NESCAC is a perfectly fine way to find one's way into a molecular biology Ph.D. program.  The issue is undergrad to undergrad, not moving the bar to undergrad versus graduate.

I was going to make a point about your response here, but Dave made it for me. NESCAC schools (Tufts aside, as pointed out by WUPHF) can't give you a doctorate in molecular biology or a master's in nuclear medicine, because they don't offer those programs. They are undergrad-centric schools, as all liberal arts colleges are, and those NESCAC schools that do offer graduate programs (again, aside from Tufts) offer only a limited number of them and have a relative handful of students enrolled in them. By sharp contrast, Ivies and UAA schools not only offer programs like nuclear medicine and molecular biology on the graduate level, among a plethora of other grad-school programs, the grad students in those programs make up a huge proportion of the overall student bodies of those universities, and, again, those grad schools account for a massive share of the resources of those universities in terms of faculty work and research.

I haven't moved the bar at all. This is what I have been saying all along -- research universities are simply a different animal altogether than liberal arts colleges. And postgraduate education is at the heart of that difference. That's why U.S. News and World Report and all of the other periodicals that survey and compare institutions of higher learning classify the Ivies and the NESCAC schools in separate categories.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Gregory Sager

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 25, 2018, 12:41:14 AM
Johns Hopkins left the UAA (where it was a part-time/schedule member anyway; they didn't play a full schedule of games - i.e. they only played a single-round of basketball games) because travel wasn't in their best interest. They didn't want to spend the money or the time traveling. The UAA has tried HARD to get JHU back in the fold ... to no avail. There is no interest.

Yeah, that's what I expected was the case. The cost and the time away from campus in order to play UAA schedules in multiple sports can be pretty daunting.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 25, 2018, 12:41:14 AMOn the contrary, W&L would LOVE to be in the UAA, but have been thwarted ... or basically ignored best I can tell. The UAA has no interest.

I would love to read jknezek's thoughts on this.

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 25, 2018, 12:41:14 AM
Another thing to consider, how many sports should a school participate in the UAA? You might be surprised if you look at the UAA how many of the sports do NOT have AQs or are listed, but the schools don't really compete in the UAA together (i.e. football and other sports). Rochester is a good example, they are only involved in the UAA in a handful of sports - the rest are in the Liberty League (which Rochester is a founding member).

Interestingly enough, Rochester is also a founding member of the UAA as well, as documented in the historical piece from the UAA website that I linked for PaulNewman. That doesn't stop Chicago and Wash U from calling their traveling trophy in football the Founders Cup, though. ;)

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on September 25, 2018, 12:41:14 AMTo be honest, I have been wondering of late how close the UAA is to dissolving as we know it. Just a thought to put in the minds of those who care ... if the UAA were to lose one school (I do have one in mind, but not going to spin the rumor mill), it could put things in motion that would result in the UAA maybe ending as we currently know it - maybe staying around for some reasons, but not as an AQ conference. There are not a lot of options for the UAA if it were to lose membership.

Boy, I would sure hate for that to happen. The UAA is an interesting and unique league that seems to be really solid across the board in terms of D3 national competition. I enjoy going to UAA contests at the U of C because, while they're largely a different flavor of ice cream altogether than CCIW contests, it's a good flavor of ice cream.

Quote from: smedindy on September 25, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
Grad schools and PhD programs aren't that common in D-3. The UAA is an odd bird in D-3. I think most schools are where they want to be in terms of conferences and the match to the type of schools and program - or qualifying for an auto bid.

It shows elitism that association is an pretty presitgious group of schools (the AAU), and that Tufts is similar to them somehow besmirches Tufts.

My controversial opinion - the NESCAC is no better or worse for students than any other D-3 school. I know in the past I've poked fun at the OAC from an NCAC perspective, but my work at a D-2 state school that serves the underserved population kind of changed my thought process on this. Reputation means nothing if your students don't emerge as leaders and learners. I have seen the same result at CWU as I have at Wabash - it can definitely be transformative for students.

Well said, smeds. But, about that OAC thing ... does this mean that we can expect to find you tailgating at a Mount Union football game the next time you visit Ohio? ;)
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

PaulNewman

This is disconcerting....especially the lecture about tone and relaxation.  And moving goalposts.  Be fair at least, and equitable and even-handed.  I don't think I'm the one writing the repeated page-long responses.

This thread started out about NESCACs.  jknezek was the first to link NESCACs to Ivies in terms of "top to bottom" consistency on academics and then specifically regarding athletics after Mr. Sager chimed in with his UAA counter (speaking of counters).

I'm not sure how one gets to decide what is most important in a discussion, or a first order factor versus a secondary one especially given the context of the original topics.  Most in New England most readily link the Ivies and NESCACs.  I won't go through all that again.  And I agree with the point that the UAA shares the "top to bottom" academic quality of NESCAC.  I am a UAA fan much more than a NESCAC fan in general.  That NESCACs aren't research universities with a plethora of PhD programs is true, and kind of obvious, but has nothing to do with whether grads of NESCACs pursue MDs, JDs, PhDs, or with what the experience of being an UNDERGRAD is at these various schools.  I'm a transplanted Southerner who lives in New England.  I'm not arguing about how wonderful the Ivies and NESCACs are....just endorsing what jknezek said originally and adding that the cultural, style and yes even educational missions and vibes are more in the same genre than that UAAs (which in general I actually prefer)....just to make clear that my comments have nothing to do with any kind of superiority argument.

My point abut frosh was only to make the point that comparing undergrad to grad is not the same as comparing undergrad to undergrad....You're right about Amherst and MIT (not an Ivy), but there IS large crossover with Amherst/Williams and Dartmouth/Brown and even Harvard/Yale.   And attending HARVARD COLLEGE is very different than attending HARVARD University. 

I NEVER said Tufts WANTS to be in the UAA.  I've commented on how it is a lot like UAA schools. Big difference.  I'm sure Tufts is quite happy with their conference, and I also simply said I seriously doubted Tufts would have trouble getting in the AAU if so desired.

I also NEVER argued about the top 20 or 10% of D3 schools banding together as a powerful voting block to make major changes.  Perhaps you are conflating posters, like with Mr.Right perhaps.

In terms of need to argue and make counter-points we could have simply agreed from the top that NESCAC and UAA both share some commonalities with Ivies.  One would think that some deference would be given to folks who live where the Ivies and NESCACs live and have some feel for why they might be considered more alike than the UAAs.

Insisting on objecting to a term (and meaning) now common parlance?  OK, fine.  But you still know what the term (however wrongly you make think it's used) is getting at....and perhaps at some point we could hear your thoughts on that.   On a side note, what DO we think about $50 and $100 million D3 sports complexes, "tips" that are NOT equivalent with instrument players, merit money finding its way to athletes because somehow we can find a way to say that playing baseball contributes to the school mission as much as a poetry writer?