Something To Be Proud Of

There is a refrain repeated around Harvard again and again, and it goes something like this: Harvard is admitting too many dumb jocks and, somehow, athletic recruiting is deteriorating the quality of the student body. This view, as it is presented around campus, at times publicly, is pretty bold. It’s also wrong.

The admissions office webpage reads: “The Harvard Recruitment Program seeks to identify talented students from a wide spectrum of backgrounds. We are resolute in our belief that education is enriched by learning and living with individuals who represent many different talents, interests, and experiences.” In other words, a diverse student body is better than one without diversity, because learning isn’t confined to the classroom alone. Some people just aren’t convinced though, and while they would welcome students with a variety of interests with one hand, they would seek to push away athletes with the other.

Everyone without “naivety” knows Harvard isn’t admitting people based solely on GPA, SATs, or, for that matter, any other strictly “academic” measure of intellectual aptitude. What really smacks of naivety however, is thinking that last year’s record-matching athletes were any less qualified to be here than anyone else. It’s naïve because it shows a serious lack of knowledge about the recruiting process.

Recruiting at Harvard does not streamline unqualified applicants into the college. What it does do, however, is extend admissions’ ability to gather information about prospective students. Through coaches, who have a far better vantage point from which to judge an applicant’s character through commitment, dedication, and work ethic, admissions gains a perspective they could never otherwise achieve. In other words, admissions is better because of recruiting, not worse.

The recruiter is required to answer a simple question, which, depending on the response, makes an applicant into a prospective student or not: if, for any reason, this applicant were unable to take part in athletics, would he or she still be a valuable member of the student body? Every coach who recruits for Harvard knows this. Every member of the Admissions department who receives advice from coaches knows this. Every athlete at Harvard should know this, because they are the living truth behind this reality. It would be nice if every student at Harvard knew this, because it would take away some of the animosity athletes are subject to from pretentious non-athletes. Instead, however, derogatory terms like “gov-jocks” get thrown around as if athletes were unable to fulfill the requirements of any other program; this is insulting both to government concentrators and athletes alike.

Perhaps people have some stereotypes about athletes because of their limited contact with them. I, however, have seen a baseball player cut to the heart of romantic poetry, a lacrosse player with a rock-solid grasp of electoral reform, a rower receive top grades in statistics and calculus, another rower who, in addition to working an outside job, was a teaching fellow in engineering, and yes, I’ve seen a football player with the ability to converse about American literature with the profundity of a tenured professor. These are all varsity athletes, all clearly demonstrating more than enough that they belong here.

The fact is Harvard’s athletes are exceptional people like everyone else here. Perhaps more exceptional, given the pressure on their study time created by their extracurricular activities. Even with four-plus hours a day dedicated to practice, they graduate, get employed and contribute to their communities, countries, and Harvard financially, and in a plethora of other immeasurable ways. We’re also cooler.

Brendan D. B. Hodge ’07, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator (and athlete) in Cabot House.