Debating the transfer ban

Whatever the other arguments for or against admitting transfer students (Extra Point, Oct. 24), football “parity” ranks at the bottom of my list. Indeed, our former president Bill Bowen *58, co-author of The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values, might well respond to that argument with mighty oaths were he not a true gentleman. That study’s empirical evidence, which included Princeton, identified: (a) that the true bottom line of athletics programs is red ink, (b) there’s almost no chance any more of walk-on players participating in major-sport intercollegiate competition, (c) the majority of alumni do not consider boosting support of athletics a priority, but trustee positions are over-weighted in favor of former athletes, (d) athletes on the whole have significantly lower academic performance than the general student population, (e) athletic-weighted admissions improve diversity measures by a paltry 1 percent, (f) admission committees are hesitant to admit an athlete with a stronger academic record, rather than a person the coach has specifically recruited for his team ... and the list goes on. By all means, let Princeton revisit its transfer policy, but sports parity should be given the low, or even negative, weight it deserves in the universe of values and priorities that a great university must uphold.