| Subject: Shot Across The Bow Indeed, Nelson Has Just Engaged at Trafalgar |
Author:
An Observer
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:28:51 10/17/24 Thu
In reply to:
observer
's message, "Shot across the bow" on 09:53:20 10/17/24 Thu
I'm not certain that D-III is a certainty, but observer's observation (See what I did there?) that this appeared in a Harvard-owned publication with the implicit approval and support of McDermott is indeed striking.
Who knows what the medium- and long-term will bring? But here's something that is likely to attract more attention in the short-term. It's something that we on this board take for granted because we live it every day. But outside of nut job Ivy sports fans like us, very few people think about it.
From the article:
"Deprioritizing athletics could also help Harvard create a more diverse class, argues [endowed professor of history Maya] Jasanoff. That task has become more difficult since June 2023, when the Supreme Court outlawed affirmative action in undergraduate admissions. 'The demographics of recruited athletes are richer, whiter, and less often first-generation than the demographics of the class as a whole,' she points out. The only two exceptions to the pattern, to her knowledge, are basketball and football—the two sports most dramatically reshaped by NIL."
At Harvard and especially Princeton, a huge percentage of the student body is a varsity athlete, in the neighborhood of 17-19%. Yale is not far behind at about 15%.
Students are marching in Harvard Yard and social science faculty are working to protect affirmative action under a different name. Outside parties are trying to counterattack by tearing down legacy preferences. Meanwhile, sitting over there in the corner is one-sixth to one-fifth of the student body which is, as the article says, likely to be whiter, richer and more educated than the other four-fifths of the campus.
How much longer can this overlooked group of rich, white and educated students be tolerated in admission offices already straining from all the various constituencies who want a foot in the door?
I've said on this board many times that I don't understand why Harvard proudly touts its 42 varsity sports. Sponsoring more varsity sports isn't something to be proud of, any more than is buying a BMW instead of a Chevy when you already live in a wealthy town. We know you have the money, now we just see how you choose to spend it. That doesn't impress.
Look at all the people who want to reinstitute affirmative action under a slightly different process with a very different name. Then look at all the people who want to tear down legacy admissions.
Then ask yourself the following: How much longer can Harvard and Princeton sponsor a women's rugby team?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 