Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: An Observer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 01:14:44 01/22/25 Wed I have written on this message board many times that it is downright weird for Harvard College to field 41 varsity sports, more than any other university in the country. I've also said that it's insane for any American college to sponsor a women's rugby team. That includes Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown, Princeton and who knows who else right here in our conference. And by "insane," I specifically mean to set aside dedicated slots for recruited athletes at the undergraduate admissions office. I've got nothing against the sport of rugby or the idea of women playing a physically violent game like rugby. Furthermore, I certainly support the idea of women's rugby as a club sport. But giving 30 to 40 slots at the admissions office to field a competitive Division I women's rugby team when the overall admissions rate at Harvard and Princeton are 4-5%? That is insane. Malcolm Gladwell is one of my favorite authors and he has just published a book called "The Revenge of the Tipping Point," an intellectual sequel to the 2000 best seller which arguably lifted Gladwell from the pages of The New Yorker to a mass audience, "The Tipping Point." Chapter Five of Gladwell's new book is entitled, "The Mysterious Case of the Harvard Women's Rugby Team." In it, he answers the question that I have asked, "Why the hell do Harvard and Princeton sponsor women's rugby teams?" Speaking of intellectual sequels, Gladwell's work in this chapter is a direct sequel to the seminal treatise on this subject, Jerome Karabel's 2006 achievement, "The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton." Spoiler alert: We'll go right to Gladwell's conclusion. Gladwell asserts that Ivy and other elite universities sponsor two, three, four or five times as many varsity sports as the so-called sports factories in the Big Ten or the SEC for one overriding reason: to create a backdoor at the admissions office by which they can recruit and matriculate more wealthy, socially conditioned and overwhelmingly white students who are children of college educated parents. In other words, with the notable exceptions of basketball and football, virtually all of the other sports on Ivy campuses are in Gladwell's opinion an institutionalized affirmative action program for white students. Gladwell paraphrases and quotes directly from Karabel's book extensively. Of course, Karabel's treatise is about how HYP in the 1920's looked at the growing Jewish population at Columbia and decided that following the phenomenon unfolding in upper Manhattan would be the death knell for HYP as educators of the Eastern WASP elite. As a response, they instituted the "holistic" admissions practices we know today so that they could get away from the purely numbers-based admissions practices that were not yielding the student bodies they wanted. By Gladwell's reasoning, the recent lawsuits won by plaintiffs suing Harvard and North Carolina show that the admissions offices have a variety of tools used to socially engineer their student bodies. At the top of the list are using varsity sports to get more rich white kids on campus. https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Tipping-Point-Overstories-Superspreaders/dp/B0D5RFG8KQ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2TFDEGEUJOVK8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.58jLivRF9VyMyfeOLw1RsriRX-zfg1dx8Wa4UOevt_LCFGup3_H1PlSm8JvIWWJCJzp68bUHmarKjPq6pyiMwYc5pw7-YzXXoOkGuCgI9wwILjqBNB20gfnsRz5xJa-GFuH2c7cJsK4uPcsG6VHn4w3AfBt8fVbvL7gIXdw22F7sqieMPwhg_X_OutqIrPKo4zLJWmKLygmyCB6TwqmfmInR8NCOZUtNeguEyS1rVKk.mXVb97YsfGI8sp-tDkB6kq0kxNEglbI95qPOlKanmK0&dib_tag=se&keywords=revenge+of+the+tipping+point+gladwell&qid=1737525644&s=books&sprefix=Reven%2Cstripbooks%2C135&sr=1-1 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: SpuytenDuyvil76 (veritas) [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 06:04:26 01/22/25 Wed I don't think women's rugby, gets 30 to 40 slots. No way. Probably get 5 or 6. BTW, out of a roster (per website) of 30 players, at least 1/3rd appear of color, or what could be called "non-white". I do wonder about the intentionality cited by Gladwell and his primary source. The effect in some of the other sports, however, is undeniable. PS: In the 1920's, HYP didn't have to look far afield. They could see for themselves what their own purely merit based, academic only admissions numbers were telling them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? (Answer...) Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 06:46:42 01/22/25 Wed Harvard has a women's rugby team because they can't stand Dartmouth dominating anything. :) [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:07:17 01/22/25 Wed It's not Rugby. It's Field Hockey. Lacrosse. Swimming. Sailing. Skiing. Cross Country. Golf. Tennis. Squash. Fencing. The irony is that for some of those, it helps Asian and Asian-American applicants as much as, if not more than, whites. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: M3 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:24:49 01/22/25 Wed What is the point of this ridiculous post? To begin with women's varsity rugby in the IL gets between 3 to 7 slots depending on the school. Many of these recruited athletes happen to be international students or persons of color Recruited athletes in the Ivy League must be a certain race to satisfy Mr Gladwell? Should these rules be extended to students who are going to be in the orchestra/acapella groups/drama group/potential editors of campus magazines and newspapers? Please stop the social engineering Mr Gladwell and his cronies can get bent. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:43:45 01/22/25 Wed The point is that Gladwell is saying that the schools are doing the social engineering, not him. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: M3 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:11:38 01/22/25 Wed No the schools are not social engineering-they are fielding athletic teams They are fielding the teams because they choose to No explanation is needed BTW the teams are/were not created to allow more students of a certain demographic to attend the schools [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:09:42 01/22/25 Wed I think it is more financial - some of these sports are intended to assure a greater portion of student body that pays full freight to relieve the burden on endowments. (Except possibly in Dartmouth's case, where the desire to claim a "championship" may be overpowering, but that's another matter. And of course Harvard (and likely others) has/have 41 sports by classifying 4 different crew teams as separate sports.) As others have said, some so-called minor sports feature a higher proportion of non-white participants than the general population. Check out any tennis or golf roster, among others. I agree with your take on NIL generally, but the fact is that if a college wants intercollegiate sports (other than ultimate frisbee), it has little alternative to creating admission slots. As far as I know, even D3 and virtually all other schools not caught up in the NIL - or athletic scholarship - frenzy - have admission slots. Without them, eventually you will have uncompetitive teams. Since one essential mission of a university is to assure alumni funding to support the school, and from what I have read athletes lead the way in this area (apart from the occasional Bezos and such unicorns), schools don't have much choice in the long run if they want to maintain as strong an alumni network as possible (which I gather is already weakening in the ivies due significantly to lack of student sports interest). Bottom line - while lacking M3's clarity, I also don't care about Gladwell's apparent argument as described in your post. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Ouch! Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:38:25 01/22/25 Wed Well done! That dig hurt! :) [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:58:59 01/22/25 Wed It sounds like no one on this board has heard of Title 9. Some of the women's teams were created since the 1970s in light of the extensive men's program already in place at the Ivies. How many colleges/universities offer ice hockey, lacrosse (in the 1970s) fencing, squash for example? Since the Ivies already had those programs, the easiest way to satisfy Title 9, especially the way it has usually been interpreted by the Office for Civil Rights at DoEd, and probably some courts, is to add a women's counterpart. Football, with its large numbers and no counterpart sport, no doubt was an element in the creation of some women's sports in light of Title 9. In addition to title 9, I think Ivy school administrators like the idea of wide opportunity, including for women. P starting taking 3 rugby recruits a year when the program went varsity. Odd how that number matches the reduction in Ivy football recruits per year. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: P.S./H's cares Author: Bengal [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:11:01 01/22/25 Wed Add wrestling as another men's team with no current counterpart on the women's side, albeit that may change. Right now, wrestling adds to the number of male athletes necessitating some balancing for women's sports. Doubt very much H added women's rugby out of angst about DC winning in a sport. If anyone wants to report on the number of DC's Ivy titles in each of the last 5 years titles were awarded I would guess H has more, probably alot more...maybe I am wrong on the H record. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Timely observation Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:19:11 01/22/25 Wed Girls' wrestling is in the spotlight! https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/01/22/girls-high-school-wrestling/ [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why do Harvard and Dartmouth have ski teams? Author: RedWin [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:39:50 01/24/25 Fri It's been previously mentioned on this forum some of the bogus sports for rich country club kids in the Ivy League. These parents who ship their kids away to $75K ski and snowboard schools, with very questionable academics. Yes of course those kids qualify for recruiting slots too. The list goes on and on.............. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: For one thing.. Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:09:22 01/24/25 Fri My understanding is that Dartmouth essentially invented collegiate skiing competition. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: Tiger69 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:47:20 01/24/25 Fri Princeton (and harvard) have a broad range of athletic teams because enough students WANT them. Period. It not only reflects the diversity of undergraduate backgrounds. It also demonstrates the belief that athletics can be an important factor in a well rounded educational experience. I had a college roommate who played rugby back in the day when it was still a club sport. His team would rough it up against teams from other colleges in the afternoon and then socialize with their counterparts that evening over a few pints. The few fans who showed up at their matches were dates, friends, and a few rugby aficionados. But, who the hell should college sports be for if not the undergraduates themselves? [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:24:06 01/24/25 Fri T69, what you just described is why Princeton, Harvard and all Ivies have a wide range of CLUB sports, because students WANT them. Nobody anywhere is objecting to students on campus organizing and competing because they love the sport or the camraderie post-game. The issue on the table is not, "Is rugby a good sport?" or "Should Princeton students -- male and female -- have the opportunity to play rugby against other colleges?" The question on the table is, "In an era of 4-5% admission rates, should Princeton and Harvard set aside dedicated slots at the admissions office to recruit women rugby players, or men skiers, or sailors, or equestrian riders?" There is a cost to everything. In this case, the main cost is not financial, it's slots at the admissions office. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: Tiger69 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:35:14 01/25/25 Sat AO. If the issue is as you say, then why not look to the sports that tie up the most admissions slots? Let’s see… big team sports. Football? Soccer? Lacrosse? Track? I don’t think so. The number of undergraduates is nearly 50% greater than when I attended. Don’t tell me that all those new slots have been committed to new varsity sports. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: M3 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:24:05 01/25/25 Sat "In an era of 4-5% admission rates, should Princeton and Harvard set aside dedicated slots at the admissions office to recruit women rugby players, or men skiers, or sailors, or equestrian riders?" If academically qualified? Yes Next question [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:03:47 01/25/25 Sat Define "academically qualified." Because, apparently for a lot of Asians without a sports background, a 4.0 GPA with perfect board scores isn't enough. Same as it was for Jews at Harvard in the mid 20th Century. That's the argument that has been posited. And nobody has really refuted it. The Ivies like to hang their hat on "academic qualification," yet we all know that the AI allows for sports admits who are not top of their high school class, when the valedictorian from the same high school gets wait listed by the same college which admits the athlete. So either it's all about academics, or it isn't. And if it isn't, that's ok, just cop to it and stop with the bull$hit. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: M3 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:59:52 01/25/25 Sat Academically qualified If the student works they don't flunk out. Otherwise the meritocracy you envision is we start with admitting the highest SAT/ACT/Achievement scores and work our way backwards for admission. No thanks [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Um, no Author: sparman [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:11:27 01/25/25 Sat A false comparison. Colleges can believe that having athletes in a class contributes to a general overall experience that is greater than simply having validictorians (Asian or otherwise). This is part of fostering an overall academic environment. It's not necessary to go a further step and hire professional athletes to accomplish such a goal. At least it wasn't when I was in school. Some schools may decide that, for them, it IS necessary (if athletic programs are their main distinguishing feature) and thus they accept the cesspool. Let them proceed accordingly. That hardly makes it bullsh*t for the ivies to follow the non-professional route, any more than it does for highly academic, and athletically competitive, D3 schools. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Um, yes Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:39:30 01/25/25 Sat Do you really think that Stanford's and Michigan's main identifying features are sports, and sports alone? Does Michigan's National Championship last year minimize the excellence of its undergraduate programs (not to mention its medical school, law school and business school)? Does Stanford's hold on the Learfield Trophy and raft of Hall of Fame alumni such as John Elway, Mike Mussina, Tiger Woods (among others) diminish its academic programs? This binary thinking of either one or the other is dooming the Ivy League to eventual D3 status. One can be all of the above without injuring the institution. Everyone knows that sacrifices have always been made at the admissions office in the service of politics, optics, development and the personal preference of Trustees and Presidents (if not faculty coercion, as well). The idea that Ivy schools should not embrace the new era of NCAA sports because it's "bad for our image" might be the single best reason to do so. The image of the eight schools has never been lower in the public eye. The attendance data is one of those indicators. Maybe focusing on Bread and Circus instead of Protest and Resistance might help, not hurt, the ancient eight. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: joiseyfan [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:36:06 01/25/25 Sat observer — Princeton has far more valedictorians applying than admission slots. Harvard has more 4.0/perfect board applicants than admission slots. Even raising this as an issue obfuscates the real challenge of creating a vibrant, self-educating class each year. Give the admissions office a break. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Women's Rugby, Men's Skiing, Sailing, Equestrian. Where Does It End? Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:04:44 01/25/25 Sat Alpine skiers? Check. Sailors? Check. Equestrian riders? Check. Why not chess then? What's that? It's not a sport? Chess players don't sweat? I am a lifelong sailor and chess player. I can attest that, when played at a championship level, there is more sweating going on at a chess table than in the cockpit of a sailboat. What's that? Chess is too esoteric, too obscure? I can guarantee you that the most popular "sport" on every single Ivy League campus right now is poker. Is it a "sport"? It's on ESPN, CBS Sports and regional sports networks more than skiing, sailing or equestrian, I'll tell you that. The market has spoken. Do you support Ivy League varsity chess teams or poker teams? Just because you have a requisite number of individuals on campus who like a particular game or sport does not justify setting aside preferred slots at the admissions office for a varsity team. [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The "Happy Bottom Quarter" Debate has been going on for a while Author: Go Green [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:30:32 01/26/25 Sun This is really more of the same... [ Post a Reply to This Message ]

[> [> Subject: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: Drew2411 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:03:38 01/25/25 Sat Not only does no one flunk out of an Ivy anyomore, no one gets below a 3.5.,,grade inflation is absurd [ Post a Reply to This Message ]