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: Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team? Author: Tiger69 [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:47:20 01/24/25 Fri In reply to: An Observer 's message, "Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team?" on 01:14:44 01/22/25 Wed 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? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> 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 ]