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: observer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 12:03:47 01/25/25 Sat In reply to: M3 's message, "Re: Why Does Harvard Have A Women's Rugby Team?" on 11:24:05 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> 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 ]