to everyone bashing the ivy league

[yeeester]

certain reasons have been given for why the ivy league is "stupid".

a. that the ivy league was formed because their athletes were getting asses kicked in all the sports, so they couldn't compete with everyone else. they formed their league so the nerds could play against the nerds.

this is totally false. at the time when the ivy league was formed, several ivy league football teams were amongst the best in the nation. the ivy league was formed in 1955, only 5 years after the last time princeton won a division 1 national championship. the last ivy leaguer to win the heisman was also right before the creation of the league and loss of athletic scholarships, in 1051. the league was started because the presidents of these 8 schools thought that they should emphasize academics over athletics, so they agreed to never give athletic scholarships again. so, as a result of this, the "major" sports at ivy league schools have suffered since the creation of the league DUE TO LACK OF SCHOLARSHIPS.

b. that the ivy league sucks at all sports.

ask ucla fans how much princeton basketball sucks. they will remember. admittedly, football is awful in the ivy league. but a lot of other sports are really strong. some of them are the prep school sports like lacrosse and rowing, but there are others too (soccer and baseball are pretty strong). swimming, though not a major sport, is very strong here, and fairly comparable to the acc.

next time you bash the ivy leagues, know your info first.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Brickhouse]

edit: never mind - I just noticed the battle going on in the rankings thread....

 

[exmike]

number 3) Ivy league students had no sense of humor, so they had to start their own league to protect their sensitive personalities.



dude i was kidding about the ivy kids being nerdy and getting kicked around! sheesh! i'm pretty sure i wrote "j/k" with a right after.

Sorry if i hurt your feelings or something. Princeton lacross is the bomb, but not better than hopkins!

 

[snowbear]

Originally posted by yeeester
the last ivy leaguer to win the heisman was also right before the creation of the league and loss of athletic scholarships, in 1051.

Wow, ivy leagues are soooooooooo cool that they started 450 yrs before Colombus came to North America.

 

[exmike]

Originally posted by yeeester
the last ivy leaguer to win the heisman was also right before the creation of the league and loss of athletic scholarships, in 1051.

woah, i knew some ivy schools were old and all, but i didnt know they pre-dated columbus and perhaps some of the native americans!!

 

[TRUE]

I'm glad you could all use your power of inference to notice that the 1051 was meant to be a 1951. Guess that verbal MCAT section must have been really tough... j/k

 

[johnnyMD]

Originally posted by yeeester


b. that the ivy league sucks at all sports.

ask ucla fans how much princeton basketball sucks. they will remember. admittedly, football is awful in the ivy league. but a lot of other sports are really strong. some of them are the prep school sports like lacrosse and rowing, but there are others too (soccer and baseball are pretty strong). swimming, though not a major sport, is very strong here, and fairly comparable to the acc.

ask duke fan how much columbia ball suxxx. hint:
99-52, '99 season. at least we had kareem for a month!

 

[JohnHolmes]

Did the ivy league change much when the Normans invaded what is now UK in 1066? How did it survive the Old to Middle to Modern English transitions?

What Chaucer a member of the ivy league?

Was Beowulf the first Ivy League Fencer?

CCW

 

[leavesam]

Originally posted by Cooper_Wriston
Did the ivy league change much when the Normans invaded what is now UK in 1066? How did it survive the Old to Middle to Modern English transitions?

What Chaucer a member of the ivy league?

Was Beowulf the first Ivy League Fencer?

CCW

 

[leavesam]

Don't bash the OP for making one typo; his argument still stands.

 

[yeeester]

well i obviously didnt proofread my post. sorry bout that, it was 1951, as has been pointed out by someone above. i dont mind people making fun of the ivies, but do so with an informed stance. thats my only point. and yeah, hopkins lacrosse is pretty damn good.

 

[Dr. Chiquita]

Is hockey a preppy sport? Cornell made Frozen Four last year.

Gotta admit though that Ivy Leaguers are picked on the most on this forum with no fault of their own. So it can get kinda annoying.

 

[fullefect1]

I really liked Harvard football this year, and I do not think they are "awful" at all. Towards the end of the season, they didn't do as well as they should have. But I enjoyed watching their games, and yes I watched them on TV, they get played on a New England Sports channel.

 

[sfgboy]

What do sports have to do with the academic quality of an institution any way?

 

[raincrew]

sfgm112 What do sports have to do with the academic quality of an institution any way?

much more than we'd want to think. where would schools like notre dame, michigan, duke, or even stanford be without sports to enhance their national rep?

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by raincrew
much more than we'd want to think. where would schools like notre dame, michigan, duke, or even stanford be without sports to enhance their national rep?

They would be notre dame, michigan, duke, and stanford.

Academic reputation is academic reputation, and the kinds of people you care about knowing a school is good (hiring/personnel folks, admissions members) know those schools are good anyways.

True, the non-college educated, non-personnel hiring ESPN addict might gain something by hearing about those schools for their sports, but for the most part, the people that need to know about academic reputation know these schools anyway.

 

[DrJ2B]

Originally posted by Gleevec
They would be notre dame, michigan, duke, and stanford.

Academic reputation is academic reputation, and the kinds of people you care about knowing a school is good (hiring/personnel folks, admissions members) know those schools are good anyways.

True, the non-college educated, non-personnel hiring ESPN addict might gain something by hearing about those schools for their sports, but for the most part, the people that need to know about academic reputation know these schools anyway.

I second that! I highly doubt that achievement in sports is regarded in any respect in rankings (if you happen to care about them). NYU is a great school academically but we have horrible sports teams for the most part (unless you count swimming, volleyball, and tennis). We are the freakin' Violets for Pete's sake. We have a co-mascot, the Bobcat. Honestly, is a Bobcat any better?

 

[raincrew]

Originally posted by Gleevec
They would be notre dame, michigan, duke, and stanford.

Academic reputation is academic reputation, and the kinds of people you care about knowing a school is good (hiring/personnel folks, admissions members) know those schools are good anyways.

True, the non-college educated, non-personnel hiring ESPN addict might gain something by hearing about those schools for their sports, but for the most part, the people that need to know about academic reputation know these schools anyway.

agreed. but i think that sports can certainly significantly enhance academic rep over a number of years. imagine if the university of chicago had a sports team on par with say duke basketball. can you imagine how many more people would apply and how much more well known the school would be? sure chicago is a great school but imagine if everyone in the country knew how good it was rather than just a select few. prestige as acknowledged by the everyday person is at least somewhat important to many people. more prestige = higher caliber student body = better faculty coming in = more nih grants or whatever = better school. you can't make a school good w/ just sports but you can make a good school become a better one.

 

[NDESTRUKT]

i can't believe this thread even exists....who the hell cares if people are making fun of their school, many people that diss ivy league schools are sour grapes. people dissed my school all the time but i don't lose sleep over it...and i definitely don't start a thread over it.

 

[DMBUGA34]

agreed. but i think that sports can certainly significantly enhance academic rep over a number of years. imagine if the university of chicago had a sports team on par with say duke basketball. can you imagine how many more people would apply and how much more well known the school would be?

In support of your claim, I'll add that the last time Georgia Tech b-ball made it to the Final Four (go Cowboys ), applications to the school increased by 29% (as reported by the local news). Sometimes I wonder how much more popular Emory would be if they had a DI sports program since, for a highly ranked school, it seems few people outside of the south (and NY/NJ) know much about it. I'm sure that increased popularity would make admissions more competitive, leading to higher rankings.

Then again, if any teams get caught cheating, especially academic fraud, athletics can make schools look really bad (Damn you Harrick!)

 

[ice_23]

I think Northwestern had a record increase in applicants the year after they went to the Rose Bowl in 1995. I am assuming that the acceptance rate went down as a result, and *might* have helped the school's ranking marginally (although I don't remember).

-Ice

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by NDESTRUKT
i can't believe this thread even exists....who the hell cares if people are making fun of their school, many people that diss ivy league schools are sour grapes. people dissed my school all the time but i don't lose sleep over it...and i definitely don't start a thread over it.

You should ask for a refund. I'd go as far as to sue a public school if they allowed someone to graduate -- from junior high -- with your grammar.

 

[NDESTRUKT]

It's called postmodernism you dumba$$. Did you ever pay attention in English, or did they not teach this at your school? "..." 's are called ellipses. If you read more intelligent publications instead of just Maxim type magazines, maybe you'd see similar usage.

Once again, you have shown how unenlightened you can be. Keep coming, you make for mediocre comic relief, if anything.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by NDESTRUKT
It's called postmodernism you dumba$$. Did you ever pay attention in English, or did they not teach this at your school? "..." 's are called ellipses. If you read more intelligent publications instead of just Maxim type magazines, maybe you'd see similar usage.

Once again, you have shown how unenlightened you can be. Keep coming, you make for mediocre comic relief, if anything.

Wow. You *really* need to ask for a refund. Ellipses are meant to omit words from a sentence, NOT act as punctuation marks between sentences.

 

[NDESTRUKT]

If you really want to keep arguing about punctuation, be my guest. Ellipses have many uses, one of which can be used for omitted words in quotes. Although that is the case in most circumstances, authors in the modernist/post-modernist movement started using them in character's dialogues, sometimes in place of a hyphen. It helped illustrate the constant flow of thought, which is what modernism often wanted. An example would be:

"She had a pink...beige maybe...I don't know...bathing suit."

That example is taken from a short story by John Updike, if you know who he is.

Once again, ellipses in the "blue book" of grammar will not tell you this. You have to learn more modern types of uses. I would advise you to read more. You'd definitely see it used more often. Perhaps you could take a college level literature class, I'm sure your school has one.

And once again, you're wrong. Just because you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by NDESTRUKT
If you really want to keep arguing about punctuation, be my guest. Ellipses have many uses, one of which can be used for omitted words in quotes. Although that is the case in most circumstances, authors in the modernist/post-modernist movement started using them in character's dialogues, sometimes in place of a hyphen. It helped illustrate the constant flow of thought, which is what modernism often wanted. An example would be:

"She had a pink...beige maybe...I don't know...bathing suit."

Yeah, some bourgeois writer from the early 1900's is clearly the pinnacle of modern American English. Look, it's ok to be ignorant; work on it.

 

[NDESTRUKT]

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
Yeah, some bourgeois writer from the early 1900's is clearly the pinnacle of modern American English. Look, it's ok to be ignorant; work on it.

Because you're acumen isn't able to handle this, I'll outline it for you.

1. My point was that ellipses have been used as pauses and not just omitting of words in modern English. It's accepted by most publications and English writers. How was I to know you aren't analytical enough to catch that? I'll put it in simpler terms for you next time.

2. If you really knew about John Updike instead of superficially looking it up in google or whatever you did, you'd know he was from Harvard and even had a fellowship at Oxford in English. He was also a great contributor to the New Yorker in the 1960's to 1980's. The New Yorker is not a publication that appeals to most of the middle class, so I wouldn't say he was a bourgeois writer (or maybe you used the word incorrectly because you don't know what it means). Secondly, he was a writer in the POSTMODERN era, like I've said already. He was born in the 1930's but not a writer in the "early 1900's ". So once again you're wrong. It seems that in this case, you are the ignorant one. Take your own advice and "work on it".

 

[Luthertaketwo]

Originally posted by NDESTRUKT
Because you're acumen isn't able to handle this, I'll outline it for you.

1. My point was that ellipses have been used as pauses and not just omitting of words, but how was I to know you aren't analytical enough to catch that? I'll put it in simpler terms for you next time.

2. If you really knew about John Updike instead of superficially looking it up in google or whatever you did, you'd know he was from Harvard and even had a fellowship at Oxford in English. He was also a great contributor to the New Yorker in the 1960's to 1980's. So I wouldn't say he was a bourgeois writer (or maybe you don't know what that word means). Secondly, he was a writer in the POSTMODERN era, like I've said already. He was born in the 1930's but not a writer in the "early 1900's ". So once again you're wrong. It seems that in this case, you are the ignorant one. Take your own advice and "work on it".

Whatever, man. I didn't say he "wrote in the early 1900's." It's nice to see your reading comprehension matches your grammar skills. By the way, he is well known for his terrible grammar. He would make a great role model from some ignorant putz from an Ivy.

 

[NDESTRUKT]

Originally posted by Luthertaketwo
Whatever, man. I didn't say he "wrote in the early 1900's." It's nice to see your reading comprehension matches your grammar skills. By the way, he is well known for his terrible grammar. He would make a great role model from some ignorant putz from an Ivy.

"Whatever, man." Now that's a great comeback!

Where is he known for his bad grammar? Tell me what critic said that?

"He would make a great role model from some ignorant putz from an Ivy." Don't you mean "FOR some ignorant putz"? Looks like you aren't as grammatically talented as you claim to be.

Don't diss the Ivies, there's nothing wrong with them.

 

[jedirampage]

Originally posted by Gleevec
They would be notre dame, michigan, duke, and stanford.

Academic reputation is academic reputation, and the kinds of people you care about knowing a school is good (hiring/personnel folks, admissions members) know those schools are good anyways.

True, the non-college educated, non-personnel hiring ESPN addict might gain something by hearing about those schools for their sports, but for the most part, the people that need to know about academic reputation know these schools anyway.

This isn't entirely true. Alumni like to come bakc and have something to do/root for other than the number of kids with 1600 SATs they're going to get this year. Sports bring in alumni money, which in turn can help increase the overall quality of the education.

 

[BerkeleyPremed]

I agree with what the poster above said. A good sports team can't automatically make a school's reputation (academically), but it can make a good school into a great one. Everyone knows that UConn is great at men's basketball, but does anyone care about the academics at that school? Look at what happened to Stanford. Whereas before, only the elite at the top of American society even knew what Stanford was, many people from all socioeconomic levels know about Stanford today because of their good sports teams. The better the sports teams, the more recognition the school gets. Hopefully, this recognition can be converted into donations from the private sector (corporations and the trusts of wealthy individuals).

An example of sports teams helping a school out would be UPenn. David Pottruck (the CEO of Charles Schwab), donated X millions of dollars (I don't know the exact figure) for UPenn to build a new, state-of-the-art recreational-sports facility. The only reason Pottruck did this was because he played football during his days as a Penn undergrad and wanted to build a new facility for the student population at Penn. You can see the facility at this link...

http://www.upenn.edu/admissions/tour/tourstop.php?stop=28

P.S.: The only reason I know about Pottruck donating to Penn for the new facility was because he discussed it in a lecture given at the Haas School of Business at my school (see link below).

http://www.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/events.pl/ZOOM/16971

 

[Gleevec]

This isn't entirely true. Alumni like to come bakc and have something to do/root for other than the number of kids with 1600 SATs they're going to get this year. Sports bring in alumni money, which in turn can help increase the overall quality of the education.

I agree that sportscentric alumni give money to school and that indirectly raises academic reputation, but its not "UConn won both men's and women's national titles, I want to go to med school there because its awesome" or "Wow, USC and LSU split the national title, I really think these med schools are awesome."

What happens more often is ESPN will have announcers espouse the academic virtues of Stanford and Duke on sportscasts.

 

[sfgboy]

An example of sports teams helping a school out would be UPenn. David Pottruck (the CEO of Charles Schwab), donated X millions of dollars (I don't know the exact figure) for UPenn to build a new, state-of-the-art recreational-sports facility. The only reason Pottruck did this was because he played football during his days as a Penn undergrad and wanted to see Penn's team continue to excel so he decided to build them a beautiful, new recreational facility. You can see the facility at this link...

http://www.upenn.edu/admissions/tour/tourstop.php?stop=28

P.S.: The only reason I know about Pottruck donating to Penn for the new facility was because he discussed it in a lecture given at the Haas School of Business at my school (see link below).

http://www.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/events.pl/ZOOM/16971

BerkeleyPremed, the Pottruck fitness center is not the facility used by members of Penn's athletic teams (including the football team). They use exclusive gyms on the east side of campus at Hutch/Palestra or at Franklin Field. The Pottruck center is actually intended for the general university population.

 

[exmike]

What i find really funny is when the ignorant ESPN sportscasters talk about how the stanford and duke students are superior because they have both brains and athletic ability. HELLO!! They were recruited there for there ATHLETIC abilities, not because they got 1600's on their SATs!! While there may be some general trend (i.e. academially oriented prep stars might choose a stanford scholarship over a clemson scholarship), most of them are there b/c they are excellent ball players. I dont get how these sportscasters keep pumping these duke and stanford athletes like they're albert einstein michael jordan crosses! Its just wrong to assume that stanford and duke bball players are more academically talented than players at other schools (if not downright offensive to players from other schools).

 

[raincrew]

What i find really funny is when the ignorant ESPN sportscasters talk about how the stanford and duke students are superior because they have both brains and athletic ability. HELLO!! They were recruited there for there ATHLETIC abilities, not because they got 1600's on their SATs!! While there may be some general trend (i.e. academially oriented prep stars might choose a stanford scholarship over a clemson scholarship), most of them are there b/c they are excellent ball players. I dont get how these sportscasters keep pumping these duke and stanford athletes like they're albert einstein michael jordan crosses! Its just wrong to assume that stanford and duke bball players are more academically talented than players at other schools (if not downright offensive to players from other schools).

yeah seriously. i think stanford's average sat for football players is a 1100 and that's by far the highest for division I.

 

[Fermata]

The easiest way to analyze this is to pay attention when announcers tell you what majors the players all are.

There are a few engineers and chemists here and there but the rest...well....you know.....

 

[BerkeleyPremed]

BerkeleyPremed, the Pottruck fitness center is not the facility used by members of Penn's athletic teams (including the football team). They use exclusive gyms on the east side of campus at Hutch/Palestra or at Franklin Field. The Pottruck center is actually intended for the general university population.

Ah I see...sorry for the misleading comment.

 

[hypersting]

I think Northwestern had a record increase in applicants the year after they went to the Rose Bowl in 1995. I am assuming that the acceptance rate went down as a result, and *might* have helped the school's ranking marginally (although I don't remember).

-Ice

You stole the post of out of my mouth (hands?). In any case, because of back to back rose bowl and citrus bowls years, they shot up to number 9 in the rankings, their applications increased by about 2 - 3000 as I remember. There is a lag in the US News rankings, so the rankings increase affected most the entering classes of 98, 99, and 2000 ... as in the kids applying or in the first 2 years of Med School now Athletics absolutely helps academics and if you think Duke would be where it is without them, you need to look more closely at some of the evidence.

 

[harvardpremed]

I don't truly understand why the Ivy Leaguers are burned in effigy daily. I assume, if asked, the Ivy League students would probably have a different interpretation on certain subject matter than would one who does not not attend an Ivy League school.

The majority of Ivy League bashing though has been done by non Ivy League students. So my question is, not how, but why would one comment on an institution and it's teachings on a personal level, if these individuals have no actual personal Ivy League experience?

I don't necessarily take offense to Ivy League bashing. I just don't understand why it happens so frequently by non Ivy League students?

 

[tautomer]

I don't truly understand why the Ivy Leaguers are burned in effigy daily. I assume, if asked, the Ivy League students would probably have a different interpretation on certain subject matter than would one who does not not attend an Ivy League school.

The majority of Ivy League bashing though has been done by non Ivy League students. So my question is, not how, but why would one comment on an institution and it's teachings on a personal level, if these individuals have no actual personal Ivy League experience?

I don't necessarily take offense to Ivy League bashing. I just don't understand why it happens so frequently by non Ivy League students?

Loser. J/K!! In the words of Triumph, "I keeed, I keeed."

 

[BerkeleyPremed]

I don't truly understand why the Ivy Leaguers are burned in effigy daily. I assume, if asked, the Ivy League students would probably have a different interpretation on certain subject matter than would one who does not not attend an Ivy League school.

The majority of Ivy League bashing though has been done by non Ivy League students. So my question is, not how, but why would one comment on an institution and it's teachings on a personal level, if these individuals have no actual personal Ivy League experience?

I don't necessarily take offense to Ivy League bashing. I just don't understand why it happens so frequently by non Ivy League students?

The most bashed schools on these forums actually aren't Ivy league schools. The most frequently bashed schools are Washington University of St. Louis (I don't even have to state why it gets bashed), Stanford University (the numbers cutoff here baffles applicants...hence, why it gets bashed), and Tufts University (it costs a fortune...but is ranked pretty low). The ONLY Ivy League school that does get bashed is Columbia and I'm pretty sure that's because the MCAT and GPA averages at Columbia are so high. Overall, I would say the Ivies are held in pretty high regard by the students here at SDN.

 

[harvardpremed]

I appreciate your post and I do agree, my question is more general, not so much as it only gets bashed on SDN because I know Columbia get's the brunt of it. My question was meant to be more general. But I guess that's just naysayers and Harvard hasn't really been touched on, so I agree.

 

[uclacrewdude]

I don't truly understand why the Ivy Leaguers are burned in effigy daily. I assume, if asked, the Ivy League students would probably have a different interpretation on certain subject matter than would one who does not not attend an Ivy League school.

The majority of Ivy League bashing though has been done by non Ivy League students. So my question is, not how, but why would one comment on an institution and it's teachings on a personal level, if these individuals have no actual personal Ivy League experience?

I don't necessarily take offense to Ivy League bashing. I just don't understand why it happens so frequently by non Ivy League students?

two critical reasons i think ivy leagues get bashed:

1) lack of sports programs means they are detached from the real world. happy, healthy students are good students. the best school should have awesome academics and sports, like ucla, prior to the suckening steve lavin and bob toledo engendered. the healthiest people, physically, emotionally, and mentally, are athletes.

2) people get bumped from admit spots b/c of name recognition. harvard is more harvard b/c of the names. i was talking to someone last night who goes to NYU law with a lot of ivy leaguers -- they all had really awesome LORs that were essentially just handed to them. i dont think connections should be just given to you -- you need to earn it. solution: less emphasis on LORs and school name, more emphasis on curriculum rigor and interview.

 

[BaseballFan]

two critical reasons i think ivy leagues get bashed:

1) lack of sports programs means they are detached from the real world. happy, healthy students are good students. the best school should have awesome academics and sports, like ucla, prior to the suckening steve lavin and bob toledo engendered. the healthiest people, physically, emotionally, and mentally, are athletes.
QUOTE]

Ivy leagues surely don't have a lack of sports programs. If anything, they have too many sports teams!

For example *about* 15% of all Dartmouth undergrads are varsity athletes. We have only ~4500 undergrads, but 34 full varsity teams. Same goes for the rest of the Ivy leagues, with slightly lower percentages since other schools have fewer undergrads than Dartmouth does.

I think UCLA has ~25 varsity teams, and somewhere around 25,000 undergraduates.

Based on your argument, that the healthiest people etc. are athletes, then wouldn't Dartmouth be a healthier campus than UCLA, since a higher percentage of students are varsity athletes?

Just because the programs aren't the tops in the nation in the most well-known sports, doesn't mean that there are fewer athletes!

 

[celticmists18]

one reason than people who did not attend an ivy league school tend to be a bit hostile toward them (and this is my main reason for being so critical of them) is that we are tired of our schools being belittle because they haven't been around for over a century and built up a name recongnized by the general populus. I can't tell you how many times at interviews ivy leaguers gave me a blank stare when I told them what school I went to (right before cutting me out of the conversation). I'm not saying ivies don't give you a great education, but people who go to them seem to think they are the ONLY places that can. (hahaha, I went to a state school, saved a boat load of money, and got one of the best education in biology in the country). just some food for thought.

 

[Fish3715]

one reason than people who did not attend an ivy league school tend to be a bit hostile toward them (and this is my main reason for being so critical of them) is that we are tired of our schools being belittle because they haven't been around for over a century and built up a name recongnized by the general populus. I can't tell you how many times at interviews ivy leaguers gave me a blank stare when I told them what school I went to (right before cutting me out of the conversation). I'm not saying ivies don't give you a great education, but people who go to them seem to think they are the ONLY places that can. (hahaha, I went to a state school, saved a boat load of money, and got one of the best education in biology in the country). just some food for thought.

Exactly. Also, some people assume that if you're going to a state school or a fairly unknown private school that you must be inferior in intelligence to those at more well-known schools. Sigh...