<p>Continuing with JHS’s question: Dancers? That’s a tough one. On the one hand, I would not enjoy watching a clumsy or unmusical dancer who is trying hard. At one point, my spouse and I had season tickets to the San Francisco Ballet, and we enjoyed their performances very much. On the other hand, more recently I have learned quite a lot more about the dance world–among other things, about the toll that dancing en pointe takes, especially on the feet, even if one has excellent technique and strength, and about the incidence of injury. I have also learned about overwhelming preferences for particular body types–to the point that a very graceful and musical dancer who is just not built right has no real prospects. This understanding has considerably diminished my joy in watching ballets.</p>
<p>^^and he graduated with a degree in Architectural Design/engineering dept…Mark Appel/pitcher…#1 draft pick in major league baseball graduated with degree in material science engineering…both considered tough majors…</p>
<p>…I don’t think they’ll have to worry about their future job prospects for now…nonetheless, they will have job security…</p>
<p>Then the Nobel Laureate who is not a native English speaker–I’m not complaining about that. As Casimir remarked in his autobiography, “broken English” is the international scientific language. If one is going to be a scientist, one had better learn to understand it.</p>
<p>Student complaints are sometimes exaggerated. One of my friends is a Stanford professor who received a comment (on a teaching evaluation) that said, “I can’t stand his Brooklyn accent.” I have another friend who is from Poland originally, and has truly excellent English. Students complained that this friend was impossible to understand. Not really, her accent was quite light.</p>
<p>Then to what I was advocating: elimination of physical advantages when it doesn’t change the nature of the sport. For example (knowing nothing about fencing), I think it would be interesting to have epees of various lengths, so that people could compete in matches where the outstretched arm + epee lengths were equal. I might even watch such a match. </p>
<p>It’s a semi-serious suggestion. Would this disrupt the sport completely? I can see that the competitors would have to adjust to the varying epee lengths, which might throw them off a bit, but it seems to me that it would favor broad-based athleticism. I can also see that the flexibility of the epees might be a problem, if the lengths were quite different.</p>
<p>Re texaspg, #131–to each his own. Is there some other Andrew Luck who actually won the Nobel Prize? Of course, Google would give the football player first . . . :)</p>
<p>I don’t think there is another Luck. His dad is an AD at WVU. I am saying that being a number 1 pick in NFL is as elusive as a Nobel Prize and it is harder since it can only happen at only one point in your life.</p>
<p>By the way…texas, OP and others who may remember the heroic accomplishments of Eric Heiden from Wisconsin who transferred to Stanford (holds B.S. and M.D. from Stanford)…considered one of the greatest Olympians of all time…I still have goose bumps recalling witnessing his achievements during the Olympics…</p>
<p>[Eric</a> Heiden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Heiden]Eric”>Eric Heiden - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I’m reminded of my days at a small college in the mid 80’s. Patrick Ewing was the dominant player in college basketball. My school recruited a 7 foot white kid named Ewing. Never played ball before, but they gave him a scholarship. Figured a 7 footer named Ewing can’t be bad. He was.</p>
<p>I believe fencing exists only so some kids can get into Ivies. :p</p>
<p>There is are many from my town who have made it to nationals and internationals. Couple of them were my kid’s classmates. One of them was one of the best viola players who was recruited by an Ivy and I did not even know the kid had any athletic abilities let alone at a national level. That is one sport I think is determined by nothing more than practice and tenacity but it might have a lot to do with coaching too.</p>
<p>Quant. regarding #133. Off the top of my head…I can think of two such individuals who are considered two of the greatest minds of the 20th century…Niels Bohr and Edwin Hubble…</p>
<p>…Niels Bohr, a theoretical physicist who won the Nobel Prize for Physics, according to most biographies was considered a great athlete who could have easily made the Olympic soccer team to represent Denmark along with his younger brother Harald (mathematician) if he had wanted to…</p>
<p>[Niels</a> Bohr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr]Niels”>Niels Bohr - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>…and Edwin Hubble…considered one of the greatest astronomers in history…according to many of the biographies was considered a great athlete who could have easily pursued a professional/Olympic career if he had so desired…</p>
<p>[Edwin</a> Hubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble]Edwin”>Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>…thank goodness, both Bohr and Hubble were too busy contributing to our body of knowledge instead of pursuing their love of sports and competition…</p>
<p>…so please stop knocking athletics and academia…they are not mutually exclusive…at schools like Stanford, Harvard, et al…</p>
<p>Meanwhile, investment banks like lacrosse players.
[Wall</a> Street’s Lacrosse Mafia - Businessweek](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>I got your meaning texaspg #131. (Hence the “to each his own.”) The comment about some other person named Luck actually winning the Nobel Prize was a joke.</p>
<p>I am the person who came up with the Hershbach example, and said that I imagine that Stanford gets a lot of the people who are both academically and athletically outstanding. Stanford would be a logical choice for those students. </p>
<p>Since Bohr was a Dane, I am certain that his athleticism did not play a role in his admission to university. Hubble went to the University of Chicago, which would certainly have admitted him on academic merit alone.</p>
<p>I don’t have anything against athletes. I just don’t think athleticism should be a plus for college admission. I realize that a lot of people are really into athletics and think that it should be a plus. That side seems to be winning consistently in the US.</p>
<p>As I mentioned on the thread about the student contemplating leaving Stanford for Wisconsin: Since Bohr was a Dane, I am essentially certain that his athleticism did not play a role in his university admission. Hubble went to the University of Chicago and I believe that he would have been admitted on academic merit alone.</p>
<p>I am not knocking athletics, per se. People have a right to spend their spare time in any way they choose. People need some non-academic “down” time to be at their best academically–in my opinion, at least.</p>
<p>I realize that exceptional athleticism can be combined with exceptional academics. I do kind of admire Tenley Albright, the Olympic figure skater.</p>
<p>I just don’t think that athletics should be a plus when it comes to university admissions. I don’t care how my university’s teams perform. I realize that I am in a minority in this view, and don’t see admissions offices changing any time soon. So people with the majority opinion are clearly winning. Do you object that I don’t share your opinion?</p>
<p>QuantMech, I sure wasn’t suggesting that YOU objected to broken English in the classroom. It’s just a theme that gets repeated a lot on CC, with the assumption that a teacher has nothing worthwhile to offer if the students have to work to understand him or her, and noting that facility with English is something of a function of birth circumstances, not intelligence or merit.</p>
<p>You are right that ballet is as body-specific as basketball, maybe more so, and more dangerous to one’s health, too. (And that’s not even counting the psychological dimension of spending all day looking at yourself in a mirror while someone who barely speaks English yells at you that everything about your body is wrong. Which is a fair description of how classical dancers spend their early teens.) There are other forms of dance that are more accepting of different body types.</p>
<p>Basketball, ballet, and math departments all tend to be a display of genetic freaks who have survived a brutal winnowing process, doing beautiful things.</p>
<p>Quant. I respect your views…and where you are coming from…I use to have “similar” views…but I have become enlightened over the years…so, no problems here…</p>
<p>Do you want to post an example from the last 20 years, where there is a lot more competition to get onto a D1 athletic team?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She’s actually 64 years old. And yes, she’s been accused of cheating.</p>
<p>She was on the Ellen DeGeneres show today, but didn’t speak to the accusations. But they are out there. People are not believing she did the entire swim without breaks where she could hang onto the boat, or other people. She has some sort of documentary or something coming out later this month.</p>
<p>QM, please look at the post I answered to. While there are limits to the value of being Val, it still represents excellence at that school. I did not intimate that recruited athletes are on their way to winning a Nobel prize. But come to think about it, some particularly undeserving characterS bagged the explosive prize. Think peace for a full reference.</p>
<p>Just for clarity, I would like to again acknowledge that there are some people who are excellent athletes and excellent scholars. Why wouldn’t there be? One of my Dad’s cousins was in this group; he was a Heisman Trophy winner.</p>
<p>Nor am I “dissing” high school valedictorians, even if a school has 40+ of them. The designation does represent a certain level of academic accomplishment. I am not sure about the number of valedictorians named by schools in Texas–perhaps they have only one per school, in which case it’s even more impressive.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are some recruited athletes who just meet the NCAA minimum for eligibility, which is pretty low. I am not saying that Stanford is admitting anyone who just meets the NCAA minimum–I am essentially certain that they do not, regardless of how talented the person is athletically.</p>
<p>
Have you ever heard of a man by the name of Richard Sherman?</p>