<p>Another story from the Dec. 4 New York Times</p>
<p>That facility was built out of donations of alumni who SPECIFICALLY wanted their money to be allocated to the building of a new sports facility. EVERYONE on campus uses it, not just the varsity athletes. The old gym/locker rooms were absolutely atrocious. Also, you can't build everything at once. I heard there's going to be some new construction for the arts in the future.</p>
<p>Mark Gould is my academic advisor. He is a VERY intelligent and respectable man. HOWEVER, he is also extremely opinionated about Haverford, and that's fine, but I really don't think that his opinion reflects what Haverford is truly about. The first day I walked into his office, he told me that 99.9% of Haverford students are complete morons. (Great thing to say to a nervous freshman.) Okay.. and yet you see Haverford students doing great things in the world. But fine, freedom of speech applies here, I suppose. He doesn't respect his colleagues, either, though. When I showed interest in taking an intro to psych course, he told me that the two psych professors had combined iqs of a dead muskrat, and essentially tore apart nearly every department/class/person at the college. Most people have a hard time dealing with him because he is notorious for hating Haverford (except for the sociology department, surprise surprise).</p>
<p>I have met some very bright students here that I did not even realize were recruited varsity athletes. Their work ethics are just as strong, if not stronger, than some non-athletes since they are forced to stay on a strict schedule due to practices, games, etc. and thus are forced to finish their work with enough time to sleep for their physical well-being. I worked my ass off in high school. I took 10 AP courses, received a 1510 on my SATs, was in the top 1% of my class, and was an active member of several school clubs.. in addition to travelling all over the east coast for sports and waking up at 5 am on saturday mornings to get to my 7 am practices. Yet somehow, merely because I'm an athlete, I don't deserve to be here? I'm sorry, but that's completely ridiculous. If anything, accomplish student-athletes show they are just as capable academically due to the additional factor of time spent on sports. I would have gotten into Haverford here regardless of the recruiting process.</p>
<p>I have friends that are non-athletes, as well. Yes, my closest friends are on my team, but is that all too surprising? I spend the most time with them; I bond with them. That's how people make friends: through common interests. Sorry if I came off too strong, but this is a very sensitive subject for me.</p>
<ul>
<li>accomplished student-athletes</li>
</ul>
<p>Funny thing when my high school D and I visited Haverford this fall and ate in the student cafeteria. One dining table was sitting atop several temporary wooden risers stacked on top of each other at the far end of the cafeteria. Several buff football-player types were the only ones eating there. My D dryly commented "I've heard that athletes are put on a pedestal at some colleges, but I think this is the first time I've actually seen it with my own eyes"!</p>
<p>I personally think this athlete-nonathlete issue is blown out of proportion. I agree with starz, and, to be honest, i don't even know what the fight is about. There is NO difference between athletes and nonathletes. No difference in academic ability and no difference in the way that the two groups are treated. If you got in, it's because you deserved it. End of story. We got a brand new building with brand new equipment for EVERYONE to use, and some people can't stop complaining about it. I bet they hate the presents, birthdays, and puppies too. </p>
<p>p.s.
also, i hear gould is pretty mean. and that comment in the paper was ridiculous and embarassing.</p>
<p>Haverford does not even have a football team so they surely were not put on a pedestal.</p>
<p>please. there is a difference between athletes and nonathletes and there always will be. is it a matter of intellectual abilitity? absolutely not. it's just a matter of social division.</p>
<p>now this isn't your jock-beats-up-on-nerd high school sitcom crap. it's just a matter of who "rolls" with whom and who's at which parties. nothing big. generally speaking, more jocks will be at drinker parties and more hipsters will be at lunt gallery openings. period. who was the last fine arts major to attend a soccer game? or how many athletes saw animal collective last year? yep. there is a definite difference in social distibution and to deny it is just quintessential haverfordian idealism (cf. most posts). but remember this isn't a caste system.</p>
<p>the thing about haverford, at least from my own observations is that people tend to lack genuine originality. i mean, frankly in my 3+ years here, i've met maybe 2 or 3 people whom i would consider to be really special. everyone else tends to be a cookie-cutter [sic] "closet nerd" who likes to run, listen to dave mathews, and play guitar. hence, the
reasoning for the lack difference: simply put, everyone at haverford is by and large the same. but you can't just throw this blanket over the fact that generally speaking jocks tend to hang with jocks, hipsters tend to hang with hipsters, computer guys tend to hang with computer guys, etc. </p>
<p>am i an athlete? no.
do i have athelete friends? yes.
do i hate some athletes? yes.
do i hate some non-athletes? yes.
do i wish we had more arts space? yes.
do i think the new gym is unneccessary? yes.
do i care enough to complain? no.</p>
<p>the fact is: the divide between athletes and non-athletes EXISTS but it DOESN'T MATTER. it doesn't create a horrible living environment, it doesn't result in unruly social behavior, it doesn't debase the intellectual atmosphere of the school; it's irrelevant and shouldn't be brought up at all.</p>
<p>Hi, yes, I'm one of those awful prospies. </p>
<p>Briefly - I went on a road trip to PA with some friends, saw Haverford, fell in love with the idealism/campus, felt inspired (we had a really nice tour guide), but didn't interview or anything like that because I had hardly heard of Haverford before we went there.</p>
<p>I applied ED to another school, got deferred, and consider Haverford to probably be my second choice. When I visited, it felt like an idealistic little bubble - a nice one, though, a sort of haven. The thing I'm worried about now is that bubble being suffocating. Haverford's tiny - it's the smallest school by far on my list. I'm just worried that if I do go there, I'll feel like screaming or something after six months. </p>
<p>When I visited, I noticed everyone on campus was fit, average to attractive, well-groomed, seemingly well-adjusted, and extremely PC. I'm not an athlete, but I'm not really artsy either. Now I just feel concerned about whether Haverford is as good a fit as I thought it was - sorry to bother you, but if you'd confirm/deny some of my impressions I'd appreciate it.</p>
<p>ETA: I should clarify - what concerned me about your post was the lack of originality thing. I live in suburbia; I need to get away from my high school environment. Do you get the feeling that Haverford is conformist in the sense that you NEED to be utterly PC all the time, concerned about peace, or that the type of people you meet are the ones that came from liberal, wealthy families who were raised on NPR and who were politically aware when they were 14? And who are concerned about issues, but in an essentiailly shallow sort of way?</p>
<p>I suppose I'm just... throwing out stereotypes... basically, I'm wondering if an amazing two hour tour could be a mistaken impression.</p>
<p>The flap about athletes at Haverford is ironic, because Haverford coaches have some of the LEAST pull of any academic D3 coaches. </p>
<p>I suspect starz is right re athletes' academic qualifications being equivalent; the coach "pull" my D experienced at other top academic D3s was WAY stronger than it was at Haverford. Artificiallight is also right, people do tend to hang out with others who are like them. It's too bad, because all the groups have so much to offer one another if they could mix it up a bit.</p>