<p>“Maybe not measured or defined by – but it certainly helps? It is somewhat indicative?”</p>
<p>No, it’s not indicative AT ALL. People who go to Carleton tend to love it (in my experience) and rave over it, even though they’re not cheering at big Division 1 events. Why is that “less school spirit” than Duke? Why is school spirit DEFINED as cheering at large-scale athletic events? Can’t someone have just as high school spirit because of another aspect of the college they loved?</p>
<p>I said it’s not defined by, but it helps? Meaning that because Duke has a viable sports scene, hundreds of fans will show up in bars across the country because they want to watch games? That encourages school spirit. It is not a measuring stick by any means, but it does most certainly help. A strong tradition of successful athletics is just another thing to be proud of. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly does not disqualify the merits of other schools.</p>
<p>What I mean to say, is that there are very few negatives of having a strong athletic presence, and there are many positives. An increase in school spirit can and is often one of them. If I’m wrong, why are there so many Dukies who come on here just to boast about their basketball team/sports venues?</p>
<p>There’s little to nil – negative effect of not having a sports team, but there are plenty positive effects.</p>
<p>“Sports are a measure of a school’s success in a certain area, and when we bring up atmosphere it is well justified to suggest that one school might be superior because of its sports.”</p>
<p>Here’s the difference.
If I say that School X has more Nobel prize winning faculty, or a more highly ranked art program, or whatever, I am talking about factors that are RELEVANT TO RANKING THE QUALITY OF THAT SCHOOL. If I say that School X has a winning football / basketball team, all I can say is that School X … has a winning football / basketball team. It says nothing about the school itself as an academic institution.</p>
<p>Hmm. I don’t know if you’re just angry at the world or at people who don’t respect your school? The fact that the term … “weakest Ivy” exists suggests that Cornell is indeed viewed oftentimes by those who choose to group it among other ivies, instead of acknowledging/refuting its merits as an individual school. Of course, I could be wrong, but this is what I think? As you think that school spirit is not related to sports and the such. </p>
<p>Saying, “Says who? You?” is completely counterproductive.</p>
<p>“What I mean to say, is that there are very few negatives of having a strong athletic presence, and there are many positives. An increase in school spirit can and is often one of them. If I’m wrong, why are there so many Dukies who come on here just to boast about their basketball team/sports venues?”</p>
<p>Because that’s what appeals to them. And having winning sports teams is appealing to those people for whom that kind of thing is appealing. But it’s not universally appealing in the least. </p>
<p>BTW, there’s a reason that the Ivies don’t give athletic scholarships, even though they certainly could afford to. They recognize that the other schools have had to lower their standards, even just for a few people, to gain athletic success and they don’t consider it worth the tradeoff. </p>
<p>If the lack of big-time nationally important sports were all that relevant, then I’d expect applications to HYP to drop. Don’t see them dropping, do you?</p>
<p>I have not once said that those factors contribute to an overall ranking? </p>
<p>I don’t think that’s completely false though. Whatever criteria people choose to use to attend the school they want is their prerogative. I’m acknowledging the fact that it is a criterion. You’re not. </p>
<p>We’re not all the same, and we certainly don’t view schools in the same light. If one believes that his college experience will be heightened by sports, that’s certainly as valid as you disagreeing.</p>
<p>No, because the prestige of HYP still ranks in many cases above a sports atmosphere. </p>
<p>Stanford gives athletic scholarships? Is it’s prestige in any way decreased by that?</p>
<p>"Hmm. I don’t know if you’re just angry at the world or at people who don’t respect your school? "</p>
<p>I didn’t go to Cornell (I went to another top 20 school, non-Ivy, though I did turn down an Ivy) and I have no dog in any Cornell fight. It’s a great school and I think it’s silly to try to tease out minute differences between itself and any other school in the Top 20, aside from personal fit types of issues.</p>
<p>“The fact that the term … “weakest Ivy” exists suggests that Cornell is indeed viewed oftentimes by those who choose to group it among other ivies, instead of acknowledging/refuting its merits as an individual school.”</p>
<p>But the term “weakest Ivy” isn’t used by anyone in the real world, though – just overwrought high school students and overly proud college freshmen who have no clue about life. Because in the real world no one parses schools to that level.</p>
<p>My audience isn’t those in the real world who don’t use it. It’s those in this thread who’ve addressed it. It’s those who’ve – in this thread – have condoned it. Read through it.</p>
<p>pizzagirl,
I’m not arguing that the excellent and nationally relevant athletic life of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame make them better colleges, but I am arguing that, for students who have such experiences as part of their college wish list, then such activities might make these colleges superior places for their overall undergraduate experience than the Ivies and others that don’t currently provide this. </p>
<p>I also believe that there are plenty of Ivy students who have no idea what going to a Pac 10, ACC, Big Ten or SEC football game is like. If they came from the New England prep school environment (and many do) and all they’ve seen first-hand is something like Deerfield vs Choate. If they extrapolate this to Brown vs Dartmouth (which isn’t far off), then I’m pretty sure that their understanding of Stanford-Cal, Duke-U North Carolina, Northwestern-U Michigan, Vanderbilt-U Tennessee or Notre Dame-Southern Cal is not very good. These are very different experiences from what a student will get at Cornell or any Ivy and, for some students/graduates, they will carry on these events and rivalries for the rest of their lives. </p>
<p>But let’s be clear-no one is pretending that these are the defining elements of an elite college’s rep, academic or otherwise. They’re just a lot of fun for a lot of people and I think that fun should be an active consideration for students choosing which college to attend. </p>
<p>ilovebagels,
The debate, if you can call it that, is what students do with the other 150+ hours every week at ABC college that they are not in class. For the universe of top colleges that we are discussing, the in-classroom differences are commonly small. But the out-of-classroom differences are often quite large. The discussion to date may have had a larger-than-necessary devotion to athletic life, but that does not detract from the important fact that non-academic factors can and should play a large role in a student’s selection of a college. </p>
<p>For you and others that value other non-classroom aspects of undergraduate life, bring up those activities. How differentiated are they on your campus? How will the undergraduate experience differ at ABC College vs what is available at XYZ College. I and others are making the point that, for those who care, the athletic life at Duke (and the other colleges) makes for a differentiated college experience from the Ivies. If you can bring important campus activities to light that will inform students about the benefits (or not) of a certain college and how that impacts their undergraduate package, then that would probably advance the discussion better than complaining that some folks consider athletic life in their decisions.</p>
<p>“If they came from the New England prep school environment (and many do) and all they’ve seen first-hand is something like Deerfield vs Choate. If they extrapolate this to Brown vs Dartmouth (which isn’t far off), then I’m pretty sure that their understanding of Stanford-Cal, Duke-U North Carolina, Northwestern-U Michigan, Vanderbilt-U Tennessee or Notre Dame-Southern Cal is not very good.”</p>
<p>Hawkette, everyone knows that there are a lot of college football bowl games. Everyone has seen a pro football game on television. I don’t know why you keep thinking that people have to see and live the experience of going to these big-school games in person to have an idea as to whether it will appeal to them or not. Either they care about football and the idea of the tailgating / parties / cheering in the stadium is appealing, or it’s not.</p>
<p>What I object to is that you have a dog in the fight of trying to convince students that they really would care more about big-time sports, if only they experienced it. We trust students’ judgments about many other areas of fit - whether they prefer a certain area of the country, large city vs suburb vs small town, large campus vs small campus. Why can’t you just trust that those students who value those sports are applying to the schools that offer them, and those students who don’t value them aren’t? Why are you so hot to “recruit” for your favorites of Duke, Stanford, Vandy, NU, etc.?</p>
<p>“For you and others that value other non-classroom aspects of undergraduate life, bring up those activities. How differentiated are they on your campus? How will the undergraduate experience differ at ABC College vs what is available at XYZ College. I and others are making the point that, for those who care, the athletic life at Duke (and the other colleges) makes for a differentiated college experience from the Ivies.”</p>
<p>I’ll play. For those who enjoy theater and music, the presence of top-notch theater, music and film schools on Northwestern’s campus provides an arguably richer environment even for those who aren’t theater or music majors, as there is a wealth of performances for students to enjoy at free or very low cost. That doesn’t make NU <em>better</em> than peer universities, but it’s a differentiator versus its peer universities because those things are there in a more concentrated mass than some of its peer universities. Is that the type of thing you mean, hawkette?</p>
<p>pizzagirl,
To my knowledge, the TV cameras don’t show much of the scene outside of the stadium or even very much of what goes on in the stands. That’s what I care about. The game is an afterthought to me. I like the party and the people watching and the tailgates and the energy and the excitement. Hard to see most of that on TV except maybe the passion of the fans when they do a crowd shot. BTW, the bowl games are comparatively boring and not nearly as fun as a home game in someplace like Stanford or South Bend or even Nashville.</p>
<p>As for trusting students’ judgment, I completely agree and think that if students have all of the information, academic and otherwise, to make their comparisons, then they will make the right individual choice. I have a view that colleges that offer the best combinations of great academics, great and varied social life, and great athletics make for the best undergraduate experiences. I don’t expect all to agree with me, but if they do and want to find the best schools in the USA that offer this, then IMO those colleges would be Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame.</p>
<p>Finally, thanks for adding your comments on the arts picture at Northwestern. Those are terrific activities and likely have real appeal to many prospective students. For a student considering a college like Cornell or Dartmouth and Northwestern, such considerations could be very important.</p>
<p>hawkette, some points for you to consider. While it is true that athletic life at certain schools may boost the quality of social scene at the schools, this may not be true for all the individuals. My friends at U of I and U of Michigan complain, for instance, that most of the students are in-state, thus have already tons of friends from hs, and they aren’t that willing to make new friends despite their huge student body. Many people aren’t into watching sports either, and I am afraid the sports scenes at these schools would, in any way, improve the social scene for this select group of people. </p>
<p>Consider schools like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and other top LACs. These schools don’t even have any legit sports teams, while the ivies have at least the Ivy D1 sports. Many students who go there would probably not be so happy if they went to very frat-dominant, preppy, sports-dominant schools like USC, Vandy, or other numerous big state schools. They would thrive better on smaller, more intellectual environment in which the majority of social activity goes on between classmates and students, not between big partying scenes/sports games. It just comes down to fit and IMO, there are plenty of people at many ivies, including Cornell, who don’t really give rat’s behind about college football or bball. These ivies, ironicaly, excell in certain social aspects that others don’t, such as more intimate social gathering that caters students in activities other than merely watching sports games.</p>
<p>Also, you would be mistaken to think that the students at Ivies are anything less ‘social’ compared to students at Vandy, USC, or Duke bc their sports culture isn’t as dominant. Would someone going to Yale have anything less of an overall experience compared to someone who went to Duke? Yalies are known to be very happy and social, and they find other social outlets, other than sports, to be involved in. What about Brown? According to many surveys, Brown students were ranked among some of the happiest students in the country and needless to say, the ivy alums are fiercely loyal and very much fond of their memories and experiences at their respective schools in most cases.</p>
<p>Hawkette’s vision-o-fun:
<a href=“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/UT-Nebraska_Panorama_2007.jpg[/url]”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/UT-Nebraska_Panorama_2007.jpg</a></p>
<p><em>click to expand the panorama to full resolution - it is quite impressive</em></p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You said “Mine shouldn’t be any less than yours, my dear. And what makes you think your hs is better? OMG, now you want to compare HS? Aren’t you obsessed! And please don’t twist my words, it was in the context of other ivy. Good grief. Get a life.”</p>
<p>This means that you scored at least 34 on ACT. But, let’s be honest. What are the odds of you getting a 34 ACT when 99% of the nation scores below it and what am I supposed to assume based on this? Plus, the reason I brought up this pointless discussion regarding my ACT stats was to let you be warned about saying nonsense such as “Cornell Grads Are Stupid.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You also said:
</p>
<p>I am not sure what it is with you. You are either an a-hole for saying this or a big ■■■■■■ for not being able to comprehend what you wrote yourself. There IS a difference between saying “Cornell grads are stupid” and saying “Cornell isn’t as smart as other ivies.” </p>
<p>Since you seem to be constantly having trouble understanding this, let me dumb it down for you. Let’s talk about your school, Berkeley, so that you may understand this better. There IS a difference between saying “Berkeley grads aren’t as smart or gifted as Stanford or Caltech grads” and saying “Berkeley grads/students are stupid.” If you still fail to see the connection after this illustration, I would fear for your ability to survive the rigor of the course work at Cal Berkeley come this fall.</p>
<p>Besides, you essentially called me stupid. You said that Cornell grads are stupid, hence also said that Cornell students are stupid. And, as I told you, I am a Cornell student. And, this isn’t just about me. You called other 13000 undergrad students at Cornell Stupid and other hundreds of thousands of Cornell grads around the country “Stupid” as well.</p>
<p>Also, you would be mistaken to think that the students at Ivies are anything less ‘social’ compared to students at Vandy, USC, or Duke bc their sports culture isn’t as dominant. Would someone going to Yale have anything less of an overall experience compared to someone who went to Duke?"</p>
<p>That’s Hawkette’s argument, that the undergrad experiences at Duke/Stanford/NU/Vandy/Rice/ND are better because they have a bigger sports life.</p>
<p>No. Hawkette’s argument is that Duke/Stanford/NU/Vandy/Rice/ND are better because they have a tailgating scene.</p>
<p>No. That’s not what he said.</p>
<p>“pizzagirl,
I’m not arguing that the excellent and nationally relevant athletic life of Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame make them better colleges, but I am arguing that, for students who have such experiences as part of their college wish list, then such activities might make these colleges superior places for their overall undergraduate experience than the Ivies and others that don’t currently provide this.”</p>
<p>That’s what he said. Nothing to do with overall superiority for a candidate who doesn’t have those specific interests in mind. </p>
<p>Like I said, those who find these these things attractive, will factor them into their equation. Those who don’t – such as yourself – will obviously discard them.</p>
<p>Because Hawkette herself enjoys the tailgating atmosphere, people-watching, party atmosphere. Which is great - for her and people like her! I’ve gone to plenty of Big 10 tailgates in my lifetime, am going to another in the fall, and I truly can’t say it’s any highlight of my life at all, or an experience that I would be sorry if I’d missed out on. And that panoramic picture leaves me shuddering!</p>
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/UT-Nebraska_Panorama_2007.jpg[/url]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/UT-Nebraska_Panorama_2007.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
