<p>Great posts, Stacy. Thanks.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Theoretically, yes, but not enough to hold women back. It’s true that Ceil Rhodes’ will stipulated that the scholarships go to scholars who also excel in the “manly sports.” He wanted to avoid pure bookworms. But a good friend of mine who was a Rhodes scholar is the most unathletic person I know. To qualify for the Rhodes she took one college PE course in fencing and then put on the app that she liked fencing. You do see smart, star athletes sometimes win a Rhodes, but the Rhodes organization takes a very generous approach in defining what “manly sports” are and how good you have to be to qualify.</p>
<p>^^I always wondered what the sports component of a Rhodes was supposed to be. Does anyone know Bill Clinton’s was (and, no, I don’t mean the obvious.)</p>
<p>I know that sports at Columbia/Barnard are not particularly prominent. The football team has pretty sparse attendance at home games. I’ve thought the lack of a sports culture at the school would probably handicap a Rhodes applicant although I know there was an Olympic fencer from Barnard at the last games.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Lack of sports culture a school will not hurt them for Rhodes. Just having a decent intramural program would be sufficient. My Rhodes scholar friend went to a small LAC with an almost zero intercollegiate sports program that has produced a surprising number of Rhodes scholars.</p>
<p>What turns a school into a Rhodes factory much more than a strong sports program is having a strong Rhodes preparation program - having an adviser who identifies the top students and encourages them to prepare and apply, and then helps them prepare for the interviews.</p>
<p>Rhodes’ will describes it like this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and just want to throw in for the record that every time I recall those days when women were excluded from Ivy League colleges it makes me want to grind my teeth and punch somebody. And that unjust exclusion was just one very visible landmark of all the poisonous sexism that existed at the time. After my generation dies off, there will be no direct memory of the pain and injustice caused by that arrogant, arrogant, arrogant, arrogant attitude against women. You had to be there, and I was.</p>
<p>Please don’t take my opinion above as any type of insult to women’s colleges. Thank goodness for them. They did (do) a wonderful job.</p>
<p>Women’s college will continue to do this job. As the "gender imbalance’ in liberal arts colleges continues LAC’s will continue to reject very qualified women in favor of slightly less qualified men to keep the gender balance. (Vassar are you listening? Not nice behavior from a former seven sister.) Women’s colleges will take the overflow and be a welcoming place for women. The selectivity may be less (for obvious reasons) but the rigor of the education will continue to match those institutions which have a new reason to continue to block women candidates.</p>
<p>Great conversation, but off the point.</p>
<p>The question is which school is the best for the kid on the couch, not which school is “best” (that only matters to the Princeton Review).</p>
<p>You have one kid, taking up one space at one place; all else is irrelevant.</p>
<p>courier,</p>
<p>While it is true that the Rhodes folks in recent years have interpreted the “sports” issue broadly, you will find that most winners have a significant athletic background. Go read the online bios to see what I mean.</p>
<p>The best way to view things is that not being an athlete will not knock out an applicant, but being an athlete may be a tip factor.</p>