Ivy was coined BECAUSE of athletics

[Anonymous]

Back then also no women. Jews and non-whites excluded then very limited. Come on, OP. What’s your point that’s relevant to 2022?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And they were originally attended by WASPs that believed: sound body, sound mind. Students that were robust physically and mentally bright. No weakness. Students originated from boarding schools where sports were required. Athletics were intertwined with academics.

And we haven’t moved beyond that? I suppose you like athletes because they are mostly rich white kids in the Ivy League. Fits the profile of WASPs who went to private schools.

The best athletes at our HS and the ones being recruited are not white. FFS

FFS look at the composition of recruited athletes at the schools in question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And they were originally attended by WASPs that believed: sound body, sound mind. Students that were robust physically and mentally bright. No weakness. Students originated from boarding schools where sports were required. Athletics were intertwined with academics.

This is possibly exaggerating the “mentally bright” part. While there were many with world class intellects, there were also many students from traditional feeder prep schools who were “well rounded” and had reports full of “Gentleman’s Cs”. Several of the schools became much more focused on attracting the academically elite just as they gradually became more open to accepting students from more diverse backgrounds. No surprise that this also coincided with an increased focus on legacy admits — to continue to nurture the families and demographic groups that had been their primary source for students over the centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And they were originally attended by WASPs that believed: sound body, sound mind. Students that were robust physically and mentally bright. No weakness. Students originated from boarding schools where sports were required. Athletics were intertwined with academics.

And we haven’t moved beyond that? I suppose you like athletes because they are mostly rich white kids in the Ivy League. Fits the profile of WASPs who went to private schools.

The best athletes at our HS and the ones being recruited are not white. FFS

Opposite at our HS. All white and fairly privileged. Great students too but certainly from families with the disposable income to invest heavily in developing and showcasing various sporting abilities. That is just the current system, like it nor not.

+1

One would be stupid not to see it - so obvious.

About $6m gets a mediocre athlete Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUMs anti-athlete posters are exceptionally single-minded in their hatred, OP. Facts will not matter to them.

The triple threat!! URM+gifted athlete+highGPA/scores

Quadruple threat if you add full pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And they were originally attended by WASPs that believed: sound body, sound mind. Students that were robust physically and mentally bright. No weakness. Students originated from boarding schools where sports were required. Athletics were intertwined with academics.

And we haven’t moved beyond that? I suppose you like athletes because they are mostly rich white kids in the Ivy League. Fits the profile of WASPs who went to private schools.

The best athletes at our HS and the ones being recruited are not white. FFS

FFS look at the composition of recruited athletes at the schools in question.

+1

URM needs a 3.0, if that. White not much higher, and not many APs, in our privileged public FCPS HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back then also no women. Jews and non-whites excluded then very limited. Come on, OP. What’s your point that’s relevant to 2022?

I think it's that the posters in some of the other threads ragging on athletes and them getting into Ivies, when the term "Ivy league' was coined specifically because back in the 50s the IVIES DOMINATED athletic conferences.

It was white male athletes, correct. Now you have a woman raging that the Ivies were always about academics and athletes shouldn't get preference, when that simply wasn't the case. The Ivies were about prominent families, boarding and private schools and future leaders, never solely about academic prowess of its student body.

Read a history on Ivies. What made everyone want to attend was the prestige and network association of power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back then also no women. Jews and non-whites excluded then very limited. Come on, OP. What’s your point that’s relevant to 2022?

I think it's that the posters in some of the other threads ragging on athletes and them getting into Ivies, when the term "Ivy league' was coined specifically because back in the 50s the IVIES DOMINATED athletic conferences.

It was white male athletes, correct. Now you have a woman raging that the Ivies were always about academics and athletes shouldn't get preference, when that simply wasn't the case. The Ivies were about prominent families, boarding and private schools and future leaders, never solely about academic prowess of its student body.

Read a history on Ivies. What made everyone want to attend was the prestige and network association of power.

Sure so now they still take athletes who aren’t as academically qualified as the other students.

[Anonymous]

I went to Stuyvesant in NYC 20 years ago. Virtually every ivy-bound kid I knew was first or second-gen and non-athletic, plus a few urm. Everyone knew what these kids sacrificed and achieved to get their spot and no one resented them. Today, al most every Ivy grad I meet through DC’s private school got there through athletics (lacrosse, hockey, etc) and NE boarding school or private school wealth.

Seeing this side has totally changed my perceptions of these schools. I truly venerated them as a young adult and now see them for what they are—mini corporations catering to wealthy white male donor egos. The rest of the world thinks this conflation of athletics and academics is a joke, as they should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Stuyvesant in NYC 20 years ago. Virtually every ivy-bound kid I knew was first or second-gen and non-athletic, plus a few urm. Everyone knew what these kids sacrificed and achieved to get their spot and no one resented them. Today, al most every Ivy grad I meet through DC’s private school got there through athletics (lacrosse, hockey, etc) and NE boarding school or private school wealth.

Seeing this side has totally changed my perceptions of these schools. I truly venerated them as a young adult and now see them for what they are—mini corporations catering to wealthy white male donor egos. The rest of the world thinks this conflation of athletics and academics is a joke, as they should.

That is because it was 20 years ago in Brooklyn. My dad also came out of that area and his friends from very poor families. If you grew up in a wealthy area you would have already seen what you are seeing now in this area and other wealthy areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Stuyvesant in NYC 20 years ago. Virtually every ivy-bound kid I knew was first or second-gen and non-athletic, plus a few urm. Everyone knew what these kids sacrificed and achieved to get their spot and no one resented them. Today, al most every Ivy grad I meet through DC’s private school got there through athletics (lacrosse, hockey, etc) and NE boarding school or private school wealth.

Seeing this side has totally changed my perceptions of these schools. I truly venerated them as a young adult and now see them for what they are—mini corporations catering to wealthy white male donor egos. The rest of the world thinks this conflation of athletics and academics is a joke, as they should.

That is because it was 20 years ago in Brooklyn. My dad also came out of that area and his friends from very poor families. If you grew up in a wealthy area you would have already seen what you are seeing now in this area and other wealthy areas.

Oh and I say this because both me and my husband did not grow up wealthy, but are now raising kids who are wealthy because of us.

And a huge lightbulb went off when we see all of the inherent advantages kids in our neighborhood have--tutors, upon tutors, enrichment, test prep, essay reviewers/coaches, parents hiring lawyers to get into GT !! We were like holy cr*p, our parents wouldn't pay for test prep or tutors to get ahead or any of that. Everything was on us. We had no network of prestige. Sports were less 'pay-to-play' as well. They were more based on merit, raw talent and hard work--not early specialization and parents paying off coaches, etc.

You are now seeing what has always been there You just didn't know it existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back then also no women. Jews and non-whites excluded then very limited. Come on, OP. What’s your point that’s relevant to 2022?

I think it's that the posters in some of the other threads ragging on athletes and them getting into Ivies, when the term "Ivy league' was coined specifically because back in the 50s the IVIES DOMINATED athletic conferences.

It was white male athletes, correct. Now you have a woman raging that the Ivies were always about academics and athletes shouldn't get preference, when that simply wasn't the case. The Ivies were about prominent families, boarding and private schools and future leaders, never solely about academic prowess of its student body.

Read a history on Ivies. What made everyone want to attend was the prestige and network association of power.

Sure so now they still take athletes who aren’t as academically qualified as the other students.

Exactly. The ragging is justified. The athletics of the 1950s has nothing to do with today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And they were originally attended by WASPs that believed: sound body, sound mind. Students that were robust physically and mentally bright. No weakness. Students originated from boarding schools where sports were required. Athletics were intertwined with academics.

And we haven’t moved beyond that? I suppose you like athletes because they are mostly rich white kids in the Ivy League. Fits the profile of WASPs who went to private schools.

The best athletes at our HS and the ones being recruited are not white. FFS

FFS look at the composition of recruited athletes at the schools in question.

+1

URM needs a 3.0, if that. White not much higher, and not many APs, in our privileged public FCPS HS.

Wow, you are so wildly wrong.

The URM athletes I know with Ivy offers all have outstanding grades and multiple APs. Though I think you are just an angry racist who can’t imagine a URM student who is both bright and an exceptional athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to Stuyvesant in NYC 20 years ago. Virtually every ivy-bound kid I knew was first or second-gen and non-athletic, plus a few urm. Everyone knew what these kids sacrificed and achieved to get their spot and no one resented them. Today, al most every Ivy grad I meet through DC’s private school got there through athletics (lacrosse, hockey, etc) and NE boarding school or private school wealth.

Seeing this side has totally changed my perceptions of these schools. I truly venerated them as a young adult and now see them for what they are—mini corporations catering to wealthy white male donor egos. The rest of the world thinks this conflation of athletics and academics is a joke, as they should.

It’s telling that you didn’t see and obviously don’t even think about the women who were kept out of Stuyvesant.

You need to believe your own mythology, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Do you have the same anger at other ethnic groups that can get in with a full grade point lower than those that are not URM? Or is your hate reserved for those that have something your child does not have?

In all, Fortune estimates that 95 percent of its Fortune 500 CEOs played sports. While only 6 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, the proportion of women CEOs who were athletes is similar—90 percent of them played sports at some point, and 54 percent played sports at the university level.

https://www.kornferry.com/institute/forget-the-score-just-play

Nerves of steel. It takes courage to take on a tough opponent, and the most successful women CEOs are 50 times more likely to score high in “Courage” than lower-performing CEOs. That’s right, five-zero. Combine that with the 10 times greater likelihood of high “Risk Taking,” and you have women who are taking their businesses into bold new territory. Bold anticipation. Reading a play as it unfolds, or anticipating the pitch, takes a keen eye, laser focus and awareness of self and others. A woman CEO who is at the top of her game is four times more likely to score high in “Situational Self-Awareness.” In other words, she can read the room, take in the dynamics at play, and stay aware of her response and its impact. With “Tolerance of Ambiguity” (seven times more likely to be high), these women CEOs don’t need the dynamics of the situation to be obvious in order to take “Action” (10 times more likely to be high).

How many CEOs were college athletes?
The statistic “95% of Fortune 500 CEOs played college sports” is impressive, but the numbers don't lie. Here are just a few on the list: John Donahoe, CEO of Ebay: 'Basketball Junkie' at Dartmouth. Indra Nooyi, CEO of PepsiCo: Played cricket in college in India.

https://www.coachup.com/nation/articles/95-of-fortune-500-ceos-were-athletes