Apr

4

QuickSpec: “Get a Logo, Barnard” Edition

Written by

39 Comments

  1. donkey kong?  

    whuh?

    also ben's comic is better than the article it's attached to on a level I cannot fully express.

  2. hmm?  

    just to point out: the article in question didnt tell athletes in general that they shouldn't be here, only academically unqualified ones.

  3. so wait  

    um, I know Spec kids are tired and all, but can they either get their numbers right or learn the difference between increase and decrease?

  4. smith  

    a macarthur genius fellow =/= fox

    might donkey kong have something to do with apeshit?

  5. well-said  

    Thank you, Chas Carey.

  6. Wait a minute...

    "I, for one, wouldn't trade a classroom of those 'intellectuals and eccentric geniuses' for what I have learned from a locker-room of football players."

    Shouldn't that be reversed?

  7. My favorite  

    The comparison of minorities to athletes.

    "My life has been so hard being born into a athletic family. Growing up I tried to fit in with non-athletes, but they just wouldn't accept me. Here at Columbia, I've found student groups of Athletes, dubbed 'teams', full of people who share my plight!"

    Hey asshole, athletes choose themselves, minorities don't.

    Smart athletes are up there with the top of the non-athletes, but the dumb ones are just painfully below the not-so-bright common folk.

    • Ginia  

      Thank you! It was implied so many times that I am racist in the outpouring of responses to my article. An example (from a senior in the college):
      "Your article reads much like an argument against affirmative action- filled with an
      offensive belief in your own supremacy and a dangerous dismissal of those who are not like you." [later] "Your problem is that you think athletes are inherently
      different kinds of people than you- sort of like people used to
      think that black people were inherently different and of lower
      grade. Once you start grouping people together like you have done
      with athletes, you can not take them out of those groups and then
      we all get caught in this dangerous process of looking at different
      people as others and almost inevitably the others become lesser
      people. Not unlike you said about athletes, white supremacists
      have said of course that there are some smart black people." [and later] "But you, as white
      supremacists have done and opponents to affirmative action do, are unable to see that we all have different circumstances that shape
      our lives."

      Ouch.

  8. really?  

    "As such, suggesting that the application process at Columbia is entirely equitable for everyone except athletes is blatantly wrong."

    I wonder if the writers of these responses actually read ms. sweeney's original article. she never implied that athletic recruitment was the only flaw in the college admissions process.

  9. aararchg  

    I HATE THE YANKEES>

  10. prideful  

    "All of us our proud to say we go to an Ivy League university"

    And we our proud to have you, Chase.

  11. duhh  

    Neither minorities nor athletes belong at Columbia. So simple!

  12. My problem is that

    many of my friends and I, who were accepted without the leg up of some recruited athletes, wanted to play on various Columbia teams and represent our school. But when we've tried out, we've found it very difficult to earn spots on the teams because Columbia recruits more than enough athletes to fill their rosters. Many of these athletes focus on athletics first, academics second, and would not have gotten in without the help of the coach. This is not the fault of the athletes - they're just doing what's best for themselves. But my friends and I are essentially crowded out of being able to represent our school in athletic competition by the actions of the coaches and the admissions department. Columbia doesn't have JV teams for the most part, and they won't fund club teams in sports that have varsity squads. I believe athletic ability and enthusiasm for sport should most certainly be an important consideration in the admissions process because it leads to a well-rounded student body. However, the coaches should have ZERO input on these decisions. The coaches should only be there to run the teams for those students who are interested in playing. In an ideal world, every athlete would be a walk-on. Of course, for Columbia to do anything about it, this problem would need to be addressed across the Ivy League, otherwise it would be unfair. Admittedly, Ivy League teams would suffer against non-league opponents. But does that really matter?

    • CML  

      Word to that. I don't understand how recruiting athletes benefits the University at all. Pride? Prestige? Entertainment? They're only conferred by our successes (or lack thereof) in the two sports that people watch -- basketball and football.

      An example: What's the point of allowing some troglodyte with a mediocre SAT and utter lack of intellectual curiosity/potential come to the University just because he's good at rowing? So we can gain an extra second or two in the vacuous pissing contest of Ivy League crew? Everyone would just be better off if their teams consisted exclusively of walk-ons - whose academic prowess is complemented by their additional athletic ability, instead of the two compromising one another

      And extra campus vibrance? Hardly. Athletics is by and large a cult.

      Except for I think we should still recruit basketball players, because college basketball is awesome - when a referee's caprice doesn't assassinate my national champions in the Sweet 16. Ugh.

      And yes, I know I'm just making generalizations, I lack principles, the Ivies are purer than other colleges in their practices, and that there are 99 other problems with college admissions. But recruitment is a particularly egregious and easy one to fix, and the self-righteousness/justification/delusion exhibited by the penners of those op-eds is predictable but kinda repugnant.

      • well  

        The reason it is important to recruit athletes is because you are guaranteed to fill up all the spots on the respective rosters. Walk-ons, as you put it, would significantly lower the level of competitition. It's the same reason why the school doesn't accept solely on SAT scores and GPAs, so that it has assurances of getting a good balance of pre-meds, econ majors, poli sci majors, artists, musicians, etc.

      • Riven  

        So you want basketball "troglodytes" to be recruited? Just because you like the sport? Does that give you the right to patronize all other sports on the campus? Have you ever moved more than your fingers on the keyboard? Have you ever given all that you have for a sports team? Do you actually know what this dedication means? I assume from your words that you have absolutely no bloody idea.
        There is far more that just grades and SAT-scores that forms a personality. Do you want a university full of socially awkward super brains, who's only friend is the calculator (I hereby apologize for the exaggeration). Do you really think that is the perfect picture of college? If you do I pity you and your narrowmindedness. This campus is looking for strong and exceptional characters. Every person has a story to tell. Mine is mainly connected with athletics. My grades suffered during high school back home in home in europe due to my sport. But I did not care, I set my priorities on other parts of my life. I won a gold medal at a world championship event. Thats something that is impossible to to put scale with a few points on the SAT ladder. People who went far in the athletic life usually also make it far in the world of business. Most former crew athletes later find good jobs because they know what dedication to a goal and teamwork actually means. Some 1600s here do not... , since they spend their time mostly in the library, alone, in front of their books.
        So you are working on the spec. Imagine there is a Pulitzer class writer applying to columbia. He is writing beautiful and highly praised books, but due to his lack of time for other things he only got 1100 on his SAT's. Does that mean that he should not get a chance? Does that mean that he should go to CUNY or to Delaware State University just because he had better things to do than to study calculus in high school?? That theoretical person deserves the same chance to prove himself as many of the recruited athletes do.
        And don't forget, even with slight help from coaches to get admitted, the student athletes still have to take every exam, write every paper and do all tasks any other student does. When they miss classes due to events they have even more work to do the next week.
        In addition you can never know into what kind of person the once recruited athlete develops into. A once mediocre student might blossom in college, in a surrounding which supports him. At the same time 1600s can lose interest in education and rather spend their time drinking and smoking pot. Do you want to kick these people of campus, because they block valuable space? SAT's are not directly related to college GPA's later. Most smart people stay smart, but a good portion will not be able to keep up.

        Athletes represent a university the same way that musicians or exceptionally smart people do. And there is more to sports than just basketball and football. You do not like crew? Who cares. You are part of a newspaper that most students read on the toilet or during lunch, since they have nothing better to do. Do I attack your base because of that, no.
        And your little mediocre excuse for your comment does not make it better. Stand to your words and defend your opinion instead of phrasing apologies for your lacks.

    • false witness  

      Columbia won't fund club teams in sports with varsity squads? Sir, that is a bald-faced lie. Archery,Hockey, Lacrosse, Squash, Tennis.. all have club teams.

      • Do your homework

        #16 is right. There's no varsity squash, there's no varsity ice hockey (only women's field hockey), varsity lacrosse is only provided for women, varsity archery is only provided for women, and the tennis is paid for by student dues. Any other examples you wanna try?

  13. Basketball  

    Man, I would gladly trade 3 random athletes for Oden, Durant, and Jeff Green. Especially because we'd get to play Ivy League teams.

  14. ICB  

    i agree with CML. well-put.

  15. oh please, CML  

    "An example: What's the point of allowing some troglodyte with a mediocre SAT and utter lack of intellectual curiosity/potential come to the University just because he's good at rowing?"

    As someone who knows many crew team members but is not on the team and in no way athletic, I think you can go fuck yourself. Some of them are very smart people, and honest, and fun-loving. And they still do well in their classes, which include things more along the lines of "advanced mandarin" than "surfaces and knots."

    Next time you feel like being elitist about your SAT score and your social circle, just remember - you work for the Spectator, which's just as much a cult as athletics.

    • Dude

      When, exactly, did he make that claim about all rowers?

      And how many Pulitzer Prize winners got 1100s on their SATs, exactly? Do we have numbers? A lot of us achieved things in high school, and did so without sacrificing our academic progress.

      I'm not one of them, mind you. But I shouldn't have gotten in here, either. A university is about *education*, first and foremost.

  16. that Jenny Oki?

    why didn't you pick up the aquatic exercise article, Bwog? it features out very own self-proclaimed radical Jenny Oki!!!

    Check out the fourth person from the bottom!
    http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2007/04/04/News/35.Years.Too.Early-2822385.shtml

  17. Riven  

    In addition to my posting I have to include another point.

    Columbia lacks success at football and basketball because the school actually still has high standarts for its student athletes. So you can say that these athletes are to smart, and thats why we do not win every championships.

  18. Sigh  

    I love how this quote:
    "An example: What's the point of allowing some troglodyte with a mediocre SAT and utter lack of intellectual curiosity/potential come to the University just because he's good at rowing?"

    Is turned into:

    "All rowers are idiots."

    I take it some people are opposed to idiot athletes getting in because they're athletes, particularly in sports most students/alums/faculty don't even know had varsity teams.

    I'm curious as to why people who base their lives around sport, and won't claim otherwise, would come to a school that is intellectual-based and has a utterly pathetic sports community. I'm going to go straight for the throat here and say it's because they're not good enough at their sport to play at top-notch schools, and want a degree that will say they're as smart as the average CU student, which they aren't.

    Does that statement apply to every student-athlete? No. It doesn't apply to the massive majority of athletes, but it does to some when it should apply to none.

    I agree that sport is a great way to balance an individual other than academics; that's why we have things like intramurals, a massive club sports program, and PE requirements. To sacrifice academic standards and bring down the level of intellect in the classroom because of athletics is totally against the mission of the University though.

    And for the record, only Women's Volleyball and Tennis have both club and varsity teams. As pointed out, varsity Archery is women only while club is co-ed, and varsity lacrosse is women's while club is men's. I think club teams include faculty, alumni, and grad students, so that's why they're allowed to double up.

  19. generalizations?  

    Why are all the pro-athletics people arguing that if it weren't for athletes, nobody would be involved in anything except studying?

    Nobody's arguing that it's all in the numbers. Certainly athletes contribute to the school by participating in school sports, which some students/alumni enjoy seeing or reading about. The argument is not that athletes contribute nothing, but that the degree to which they're helped in admissions is disproportionate to how valuable their contributions are to the general student population.

    Some people like sports on campus. Then again, some people like seeing student plays on campus, but there's no playwriting coach that lets you squeeze by admissions when your academics are significantly below normal standards. And that's what bothers people.

  20. Riven  

    >>>
    Some people like sports on campus. Then again, some people like seeing student plays on campus, but there's no playwriting coach that lets you squeeze by admissions when your academics are significantly below normal standards. And that's what bothers people.

    But you know that Juliard is just around the corner, basicly made for such people, do you? There skills in music and acting are same as important as academic skills.

    >>>I'm going to go straight for the throat here and say it's because they're not good enough at their sport to play at top-notch schools, and want a degree that will say they're as smart as the average CU student, which they aren't.

    Fair argument. I agree that is might hit a fair part of the athlete community. For my part, I would have got into Harvard, Princeton or Berkely as well, but chose Columbia in the end.

    • what  

      "But you know that Juliard is just around the corner, basicly made for such people, do you? There skills in music and acting are same as important as academic skills."

      So you're saying students committed to athletics should get a leg up in admissions at Columbia, while students commmitted to theater should seek education elsewhere?

      • Riven  

        No, what I am saying is that if people mainly want to do acting or playing an instrument for a living, then Columbia is probably not the perfect palce to be. But with the combined program between the schools these issues are resolved as well.


        >>>Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that your probability of success is probably a bit higher if you got a 1600 on the SAT's than if you're on the crew team. That's just speculation though.

        But you do know that smartness alone does not automaticly get you the top notch jobs. You also have to be able to work in a team for example. And people do look on the resume which sport was played, since it usually tells a lot about the character. If you get through life with solid 4,3 GPA, then you most likely have your own company by graduation, but the average graduate is not a valedictorian. So there must be more to character then a number between 3 and 4.

        • right  

          Yeah, I agree. I was teasing because you implied that being on the crew team is a better asset when seeking a job than being a person that can score 1600 on the SATs.

  21. yeah  

    "Most former crew athletes later find good jobs because they know what dedication to a goal and teamwork actually means. Some 1600s here do not... , since they spend their time mostly in the library, alone, in front of their books."

    Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say that your probability of success is probably a bit higher if you got a 1600 on the SAT's than if you're on the crew team. That's just speculation though.

  22. quiqui  

    In many instances being on the crew team probably is better than having scored 1600 on a high school test in terms of networking, making contacts, etc.

  23. series of blowjobs  

    Sports and athletics really have very little relevance to business success compared to blowjobs.

  24. My freshman year

    there were three recruited players living on the floor above me (maybe two were residents, and the other hung out there a lot). After the first semester, two of them were on academic probation for sub-2.0 GPAs, and the other was only a little above 2.0. Those three represented at least half of the recruited class. I walked on later. When I quit the team at the beginning of my junior year because I was facing a semester of six engineering classes, the coach told me he had expected as much, because of my grades (coaches have access to the transcripts of all their players). According to him, my GPA (3.5) was too good. Clearly I was focused on academics. He said to me right there, in not so many words, that playing for the team usually means sacrificing in the classroom to a degree.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.