Harvard newspaper doesn't want a 4th sorority

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Just to stir the pot, I'll add that Harvard allows single-sex organizations not only in the athletic arena, but also for singing/musical theater groups. The rationale is the same as with athletics: a biological, physical difference between men and women that relates directly to the activity at hand. In practical terms, certain activities -- ice hockey, singing high-voice repertoire -- can't work unless the group is single-sex.

Discuss.

Georgetown says the same thing, yet the school also allows Knights of Columbus.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Georgetown says the same thing, yet the school also allows Knights of Columbus.

I’m pretty sure some of them might be baritones.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Just to stir the pot, I'll add that Harvard allows single-sex organizations not only in the athletic arena, but also for singing/musical theater groups. The rationale is the same as with athletics: a biological, physical difference between men and women that relates directly to the activity at hand. In practical terms, certain activities -- ice hockey, singing high-voice repertoire -- can't work unless the group is single-sex.

Discuss.

Our school had a male only acapella group. I don't know enough about the school's policies to be able to say whether they skirted the rules or followed them specifically. The question may come down to, "Are they student organizations or are they teams." And since the acapella group competed, they may have been able to abide by different rules. Just a guess though.

ETA: There's an anti-discrimination clause (and a "must have a Jesuit mission clause") but in the same section they use an example of a men's club sports team without any sort of explanation for why the exception would be made. I'm tempted to email the VP of Student Life just to ask. Throw my totally worthless alumna weight around or something.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Just to stir the pot, I'll add that Harvard allows single-sex organizations not only in the athletic arena, but also for singing/musical theater groups. The rationale is the same as with athletics: a biological, physical difference between men and women that relates directly to the activity at hand. In practical terms, certain activities -- ice hockey, singing high-voice repertoire -- can't work unless the group is single-sex.

Discuss.

Well, if you believe some of the guys on here, NPC rush definitely stems from the bolded.

On another note, I didn't know that the NCAA hates directional names. Maybe that's why all the schools in Missouri are changing and screwing me up so I don't know where the heck our chapters are.

[Low C Sharp]

Comment or question: are apartment and house prices in the areas around the Square still high-to-breathtakingly high?

Yes. I'm sure they've dropped somewhat, but there was never a "bubble" in the sense that the cost didn't have a rational relationship to supply and demand. There are always tons of new people wanting to live in Harvard Square, many of whom have a lot of disposable income, and a very limited number of spaces in a low-rise area defined by its walkability. Then, too, the university and groups like final clubs own a lot of the property. The upshot is that the number of spaces on the open market is always far too low to accommodate all the interest, so prices will stay very high unless there's some kind of radical change in the character of the neighborhood (giant upsurge in crime rates or something). The national housing/credit market has almost nothing to do with it.

A nice 2-bed-2-bath half a mile from the T station went for $400k or more in the year 2000. I haven't looked them up lately, but...the prospect of getting an apartment big enough for the membership to squeeze into is daunting. And an undergrad social space really needs to be closer to the T station than that. Each of the final club houses is a multimillion-dollar property, and nobody even lives there. The real estate situation is much, much more relaxed at Yale.

football gives a very real educational opportunity to students who would otherwise not qualify for college at all?

Well, the realness of the education that football players receive varies from school to school. Some major programs have abysmal graduation rates despite giving the players Mickey Mouse courses. It's not much of a gift in exchange for the millions of dollars the players generate for the schools. And if we're giving credit to the schools for opening their doors to poor and underserved students due to athletic talent, I'd rather see the generosity go to high schoolers who prepared themselves for college by studying hard. IMHO, people near the NCAA minimums generally are not ready for a four-year college.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[Drolefille]

Shouldn't be about ROI, should be about the benefit of the students, not the benefit of the school.

As I said, it's about the principle. For me.

ETA: And no, selling sweatshirts is not comparable. Find something comparable, then compare it, and ask me, and we'll discuss it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Shouldn't be about ROI, should be about the benefit of the students, not the benefit of the school.

ROI does equal benefit. Tangible, delicious, dollar-value benefit.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

ROI does equal benefit. Tangible, delicious, dollar-value benefit.

Not necessarily.

[SWTXBelle]

I don't know that the NCAA "hates" them - I think athletic departments and some administrators believe that directional names indicate Podunk U.

I will try again to find the actual numbers, but in the case of my alma mater I believe the fact that the athletic department is NOT talking about all the money football is bringing in for US points to the fact that like the vast majority of programs, it is not self-sustaining or profitible. Yes, you can point to programs that make money hand over fist; you just can't say it is true of most of them.

I am not indulging in hyperbole when I say the Strutters are probably more profitible than the football team. You wouldn't believe what those alumnae give!

As to Texas' top 10 admission rule - yes, I'm aware it applies to all public schools, but as pointed out earlier, it is UT and A & M admissions which it has most affected.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I don't know that the NCAA "hates" them - I think athletic departments and some administrators believe that directional names indicate Podunk U.

Which may or may not be true. I don't think it's hurt the University of Southern California.

[dnall]

Sorry, I'm just catching the end of this conversation. Hope you don't mind if I interject.

Don't remember where I saw the article, but TxState is funding the football program I think 9mil and change next year. That's a big jump and will go up again as they start WAC play.

The program for sure loses a ton of money. It is baseline funded at nearly the same rate as many years ago. The additional money comes from a fee assessment on students (they voted for it) to support the move to FBS.

I read an article (don't know if I could find it again) right after UT signed their new TV deal explaining that something like fewer than 50 programs in the country make a profit. Only a handful make enough to fund all other sports, and maybe half a dozen made enough to return any support to other university needs. Programs that make money tend to be a regional draw that would not support an NFL team, but serve the same market. Places like Austin, Alabama, Ohio State, etc.

In terms of enrollment vs money. TxState endured budget cuts by massively increasing enrollment. The trend in the economic downturn has been from 1st tier (UT/A&M) to cheaper 2nd tier (TxState) schools. They've massively increased enrollment from something like 12k to 32k in a decade. That money has sustained them. But they're supposed to be capped at 30k (so as not to compete with 1st tiers, and because they city wants more road money based on enrollment), so now they're talking about reducing enrollment while facing a 10% budget cut. And, because of the rapid enrollment increase, they're heavily overcrowded and under staffed. So, no matter what, it's going to hurt.

[Low C Sharp]

I'm glad Illinois hasn't taken the route of stripping directional names.

I like the Virginia system of naming each school, other than its research flagship, after prominent person/s or concepts rather than locations. It allows each public school to build a unique brand, and none of them is marked as a particular tier due to being "directional." True, you can't tell from the name that James Madison University is located in Harrisonburg, but most of these schools serve an in-state market anyway, and in-state students already know or they can figure it out easily.

I think it would be great for the directionals in Illinois to become Abraham Lincoln U., Adlai Stevenson U., Jane Addams U....but nobody asked me, and I'm sure many alumni are attached to the existing names.

We can add Northwestern University to University of Southern California as another elite private exception to the rule that directions hurt prestige. Both schools are older than the oldest public schools in their respective cities.
________
Black Silver Surfer Vaporizer

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

We can add Northwestern University to University of Southern California as another elite private exception to the rule that directions hurt prestige. Both schools are older than the oldest public schools in their respective cities.

I wouldn't, because Northwestern no longer really refers to a direction. It certainly did when it was founded, but now it's in the Midwest and isn't even in North-Western Illinois.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

I wouldn't, because Northwestern no longer really refers to a direction. It certainly did when it was founded, but now it's in the Midwest and isn't even in North-Western Illinois.

Right. Northwestern never referred to the part of the state it is in, which is what I think of when I think "directional school." It never referred to a direction at all. It was named for the former Northwest Territory.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Right. Northwestern never referred to the part of the state it is in, which is what I think of when I think "directional school." It never referred to a direction at all. It was named for the former Northwest Territory.

So now I've learned something today. Can I go home now?

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I like the Virginia system of naming each school, other than its research flagship, after prominent person/s or concepts rather than locations. It allows each public school to build a unique brand, and none of them is marked as a particular tier due to being "directional." True, you can't tell from the name that James Madison University is located in Harrisonburg, but most of these schools serve an in-state market anyway, and in-state students already know or they can figure it out easily.

I think it would be great for the directionals in Illinois to become Abraham Lincoln U., Adlai Stevenson U., Jane Addams U....but nobody asked me, and I'm sure many alumni are attached to the existing names.

We can add Northwestern University to University of Southern California as another elite private exception to the rule that directions hurt prestige. Both schools are older than the oldest public schools in their respective cities.

No one wants to go to Adlai Stevenson U. Just ain't happening. And I can't see SIUC/E, EIU, WIU, or alternately ISU giving up their names. They're well known for different things and would lose a lot of identity that way. I haven't seen a lot of pressure for that sort of change here either, but I'm not attending one of them so I don't know.