Is Lacrosse an "Aristocrat Sport?"

[Essexfenwick]

Hell yeah!!

Look at the crowds. Lilly white… social x-Ray wives with bob haircuts… balding chrome domes in ray bans and Costas…pleated kaki’s …Golden retrievers with bandanas…bottom tier nfl level athletic talent given epic status…snarky academic jabs at opponents …

It’s the best!!!

[MDlaxfan76]

We were earlier discussing the potential pressures on sports in highly selective college admissions:

I disagree with the conclusions and some of the logic of this former tennis and squash player, but here they come...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions ... index.html

I think he is ignoring that neither "athlete" and "non-athlete" are protected classes under the Constitution and 14th amendment. And why would you look at specific sports with respect to athletes as opposed to athletes in general as a class? And the racial makeup certainly is not one of white domination. With respect to donors, it could well be a different story.

I obviously agree with your first point, though I don't think the pressure will be based from the courts.

Yes, I do think the pressure will be across sports, albeit those which tend to have fewer minorities will likely face the chopping block sooner than others.

But the fundamental argument is that sports are no different from, no more valuable than, any other passion that a student may bring to campus and yet it's the only one that has a 'quota system' that guarantees slots for them. And it's the easiest to identify a gap between the academic #'s based on that quota. No so easy to say that musicians have lower test scores, I guess, than those who spend all their time and energy studying...though that's likely also a reality, just a smaller gap. Being 'world class' at music takes a huge # of hours, as well as talent.

My issue with the premise is that raw academic scores alone are the best predictor of life success and likely impact in the world, and, moreover, that the highest scores should always be preferred over those which are lower. I reject that premise.

And, btw, looking solely at prior academic scores, there's a huge boost is for males over females...and gender actually is a protected class...uhh ohh...

What is that referring too? Women entering college significantly outnumber men. If men are receiving some kind of boost, it sure isn't evident in admission numbers. mdk01 is absolutely right regarding the unique aspect of "affirmative action". Discriminating based on race is explicitly and clearly against the law and violates the Constitution and thus once the courts took this up there was no way AA, which, whatever you think of its merits, is literally a formal, institution process of discriminating based on race, was going to stand. It is not against the law to favor legacies over non-legacies nor to lower academic standards for athletes. These practices may be unseemly, "unfair" and unpopular but legally, striking down AA has no bearing on them. The court of public opinion is something else. As others have said, for most elite universities, the legacy system is not nearly what it used to be. Not to offend anyone but there is lots of talk about how things were in the 70s. That is as far in the past as the 20s were in the 70s. Threading the needle of removing academic tips for only some sports will be a challenge for schools and open up further lawsuits but, if there is to be a move to reduce athletic admissions, lax is certainly near the front of the chopping line given its demographics and relatively large rosters. I certainly agree with MDlax that a college made up solely of students admitted based only on grades and scores is not one I would want to attend.

Yes, "entering college", but the most selective schools have balance of men and women, and this is definitely not because the men applicants on average have higher scores nor those who are admitted. The women make up much larger share of the less selective schools...but again, we're talking about the most selective schools...eg Ivies, NESCACs, etc...

Yes on what is and is not 'legal, it's just that these schools are going to be looking really hard to find other ways to have more racial diversity than the straight scores will allow.

And legacies still are over represented (if looking at scores) at nearly all of these schools, very few exceptions...that'll get the first chop as legacies remain disproportionately white (and affluent).

[MDlaxfan76]

We were earlier discussing the potential pressures on sports in highly selective college admissions:

I disagree with the conclusions and some of the logic of this former tennis and squash player, but here they come...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions ... index.html

I think he is ignoring that neither "athlete" and "non-athlete" are protected classes under the Constitution and 14th amendment. And why would you look at specific sports with respect to athletes as opposed to athletes in general as a class? And the racial makeup certainly is not one of white domination. With respect to donors, it could well be a different story.

I obviously agree with your first point, though I don't think the pressure will be based from the courts.

Yes, I do think the pressure will be across sports, albeit those which tend to have fewer minorities will likely face the chopping block sooner than others.

But the fundamental argument is that sports are no different from, no more valuable than, any other passion that a student may bring to campus and yet it's the only one that has a 'quota system' that guarantees slots for them. And it's the easiest to identify a gap between the academic #'s based on that quota. No so easy to say that musicians have lower test scores, I guess, than those who spend all their time and energy studying...though that's likely also a reality, just a smaller gap. Being 'world class' at music takes a huge # of hours, as well as talent.

My issue with the premise is that raw academic scores alone are the best predictor of life success and likely impact in the world, and, moreover, that the highest scores should always be preferred over those which are lower. I reject that premise.

And, btw, looking solely at prior academic scores, there's a huge boost is for males over females...and gender actually is a protected class...uhh ohh...

Your last sentence raises an interesting question. I think Title IX covers the issues of gender in sports participation. But the question that came to mind: Do female athletes get a break on test scores to get admitted? I would assume so.

Yes, but generally not as much.

[MDlaxfan76]

Having spent more than 40 years in public education, I would submit that women are underrepresented in college and that makes must be getting a break to keep their numbers as high as they are. While there are certainly some excellent make students, females as s group outshine them in elementary, middle, and high school. The more you rely on grades and scores, the higher percentage of females you will admit.

Of course the question then comes up "Why?"

From everything I've read, females (on average) mature earlier than males, in all sorts of brain development ways. In adolescence in particular, females tend to have much better concentration and more influenced to please and be part of the group and from authority than are boys, who, by contrast tend to be more energetic physically and perceive physical risks differently and are less influenced by authority approval in those years.

Males, if they 'catch up', tend to do so later, meanwhile the females have performed better in classes, have learned more, and are able to build upon that earlier head start.

So, the females score better on standardized testing and in raw performance in class. If that's the end all be all factor in selection, there would be a significantly higher percentage in the most selective schools...simply more of them with those very top scores.

In general, brain development typically doesn't mature fully until somewhere approaching 25...

[faircornell]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

[pcowlax]

Having spent more than 40 years in public education, I would submit that women are underrepresented in college and that makes must be getting a break to keep their numbers as high as they are. While there are certainly some excellent make students, females as s group outshine them in elementary, middle, and high school. The more you rely on grades and scores, the higher percentage of females you will admit.

Of course the question then comes up "Why?"

From everything I've read, females (on average) mature earlier than males, in all sorts of brain development ways. In adolescence in particular, females tend to have much better concentration and more influenced to please and be part of the group and from authority than are boys, who, by contrast tend to be more energetic physically and perceive physical risks differently and are less influenced by authority approval in those years.

Males, if they 'catch up', tend to do so later, meanwhile the females have performed better in classes, have learned more, and are able to build upon that earlier head start.

So, the females score better on standardized testing and in raw performance in class. If that's the end all be all factor in selection, there would be a significantly higher percentage in the most selective schools...simply more of them with those very top scores.

In general, brain development typically doesn't mature fully until somewhere approaching 25...

This is wildly inaccurate MDlax. Men have always score significantly higher on SATs than women, this very very easily available public data. The gap has been huge in math, less so in verbal where women have now passed men but still lag in overall score. They also score higher on ACTs and in AP exams. I don’t know about class grades, I could see that being lower due to behavior issues, but males clearly score higher on standardized tests. This is one of the reasons many schools have tried to de-emphasize them.

And the most selective schools do not in fact have a balance either. Ivy League is 53/47 female

[Farfromgeneva]

Having spent more than 40 years in public education, I would submit that women are underrepresented in college and that makes must be getting a break to keep their numbers as high as they are. While there are certainly some excellent make students, females as s group outshine them in elementary, middle, and high school. The more you rely on grades and scores, the higher percentage of females you will admit.

Of course the question then comes up "Why?"

From everything I've read, females (on average) mature earlier than males, in all sorts of brain development ways. In adolescence in particular, females tend to have much better concentration and more influenced to please and be part of the group and from authority than are boys, who, by contrast tend to be more energetic physically and perceive physical risks differently and are less influenced by authority approval in those years.

Males, if they 'catch up', tend to do so later, meanwhile the females have performed better in classes, have learned more, and are able to build upon that earlier head start.

So, the females score better on standardized testing and in raw performance in class. If that's the end all be all factor in selection, there would be a significantly higher percentage in the most selective schools...simply more of them with those very top scores.

In general, brain development typically doesn't mature fully until somewhere approaching 25...

The thing I’ve wondered about is that is the education obtained/learned skewed more heavily towards rules based learning vs unstructured learning. (And subsequently does unstructured learning take longer to process and assimilate into the brain than structured learning).

A serious questions but also in defense of me fellow cavemen.

[Farfromgeneva]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

I mentioned this before but the irony of bouncing legacies now is it does it at s turn when the vast majority of the benefit of a legacy system has already been extracted. Now that we’re really deep into 3rd/4th generation (what is it, 95% failure rate for 3rd generation family owned businesses?) the benefit of being a under qualified legacy and merely having that sheepskin is so out of touch with ability and accomplishment it’s harder to justify anyways .

[Matnum PI]

Lacrosse is not an aristocratic sport. If it was, riff-raff like us wouldn't be able to play it. Polo is an aristocratic sport. Yacht racing is an aristocratic sport. Money, real money, is what makes a sport aristocratic. Is lacrosse more aristocratic than basketball or soccer? Yes. And so what...

[Farfromgeneva]

Lacrosse is not an aristocratic sport. If it was, riff-raff like us wouldn't be able to play it. Polo is an aristocratic sport. Yacht racing is an aristocratic sport. Money, real money, is what makes a sport aristocratic. Is lacrosse more aristocratic than basketball or soccer? Yes. And so what...

This is how I live!

https://youtu.be/yvHYWD29ZNY

[faircornell]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

I mentioned this before but the irony of bouncing legacies now is it does it at s turn when the vast majority of the benefit of a legacy system has already been extracted. Now that we’re really deep into 3rd/4th generation (what is it, 95% failure rate for 3rd generation family owned businesses?) the benefit of being a under qualified legacy and merely having that sheepskin is so out of touch with ability and accomplishment it’s harder to justify anyways .

I agree with the idea that some of these legacies don't have the spending power of old. My point, anecdotally, is that it's pretty darn competitive to get a legacy admissions preference at an Ivy League university. Perhaps some high current donors offspring fall into the unqualified category, but knowing friends kids who've been accepted as legacies, the vast majority are top notch. I've also known many legacies who've not made it due to the intense competition.

[Farfromgeneva]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

I mentioned this before but the irony of bouncing legacies now is it does it at s turn when the vast majority of the benefit of a legacy system has already been extracted. Now that we’re really deep into 3rd/4th generation (what is it, 95% failure rate for 3rd generation family owned businesses?) the benefit of being a under qualified legacy and merely having that sheepskin is so out of touch with ability and accomplishment it’s harder to justify anyways .

I agree with the idea that some of these legacies don't have the spending power of old. My point, anecdotally, is that it's pretty darn competitive to get a legacy admissions preference at an Ivy League university. Perhaps some high current donors offspring fall into the unqualified category, but knowing friends kids who've been accepted as legacies, the vast majority are top notch. I've also known many legacies who've not made it due to the intense competition.

Yeah I already shared my experience w a friend who had named scholarships and meaningful donations to UPenn (possible he got into 8 figures over time) over the years and his kid got denied but is on a full merit ride at Wash U so understand it’s competitive. I’m more pointing out that just when legacy value might extend to non blue blood legacy wealth, which it has historically, is exactly when it gets removed from the system. Almost as if there’s an invisible hand changing the game right when it becomes more meritocratic/broad based beneficiary pool opens up.

But I’m not sure defending it as “it’s still competitive even not if the ultimate competition said institution presents their admission ticket as being publicly” is that persuasive.

[ardilla secreta]

Lacrosse is an aristocratic sport, absolutely, and I wouldn’t take anyone seriously who said otherwise. Yes, the game is growing, but its growth is largely confined to wealthy persons in large metropolitan cities. My understanding is that USILA supports the growth of the game through grants, but I have limited insight into that process. Hopefully that process works, and any additional needs are met through private donation. … Hopefully

Agree with this statement.

While on the scholastic level there’s a broader participation due to growth, but on the collegiate level, especially among the top programs it’s a sport for the elite.

Just take a look at the Virginia roster or any other comparable program. Players largely come from upper middle class or wealthy families.

If you’re coming from McDonough, St Anthonys, Rocky Point, St Annes Belfield, Ridgefield, Mountain Lakes, The Taft, Brunswick, Manhasset, St Paul’s, Georgetown Prep, Conestoga, Highland, Menlo School, Gilman, Deerfield, Haverford, then you’re in pretty good financial standing.

[MDlaxfan76]

Having spent more than 40 years in public education, I would submit that women are underrepresented in college and that makes must be getting a break to keep their numbers as high as they are. While there are certainly some excellent make students, females as s group outshine them in elementary, middle, and high school. The more you rely on grades and scores, the higher percentage of females you will admit.

Of course the question then comes up "Why?"

From everything I've read, females (on average) mature earlier than males, in all sorts of brain development ways. In adolescence in particular, females tend to have much better concentration and more influenced to please and be part of the group and from authority than are boys, who, by contrast tend to be more energetic physically and perceive physical risks differently and are less influenced by authority approval in those years.

Males, if they 'catch up', tend to do so later, meanwhile the females have performed better in classes, have learned more, and are able to build upon that earlier head start.

So, the females score better on standardized testing and in raw performance in class. If that's the end all be all factor in selection, there would be a significantly higher percentage in the most selective schools...simply more of them with those very top scores.

In general, brain development typically doesn't mature fully until somewhere approaching 25...

This is wildly inaccurate MDlax. Men have always score significantly higher on SATs than women, this very very easily available public data. The gap has been huge in math, less so in verbal where women have now passed men but still lag in overall score. They also score higher on ACTs and in AP exams. I don’t know about class grades, I could see that being lower due to behavior issues, but males clearly score higher on standardized tests. This is one of the reasons many schools have tried to de-emphasize them.

And the most selective schools do not in fact have a balance either. Ivy League is 53/47 female

You're right! I hate being wrong, but you are quite correct about the SAT/ACT and AP scores being higher for boys than girls, indeed there's considerable controversy over these tests purposely favoring boys over girls, as, for instance, the SAT questions which are tested on that basis each year reveal that some questions get more correct responses from girls, others from boys, and yet the chosen questions are weighted toward male performance. Likewise the weighting on essay questions and writing have been deemphasized, and girls perform on average significantly better in such. Is this an intentional bias? Hard to know.

But what we also know is that a higher percentage of girls graduate from HS on time, and on earlier standardized testing girls significantly outperform boys...indeed at eighth grade are a whole grade level ahead.

We do seem to have a big gender difference in STEM subjects, still, though this gap is narrowing, suggesting that the differences are less innate than social.

Performance in school grades are higher for girls than boys, according to numerous studies.
https://journals.lww.com/ijom/Fulltext/ ... 20students.

Here's an argument on behalf of the ACT, on behalf of males, claiming that girls do better in school because they are more disciplined and eager to please, whereas boys perform less well because they are disruptive, don't do their homework, are less interested in school...supposedly the ACT corrects for that...https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/uns ... 014-12.pdf

And yes, the current 2025 Ivy League class is 52:48 female:male

If SAT/ACT tests are no longer used as a required measure, which is what some of these schools are now doing, and the focus goes to grades, I'm positing that this gap will grow.

I'm NOT arguing that this is a desirable outcome. Or the converse.

[faircornell]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

I mentioned this before but the irony of bouncing legacies now is it does it at s turn when the vast majority of the benefit of a legacy system has already been extracted. Now that we’re really deep into 3rd/4th generation (what is it, 95% failure rate for 3rd generation family owned businesses?) the benefit of being a under qualified legacy and merely having that sheepskin is so out of touch with ability and accomplishment it’s harder to justify anyways .

I agree with the idea that some of these legacies don't have the spending power of old. My point, anecdotally, is that it's pretty darn competitive to get a legacy admissions preference at an Ivy League university. Perhaps some high current donors offspring fall into the unqualified category, but knowing friends kids who've been accepted as legacies, the vast majority are top notch. I've also known many legacies who've not made it due to the intense competition.

Yeah I already shared my experience w a friend who had named scholarships and meaningful donations to UPenn (possible he got into 8 figures over time) over the years and his kid got denied but is on a full merit ride at Wash U so understand it’s competitive. I’m more pointing out that just when legacy value might extend to non blue blood legacy wealth, which it has historically, is exactly when it gets removed from the system. Almost as if there’s an invisible hand changing the game right when it becomes more meritocratic/broad based beneficiary pool opens up.

But I’m not sure defending it as “it’s still competitive even not if the ultimate competition said institution presents their admission ticket as being publicly” is that persuasive.

I'm not sure that I understand your last paragraph. I do agree with your invisible hand argument. I help friends students with Ivy admissions when I can. I'd venture to say that each school has a few blue blood names that have meaning without the money, but it's a really short list.

[Farfromgeneva]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

I mentioned this before but the irony of bouncing legacies now is it does it at s turn when the vast majority of the benefit of a legacy system has already been extracted. Now that we’re really deep into 3rd/4th generation (what is it, 95% failure rate for 3rd generation family owned businesses?) the benefit of being a under qualified legacy and merely having that sheepskin is so out of touch with ability and accomplishment it’s harder to justify anyways .

I agree with the idea that some of these legacies don't have the spending power of old. My point, anecdotally, is that it's pretty darn competitive to get a legacy admissions preference at an Ivy League university. Perhaps some high current donors offspring fall into the unqualified category, but knowing friends kids who've been accepted as legacies, the vast majority are top notch. I've also known many legacies who've not made it due to the intense competition.

Yeah I already shared my experience w a friend who had named scholarships and meaningful donations to UPenn (possible he got into 8 figures over time) over the years and his kid got denied but is on a full merit ride at Wash U so understand it’s competitive. I’m more pointing out that just when legacy value might extend to non blue blood legacy wealth, which it has historically, is exactly when it gets removed from the system. Almost as if there’s an invisible hand changing the game right when it becomes more meritocratic/broad based beneficiary pool opens up.

But I’m not sure defending it as “it’s still competitive even not if the ultimate competition said institution presents their admission ticket as being publicly” is that persuasive.

I'm not sure that I understand your last paragraph. I do agree with your invisible hand argument. I help friends students with Ivy admissions when I can. I'd venture to say that each school has a few blue blood names that have meaning without the money, but it's a really short list.

Last sentence was just saying let’s not minimize the net benefit to the legacy cohort in a high velocity, high volume, low admit universe where there’s a cluster at the marginal admit point. Just because it’s “only” a tiebreaker among qualified a significant (majority?) amount of the time doesn’t mean it isn’t a massive value to that group.

Thinking from the historically disadvantaged w respect to legacies (disadvantaged is a positive not normative term as used here, it is an advantage for a certain cohort).

As soon as theres some degree of minority second or third generation wealth built up such that they can buy into the table minimum is when everyone else says, “you know, this high buy in game is unfair to some, let’s play craps instead” and they never to get to play that game. The second order unintended downside for those who are designed to benefit from a reduction in legacy benefits. (Tiebreaker in a low acceptance rate world where there’s a ton at the margin is a meaningful benefit)

[MDlaxfan76]

While I certainly take on board, and accept, Lawrence Summers' social justice arguments, it is fair and accurate to note that without legacy admissions there really would be not much of Ivy League institutions to be worth debating about currently. Legacy funding (which came far before government funding) built and established these places. As legacies are de-prioritized, it is fair to guess that the 15% of Harvard's 2000 first year class (300 students) either have done some pretty outstanding things thus far in life, or have families who have done some pretty outstanding things for Harvard. To the extent that some of these legacies are "unfair" I imagine that this unfairness is a meaningful life lesson to other students. Also, the number of unfair legacies is certainly much fewer than it was at one time.

I mentioned this before but the irony of bouncing legacies now is it does it at s turn when the vast majority of the benefit of a legacy system has already been extracted. Now that we’re really deep into 3rd/4th generation (what is it, 95% failure rate for 3rd generation family owned businesses?) the benefit of being a under qualified legacy and merely having that sheepskin is so out of touch with ability and accomplishment it’s harder to justify anyways .

I agree with the idea that some of these legacies don't have the spending power of old. My point, anecdotally, is that it's pretty darn competitive to get a legacy admissions preference at an Ivy League university. Perhaps some high current donors offspring fall into the unqualified category, but knowing friends kids who've been accepted as legacies, the vast majority are top notch. I've also known many legacies who've not made it due to the intense competition.

That's been my predominant experience as well, though I've also seen a 7 figure donation tip the scale on a kid who really had no other outstanding qualities than a dad who pulled that string. I was surprised that the donation got it done, as "unqualified" would be a fair descriptor. A heck of a lot of legacies get turned away, much to the frustration of their parents.

My wife and I had decades of involvement and steady annual giving, larger reunion giving, but not remotely at those astronomical scales, and we certainly didn't think our double legacy status would be sufficient to get our son in absent him distinguishing himself in some other way or multiple ways. Just way too competitive overall to think legacy would get it done. He chose another Ivy. His mother had gone to the business school there early in our marriage, but that doesn't count at all for legacy. He had won academic awards at a highly competitive private school and was near the top of the athlete AI range, but without the sport differentiator, he'd have probably been just in the mix of well-off, well educated suburban kids. Maybe legacy would have tipped him over, but maybe not...The other two kids who went with him to that school were the top student in the class, perfect SATs, and some special lab stuff...very likely to be a top scientist...other one, a close friend, was a strong student but not exceptional, but he was extremely passionate about film, had interned with Spielberg, made multiple award winning movies while in HS...Google, he's founded two AI companies, one in film and one in fashion, with people from MIT where he did graduate work post Harvard.

Gotta have a hook...

[Dip&Dunk]

Not defending or attacking this quote from an editorial in WSJ today but thought it might add to this discussion:

"Those harmed most by Harvard’s admissions system were white and Asian-American students who weren’t recruited athletes or children of alumni, faculty or donors. According to aforementioned economists, more than 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were members of one of these privileged groups"

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not defending or attacking this quote from an editorial in WSJ today but thought it might add to this discussion:

"Those harmed most by Harvard’s admissions system were white and Asian-American students who weren’t recruited athletes or children of alumni, faculty or donors. According to aforementioned economists, more than 43% of white students admitted to Harvard were members of one of these privileged groups"

I guess Blacks and Hispanics would never be diminished by those slots being taken….. another great WSJ editorial.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Lacrosse is an aristocratic sport, absolutely, and I wouldn’t take anyone seriously who said otherwise. Yes, the game is growing, but its growth is largely confined to wealthy persons in large metropolitan cities. My understanding is that USILA supports the growth of the game through grants, but I have limited insight into that process. Hopefully that process works, and any additional needs are met through private donation. … Hopefully

Agree with this statement.

While on the scholastic level there’s a broader participation due to growth, but on the collegiate level, especially among the top programs it’s a sport for the elite.

Just take a look at the Virginia roster or any other comparable program. Players largely come from upper middle class or wealthy families.

If you’re coming from McDonough, St Anthonys, Rocky Point, St Annes Belfield, Ridgefield, Mountain Lakes, The Taft, Brunswick, Manhasset, St Paul’s, Georgetown Prep, Conestoga, Highland, Menlo School, Gilman, Deerfield, Haverford, then you’re in pretty good financial standing.

Yep. Just look at a college lacrosse roster