Dave Hendrickson writes:
>This is not at all intended as flame-bait, but I work with a lot of RPI grads
>and their impression is that the courses that many of the hockey players take at
>RPI are hardly rigorous.  A guy like Juneau, who graduated with an engineering
>degree *while adjusting to/learning English*, is considered the exception.
>Guys like Oates and Carter were viewed as being hockey players first and
>foremost who *did* take a lot of soft courses.  Things may have changed since
>the Oates/Carter/Juneau days or maybe not.  It's also a possibility that my
>friends would view anything other than engineering courses as soft.
 
Juneau was certainly an exception, but then again he would have been
an exception at any school.  I think your last sentence is the key,
though.  In my year at RPI, 1985-86, all but one of the players had
non-engineering/science majors.  And almost every one of the "normal"
students I knew had a very low regard for these majors and the players
for taking them.  Meanwhile, they showed up at the Field House every
weekend to cheer on their defending national champs.  Figure that one
out.  I didn't feel bad for them at all for waiting in line for two
months to get tickets.
 
This attitude that the engineering/science majors at RPI were the only
ones who worked hard really disgusts me.  And, it is quite pervasive
at RPI - a sort of prejudice in its own right.  Although I was an
engineering major, I can vouch for the fact that my three freshman
(hockey-playing) roommates, all management majors, were certainly well
above-average students (I graduated HS with one of them) and worked
very hard in school.  The students who put down the players didn't see
them working in the cafeteria or library till midnight (curfew) every
night on the multitude of briefs, papers and reports they had to do
for their business classes.  Or bringing stacks of books on the road
and writing papers on the bus and in the hotel rooms.
 
Want a perfect example of the attitude that existed at RPI towards the
hockey team?  I came in as a manager/statistician for the team that
year, and simply because of my connection to the team and roommates
being players, most of the non-players in that dorm automatically
looked upon me the same way as they did the players.  It actually
amused me and still does.  So I kept my mouth shut and went about my
business...kind of like the players did.  There wasn't anything to
prove.  The "normal" students might have all gotten 800's on their
math SATs and been engineering/scientific wizards, but you know what?
Give them a writing assignment in English 101 and it's not unusual for
the players to outperform them.  I have known literally hundreds of
people who were technical geniuses but could not get their thoughts
across on paper or face-to-face.  But they considered themselves
superior to the business/social science majors.  I could never
understand that.
 
It's a different kind of major, requiring a different kind of work
from those who choose scientific disciplines.  Some programs may be
easier at some schools, but in general and at RPI at least, I don't
believe it was any less strenuous.  And there were those players who
were "slackers", but they tended to get weeded out, just as it is with
the normal student population.  The majority, I can tell you, put in
the time and worked hard; at RPI, you have to.  Let's put it this way:
if you graduate with a degree from RPI, you have earned it.
---                                                                 ---
Mike Machnik                                          [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                  *HMM* 11/13/93
<<<<<< Color Voice of the (7-7-1) Merrimack Warriors WCCM 800 AM >>>>>>