Thanks Bruce for beating me to the punch. You highlighted the fundamental issue underlying the scholarship debate -- enriching the student or enriching the school. The difference between an athletic scholarship and others is that the school demands something from the student, and is not simply rewarding the student for good HS marks or for financial need. The school desires to do well in sports that interest the public, ergo, few badminton scholarships are awarded to students, male or female. Having established that the quid pro quo for the scholarship is athletic prowess, the question is therefore whether the school should set certain of them aside to fund a separate but unequal system of athletics. It strikes me that we have had such an issue before. Thus, to me the "put up or shut up" argument that follows is this -- if students are being rewarded for athletic prowess, they should compete for them on an equal basis -- One hockey team for the best 20 males and females, one volleyball team, etc. If that egalitarian system strikes someone as unfair (and I recognize that this system is, at this point in time, absurd), then they are then asking for special consideration from the school. In my mind, are therefore not in any position to "demand" equality if they are unable to achieve it on an even playing field. Just a note, I am aware of the physiological differences between men and women, so that one gender is better suited for certain sports, the other for some others. If we are prepared to recognize these "real world" differences and accomodate them, we should also recognize the "real world" differences in funding and not demand blind equality. I hope these thoughts do not inflame the list too much, but, after reading everyone else's thoughts on the subject, I felt I had to add my 2 cents. HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.