New recruiting rules

[Unregistered]

Ivies and their ilk have much to offer some students. For some kids, they are a chance to finally be surrounded by many geeky peers and faculty very academically interested and motivated. Not exactly the typical high school experience. They are great for some.

This little blurb at the bottom of this wiki page about the college admissions scandal sums it up quite nicely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_c...ribery_scandal

[QUOTE]
"Much news coverage was devoted to attempting to explain why anyone would have been tempted by Singer's scheme. A common attribute among the defendants was that many were rich, but not ultra-rich. According to The New York Times, college admissions at certain elite American universities had become so selective that a family would have to make a minimum donation of $10 million to inspire an admission committee to take a second look at their child. And even for families of such means, there would be no guarantee of return on investment, while Singer was selling certainty. In open court, he said: "I created a guarantee." The Los Angeles Times explained that there was probably also a social signaling element at work, in that admission to an elite university based purely upon an applicant's apparent merit publicly validates both the child's innate talent and the parents' own parenting skills in a way that an admission coinciding with a sizable donation does not.

In turn, others examined why certain universities had become so selective in the first place. The Atlantic pointed out that college seats are not scarce in the United States, except at a handful of universities which became selective on purpose: "[S]carcity has the added benefit of increasing an institution’s prestige. The more students who apply, and the fewer students who get in, the more selective an institution becomes, and, subsequently, the more prestigious. And parents are clawing over one another to get a taste of the social capital that comes with that." Arizona State University (ASU) president Michael M. Crow described the "crisis of access to these social-status-granting institutions" as a full-blown "hysteria". It was alleged in court filings that one of the defendant parents had named ASU as a university they were specifically trying to avoid; the non-selective university has been the "butt of jokes" in American television shows for many years, as well as the 2015 film Ted 2. The inevitable result, according to Newsweek, was that the most elite institutions had created a situation in which purely meritocratic admissions had become impossible because they were already turning away too many overqualified candidates—former Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust had once said, "we could fill our class twice over with valedictorians." It was also recognized that any workable long-term solution would need to alleviate the underlying anxiety driving the crisis, either by restructuring the college admissions process or the American labor market.

HuffPost explained that such anxiety barely exists in Canada, whose four-year universities do not show such extreme disparities in selectivity and prestige, and in turn, most Canadian employers do not rigidly discriminate between job candidates based upon where they graduated. In contrast, selective American universities have evolved into gatekeepers for the highest echelons of certain socially prestigious and financially lucrative industries like law and finance. University of Oklahoma history professor Wilfred M. McClay told Newsweek: "I’m not going to pretend there isn’t a difference between Harvard and Suffolk County Community College, but I think this situation where the Supreme Court is made up entirely of Harvard or Yale Law School graduates is wrong. The thing driving the current scandal seems to be that ultimately parents were willing to do anything to game the system to get their kids these advantages, not because the education was better but because the legitimation of social position would be better.” [QUOTE]

It's parent's like you who buy into doing anything possible to game the system. Funny how the situation doesn't really exist in other countries. You could send your kid to Canada or England and get an equal if not better education for a fraction of the cost.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;2477202]This little blurb at the bottom of this wiki page about the college admissions scandal sums it up quite nicely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_c...ribery_scandal

[QUOTE]
"Much news coverage was devoted to attempting to explain why anyone would have been tempted by Singer's scheme. A common attribute among the defendants was that many were rich, but not ultra-rich. According to The New York Times, college admissions at certain elite American universities had become so selective that a family would have to make a minimum donation of $10 million to inspire an admission committee to take a second look at their child. And even for families of such means, there would be no guarantee of return on investment, while Singer was selling certainty. In open court, he said: "I created a guarantee." The Los Angeles Times explained that there was probably also a social signaling element at work, in that admission to an elite university based purely upon an applicant's apparent merit publicly validates both the child's innate talent and the parents' own parenting skills in a way that an admission coinciding with a sizable donation does not.

In turn, others examined why certain universities had become so selective in the first place. The Atlantic pointed out that college seats are not scarce in the United States, except at a handful of universities which became selective on purpose: "[S]carcity has the added benefit of increasing an institution’s prestige. The more students who apply, and the fewer students who get in, the more selective an institution becomes, and, subsequently, the more prestigious. And parents are clawing over one another to get a taste of the social capital that comes with that." Arizona State University (ASU) president Michael M. Crow described the "crisis of access to these social-status-granting institutions" as a full-blown "hysteria". It was alleged in court filings that one of the defendant parents had named ASU as a university they were specifically trying to avoid; the non-selective university has been the "butt of jokes" in American television shows for many years, as well as the 2015 film Ted 2. The inevitable result, according to Newsweek, was that the most elite institutions had created a situation in which purely meritocratic admissions had become impossible because they were already turning away too many overqualified candidates—former Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust had once said, "we could fill our class twice over with valedictorians." It was also recognized that any workable long-term solution would need to alleviate the underlying anxiety driving the crisis, either by restructuring the college admissions process or the American labor market.

HuffPost explained that such anxiety barely exists in Canada, whose four-year universities do not show such extreme disparities in selectivity and prestige, and in turn, most Canadian employers do not rigidly discriminate between job candidates based upon where they graduated. In contrast, selective American universities have evolved into gatekeepers for the highest echelons of certain socially prestigious and financially lucrative industries like law and finance. University of Oklahoma history professor Wilfred M. McClay told Newsweek: "I’m not going to pretend there isn’t a difference between Harvard and Suffolk County Community College, but I think this situation where the Supreme Court is made up entirely of Harvard or Yale Law School graduates is wrong. The thing driving the current scandal seems to be that ultimately parents were willing to do anything to game the system to get their kids these advantages, not because the education was better but because the legitimation of social position would be better.”

It's parent's like you who buy into doing anything possible to game the system. Funny how the situation doesn't really exist in other countries. You could send your kid to Canada or England and get an equal if not better education for a fraction of the cost.

I might do that. But there have always been the corrupt spoiled brats of the world and there always will be. Went to college with them back in my time and no doubt these institutions are still full if them . Not talking about them.

Obviously the selectivity of these elite institutions is gamed but anyone paying attention is aware. More then half the applications likely go directly to the trash bin. That said, some of them still have much to offer extremely academically inclined kids.

[Unregistered]

^ good post. A key factor in Canada and other countries is that college doesn't cost the same as an inexpensive house. College is either free or very affordable. With the costs so high here its understandable that families see the better schools as a better investment vs lesser known ones. That ratchets up the demand which in turns makes the schools think they pretty much can charge whatever they want.

[Unregistered]

^ good post. A key factor in Canada and other countries is that college doesn't cost the same as an inexpensive house. College is either free or very affordable. With the costs so high here its understandable that families see the better schools as a better investment vs lesser known ones. That ratchets up the demand which in turns makes the schools think they pretty much can charge whatever they want.

It is not free. If we financed higher education via taxes, college could be " free" here too. Maybe that would be a more efficient smarter way to do it but the costs have to be covered one way or another.

[Unregistered]

Where you miss the boat is thinking that matters to a college coach. College coaches don't really care if your kid thrives academically, only whether they can help their team win games. The issue is if your kid is someone they think can help do that they will get them into the school and then what? As you note, are they likely to succeed there? So many here think admission into one the high brow academic institutions is way more important for long term success than it actually is and constantly push the need to "reach" for academics. That is a big mistake because in the real world, results matter and graduating down near the bottom of a class, even when it is an Ivy or like type institution, really doesn't change the trajectory of a kid's life anywhere near what some like to paint.

Granted that there are plenty of coaches at all levels like you describe, but ultimately that’s not someone you want to play for or have your kid playing for. Parents should have enough contact with the coach to figure out if they care about their kid beyond playing ability and speak on the sideline to current parents as well before signing on the dotted line. Don’t lose sight that they are in college to get an education and enjoy their time there. If you smell a coach that has a totally different agenda, get away and don’t look back.

[Unregistered]

It is not free. If we financed higher education via taxes, college could be " free" here too. Maybe that would be a more efficient smarter way to do it but the costs have to be covered one way or another.

True that. Shave a few percentage points off the military budget and college becomes affordable for all, not just for those who can write big checks. Priorities.

[Unregistered]

It is not free. If we financed higher education via taxes, college could be " free" here too. Maybe that would be a more efficient smarter way to do it but the costs have to be covered one way or another.

Not to go too much off topic, but the cost of college is being driven by: 1) too many student loans and 2) needless building on college campuses. The only way most students can afford college is thru loans and loans are given out too easily. There are students taking majors that pay relatively little when they graduate, but they can get loans that exceed their earning potential. Then there is all the ridiculous construction. A dorm used to be a non-descript building with small rooms and bunk beds. Now they build dorms that look like luxury apartments with gyms and rock climbing walls. Classrooms too used to be very plain, but now they look like the deck of the starship Enterprise. It’s a war for your borrowed money and luxury bragging rights, but very little to do with you actually learning more.

[Unregistered]

True that. Shave a few percentage points off the military budget and college becomes affordable for all, not just for those who can write big checks. Priorities.

What? How so? Government just writes checks to schools to make it "free" or "more afforadable"? They tried that with govt. loans and tuition got inflated to the point where we are now.

Any individual (family) can decide to send their kid to a private college costing $75k/year if they want. Totally their choice. And people can decide not to do that if they can't afford it or don't want to take out loans. Why should anyone's tax dollars subsidize someone else's decision to buy a service in the college marketplace. Families every day decide to send a kid to a juco or even skip college b/c that's a rational economic decision at the current tuition prices. Just b/c someone wants to spend the $$ to do differently, we're all supposed to pay for that with our taxes?

[Unregistered]

Depends on what the voters decide they want to do with the tax money. Are we stronger nation spending it on tanks and bombers and soldiers or on education? There are wildly divergent opinions on that so we argue and battle it out with votes and lobbyists. One wins, one loses and on we go.

[Unregistered]

Granted that there are plenty of coaches at all levels like you describe, but ultimately that’s not someone you want to play for or have your kid playing for. Parents should have enough contact with the coach to figure out if they care about their kid beyond playing ability and speak on the sideline to current parents as well before signing on the dotted line. Don’t lose sight that they are in college to get an education and enjoy their time there. If you smell a coach that has a totally different agenda, get away and don’t look back.

OMG I hope you don't actually believe this drivel. At the D1 level soccer is a business and every coach at that level has winning as their #1 priority. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a coach at that level who puts academics before winning so your advice is really rather ridiculous.

[Unregistered]

Depends on what the voters decide they want to do with the tax money. Are we stronger nation spending it on tanks and bombers and soldiers or on education? There are wildly divergent opinions on that so we argue and battle it out with votes and lobbyists. One wins, one loses and on we go.

Here's a suggestion, maybe if we stop paying for the security of the "free world" and other things like supporting their economies through one sided trade agreements or paying for 90% of the worlds emissions clean up we might be able to make education free.

[Unregistered]

You really should stop writing, all it does is confirm that you know nothing and are just an idiot blathering on about things you haven’t the first clue about. Those scores will get most legit prospects in wherever they want. We are sorry if your kid didn’t have what it takes but that doesn’t give you license to spread lies and misinformation.

Haha. We had choices, clearly you didn't or don't. My kid only sought after high level soccer programs and high level academics.

As a high level recruit (and high level academic), she turned down many programs because they didn't fit her rubric (high level soccer, but academics were not; high level academics but soccer was not; or flat out didn't have the areas of academics which would give her the degree she wanted (not all schools have classes to become an architect, engineer, biochemistry, nursing, etc.).

You need to make it work for you academically too.

[Unregistered]

Haha. We had choices, clearly you didn't or don't. My kid only sought after high level soccer programs and high level academics.

As a high level recruit (and high level academic), she turned down many programs because they didn't fit her rubric (high level soccer, but academics were not; high level academics but soccer was not; or flat out didn't have the areas of academics which would give her the degree she wanted (not all schools have classes to become an architect, engineer, biochemistry, nursing, etc.).

You need to make it work for you academically too.

My bet is our kids are at similar schools/programs. While I agree that academics are extremely important, are experience has been that even at the most prestigious schools the academics are a secondary priority for the coach and your kid must always bleed soccer for them first before they will give any consideration to your kid's academic aspirations and they won't last very long if your kid tries to flip the priority. Kid's need to be insanely motivated to do both at a high level. Even the best students falter when they have coaches constantly trying to redirect their priorities.

[Unregistered]

My bet is our kids are at similar schools/programs. While I agree that academics are extremely important, are experience has been that even at the most prestigious schools the academics are a secondary priority for the coach and your kid must always bleed soccer for them first before they will give any consideration to your kid's academic aspirations and they won't last very long if your kid tries to flip the priority. Kid's need to be insanely motivated to do both at a high level. Even the best students falter when they have coaches constantly trying to redirect their priorities.

This is good stuff.
We were told by a very wise coach that was my kid's trainer a little while back (won a DI championship with a very high level academic school). He said, don't let a coach make you change what you want to do with your life outside of soccer. Don't do it. There are programs out there that will work with you. You have the talent, the desire and the motivation to be successful in both. Seek out these programs. We did.

[Unregistered]

OMG I hope you don't actually believe this drivel. At the D1 level soccer is a business and every coach at that level has winning as their #1 priority. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a coach at that level who puts academics before winning so your advice is really rather ridiculous.

And which D1 does your kid go to college at because this nonsense you’re spreading isn’t our experience? First, you don’t make the coach’s priority your priority. You, as the parent, have to work to be sure your kid receives an education. Second, what are they “winning” in college? 80+% of D1 hasn’t made it to a national cup tournament in the last 10 years. You see roughly the same names pop up in the final 16 for both men’s and women’s soccer every year. Outside the top 20 or so ranked schools, it really doesn’t matter. There are hundreds of really good academic D1 schools where all that matters is you did better than 50% of your conference. And for 99.9% of the kids, this is end of the road for their soccer career and the start of their professional life that will last decades. If you are so worried about pleasing the coach and “winning” nothing over 4 years that you forget about your education and future, then you’re priorities are really screwed up.