Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that running isn't a niche sport, but if your daughter had the kind of talent that warranted this kind of uprooting of the family, it would have already manifested itself. Don't move.
I know that running isn't a niche sport, but if your daughter had the kind of talent that warranted this kind of uprooting of the family, it would have already manifested itself. Don't move.
Good article! It should put things into perspective for some parents out there. The athletes in that article aren't competing for an athletic scholarship or a chance to turn pro. They will likely pay the full price for tuition, and room & board at the schools they attend. Most people reading the article probably didn't know that squash is a college sport, at least at some colleges.
BTW, I have a niece who is playing a sport at an Ivy. I'm sure she wouldn't have been accepted without being recruited for the sport.
This is all very new to me but my Freshman daughter is highly competitive in her sport (Running and track and field) She currently attends a 2A private school but she is highly motivated to run for a 6A school. If we find a school that is good both academically and in her sport, should we move? Her times are comparable to other runners in the 6A school. We are flexible and could make a move without disrupting the family life too much. Has anyone else switched schools primarily for sports? Thanks, Pam
As a former high school track coach unless she is dominating the 2A competition keep her where she is. College's are more concerned with her time(s) than her achievements. IF 2A competition is presenting her with minimal challenge then I'd say MAYBE but I'd still advise her to stay put. You also have to consider whether or not she would fit in with the 6A school in question's core group of girls. If we're talking XC would she crack that school's top 5??? top 7??? if not, then why make that move? What are her events in track? Does the 6A school already have girls in those events that are comparable or better than her?
I've seen kids transfer from a higher classification to a lower but RARELY the other way around. IME they transfer down because they want to give themselves a greater chance to compete for a state individual title.
I've also seen kids transfer from one large school to another simply because the school they transfer to has a more quality program where "iron sharpens iron" and kids feed off each other success wise.
What is her ultimate goal in all this? I guess what I'm asking is what is the long term pay off?
I know that running isn't a niche sport, but if your daughter had the kind of talent that warranted this kind of uprooting of the family, it would have already manifested itself. Don't move.
It was just reported by the New York Times that this article was retracted by The Atlantic. It is not clear to me how many inaccuracies they found, but it doesn't seem like the inaccuracies actually affected the intent of the article.
The last two sentences from the Editor's Note: "We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision."
The article looked to be a bit too much. Yes, there are some crazy parents in niche sports but it is not a norm.
Also, the central claim of the article is somewhat misleading.
Ruth Shalit Barrett wrote:
"The special boost for recruited athletes, known as preferential
admission, can be equivalent to hundreds of SAT points. According to the Washington Post, Harvard, which typically admits approximately 5 percent of its applicants, reports acceptance rates as high as 88 percent for athletes endorsed by its coaches. "
Before endorsing an athlete, coaches carefully look at prospective student's grades to make an initial determination if the application has a good chance to be accepted by Admissions.
Literally, the very first question they are going to ask is "What are your grades?"
If somebody has say a 3.7 GPA and a dream to play a niche sport for Princeton, I strongly doubt that a coach will waste one of his/her very few endorsements on such a student.
The last two sentences from the Editor's Note: "We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision."
The article looked to be a bit too much. Yes, there are some crazy parents in niche sports but it is not a norm.
Also, the central claim of the article is somewhat misleading.
Ruth Shalit Barrett wrote:
"The special boost for recruited athletes, known as preferential
admission, can be equivalent to hundreds of SAT points. According to the Washington Post, Harvard, which typically admits approximately 5 percent of its applicants, reports acceptance rates as high as 88 percent for athletes endorsed by its coaches. "
Before endorsing an athlete, coaches carefully look at prospective student's grades to make an initial determination if the application has a good chance to be accepted by Admissions.
Literally, the very first question they are going to ask is "What are your grades?"
If somebody has say a 3.7 GPA and a dream to play a niche sport for Princeton, I strongly doubt that a coach will waste one of his/her very few endorsements on such a student.
I actually had no problem with the article. I'm curious about the other errors. I'm aware of a couple of athletes who got into Ivy League schools due to playing major sports. One is a relative.
1) Ivies are not equal. Cornell (especially state-supported colleges) and UPenn are probably a step below more prestigious schools. Think of it, admission requirements at these two schools are not that much dramatically different that those at USC.
2) Money generating sports probably have looser requirements.
Again, the author did not bother to explain that a coach's endorsement does not come without a serious look at the applicants grades/test scores. If a coach of a niche sport can walk through admissions say two applicants, the coach will not waste that spot on an academically weak/average applicant.
88% acceptance rate for endorsed athletes happens because coaches have a pretty good idea of a (more generous) threshold that the prospective student-athletes have to scale.
It was just reported by the New York Times that this article was retracted by The Atlantic. It is not clear to me how many inaccuracies they found, but it doesn't seem like the inaccuracies actually affected the intent of the article.
From NYT:
“I never imagined an outcome like this,” the writer Ruth Shalit Barrett said of The Atlantic article. “And I’m so very sorry that this is where things have ended up.”
I love that she's not sorry about lying or writing yet another fake article.
It was just reported by the New York Times that this article was retracted by The Atlantic. It is not clear to me how many inaccuracies they found, but it doesn't seem like the inaccuracies actually affected the intent of the article.
“I’m not the same person I was 25 years ago,” she said. “This piece meant a great deal to me. And I wanted it to be my best work.”
Appears like she is the same person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
