Why is redshirting so rare if it's so advantageous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again - redshirting has nothing to do with K-5. It matters when kids hit puberty. Talk to your middle school counselors as they see the effects of redshirting at that stage. When will your kid hit their growth spurts effects almost everything they do from age 12 to 18.

This is not something middle school counselors are worried about.

This is all they are worried about. As every middle school action on the part of the kids is related to this. Now, whether girls are mean to each other in 6th grade versus 7th grade is something they still have to deal with, but the big thing is getting kids through middle school in one piece so they can effectively transition into high school. Back in the day this was a bit simpler because high school started in 10th grade. With 9th graders in high school buildings it is more of an issue.

You anti-redshirt posters live in some truly weird worlds in your heads. In reality, not your imaginary world, middle school counselors do not spend all their time worrying about redshirting. Good Lord. You people are delusional.

The redshirts are pretty common in my area. Seems like half the boys in my kids K were 6 or 7. DC has an August birthday and is one of the youngest but they were ready for school. Holding them back would;'ve done them a disservice.

Let's say that you are right about "half the boys," which would be a statistical anomaly, but sure, let's live in your imaginary world here. Even if that were true, there is simply no way that redshirting is all that middle school counselors think about, which is what the anti-redshirt PP said above. You people are so dang delusional. It's nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

That's not what i said. Older kids do get into the better colleges, usually. All I'm saying is that I think most people would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for winning a competition against kids so much younger than them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

I know a double redshirted high school quarterback who is currently fielding multiple scholarship offers already from Division 1 schools as a sophomore. Clearly his mature age hasn't been an issue. Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

That's not what i said. Older kids do get into the better colleges, usually. All I'm saying is that I think most people would have a hard time feeling proud of themselves for winning a competition against kids so much younger than them.

So should Simone Biles feel bad if she wins more gold medals against younger girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

You realize that most people don't view it the same way. They don't see it as a race that graduating first means a damn thing. It doesn't open any doors. And for many being pushed to soon can have negative consequences as well. My brother went to school as a 4 year old kindergartener. He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

But then he wouldn't have graduated at 21 and missed that important but not real award
He was barely motivated to go to school my parents had to push him. I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school. So that wasn't a viable option for someone like him. He would have been happy just being a bartender somewhere. His freshman year at school was hard at times but he found his rhythm by sophomore year, when he was 18 and should have been starting school anyway. My mother says if she knew then what she knew now, she would have redshirted him back in kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

But then he wouldn't have graduated at 21 and missed that important but not real award
He was barely motivated to go to school my parents had to push him. I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school. So that wasn't a viable option for someone like him. He would have been happy just being a bartender somewhere. His freshman year at school was hard at times but he found his rhythm by sophomore year, when he was 18 and should have been starting school anyway. My mother says if she knew then what she knew now, she would have redshirted him back in kindergarten.

Well, I don't think anyone who gets a college degree, particularly if they do it in 4 years, has license to say that college was a struggle for them. High schools make it nearly impossible for students to flunk out, so you can almost always graduate no matter how poorly you do. That's not the case in college. Colleges couldn't care less whether you graduate or not. If you struggle in college, you either take longer than 4 years or drop out altogether. In fact, according to these statistic, your brother was more successful than most in college.

https://www.prepler.com/blog/why-do-so-few-u-s-college-students-graduate-in-four-years#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20%E2%80%9CFour%2DYear,bachelor's%20degree%20in%20four%20years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/just-41percent-of-college-students-graduate-in-four-years.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

But then he wouldn't have graduated at 21 and missed that important but not real award
He was barely motivated to go to school my parents had to push him. I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school. So that wasn't a viable option for someone like him. He would have been happy just being a bartender somewhere. His freshman year at school was hard at times but he found his rhythm by sophomore year, when he was 18 and should have been starting school anyway. My mother says if she knew then what she knew now, she would have redshirted him back in kindergarten.

Well, I don't think anyone who gets a college degree, particularly if they do it in 4 years, has license to say that college was a struggle for them. High schools make it nearly impossible for students to flunk out, so you can almost always graduate no matter how poorly you do. That's not the case in college. Colleges couldn't care less whether you graduate or not. If you struggle in college, you either take longer than 4 years or drop out altogether. In fact, according to these statistic, your brother was more successful than most in college.

https://www.prepler.com/blog/why-do-so-few-u-s-college-students-graduate-in-four-years#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20%E2%80%9CFour%2DYear,bachelor's%20degree%20in%20four%20years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/just-41percent-of-college-students-graduate-in-four-years.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html

These statistics are all within the last decade. Taking longer than 4 years to graduate used to be pretty rare. If the poster and her brother grew up during the 20th century, graduating late would've been unheard of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

You are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

But then he wouldn't have graduated at 21 and missed that important but not real award
He was barely motivated to go to school my parents had to push him. I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school. So that wasn't a viable option for someone like him. He would have been happy just being a bartender somewhere. His freshman year at school was hard at times but he found his rhythm by sophomore year, when he was 18 and should have been starting school anyway. My mother says if she knew then what she knew now, she would have redshirted him back in kindergarten.

Well, I don't think anyone who gets a college degree, particularly if they do it in 4 years, has license to say that college was a struggle for them. High schools make it nearly impossible for students to flunk out, so you can almost always graduate no matter how poorly you do. That's not the case in college. Colleges couldn't care less whether you graduate or not. If you struggle in college, you either take longer than 4 years or drop out altogether. In fact, according to these statistic, your brother was more successful than most in college.

https://www.prepler.com/blog/why-do-so-few-u-s-college-students-graduate-in-four-years#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20%E2%80%9CFour%2DYear,bachelor's%20degree%20in%20four%20years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/just-41percent-of-college-students-graduate-in-four-years.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html

These statistics are all within the last decade. Taking longer than 4 years to graduate used to be pretty rare. If the poster and her brother grew up during the 20th century, graduating late would've been unheard of.

Cite? I graduated in 1992 in 5 years and it wasn't "unheard of" at all- in fact, I'd say it was the norm in my program (engineering).

[Anonymous]

If you want to hold your kid back a year so he is older than the rest of the class, but everyone holds their kid back a year, your kid won’t be older than the rest of the class. He’ll be the same age as the rest of the class because they’re all held back. That’s why it’s rare. It can’t work if it’s not rare. It’s based on one kid not following the guidelines that the rest of the class is following

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I did not know colleges looked at a graduating seniors’ ages and said - “well older kids in the graduating class have better grades, better test scores, did more and are way more accomplished, but they are 10 months older so we will not accept them and instead we will go with the kid who gets lower grades and did less.

Certainly that will work with athletics too. My daughter played college soccer for 4 years. I am sure that coaches are out looking for younger players who are not as accomplished when they are recruiting.

Also, I'm not aware of a special award for graduating high school as the youngest in class. Is there a "most educated with the fewest days on Earth" award out there?

There's no official, on-paper, award for that. It's an award in and of itself. The more you know at a given point in time, the better. And actually, in a way, there is an award, just not a cut-and-dry one. A non-redshirted kid will have a high school diploma at 17 when, at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a high school diploma had they been redshirted. A nont-redshirted kid will have a bachelor's degree at 21 when. at that given point in time, they wouldn't have a bachelor's degree had they been redshirted.

He never fit in with kids in his class, his friends were the kids in the grade below, and he never liked school and struggled to get a 4 year degree. Another year of maturity would have served him well, not a barely earned HS diploma at 17 that only got him into a lackluster school. So, what's the point?

Why didn't he just take a gap-year between high school and college, so that he could've graduated college at 22 instead of 21?

But then he wouldn't have graduated at 21 and missed that important but not real award
He was barely motivated to go to school my parents had to push him. I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school. So that wasn't a viable option for someone like him. He would have been happy just being a bartender somewhere. His freshman year at school was hard at times but he found his rhythm by sophomore year, when he was 18 and should have been starting school anyway. My mother says if she knew then what she knew now, she would have redshirted him back in kindergarten.

Well, I don't think anyone who gets a college degree, particularly if they do it in 4 years, has license to say that college was a struggle for them. High schools make it nearly impossible for students to flunk out, so you can almost always graduate no matter how poorly you do. That's not the case in college. Colleges couldn't care less whether you graduate or not. If you struggle in college, you either take longer than 4 years or drop out altogether. In fact, according to these statistic, your brother was more successful than most in college.

https://www.prepler.com/blog/why-do-so-few-u-s-college-students-graduate-in-four-years#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20%E2%80%9CFour%2DYear,bachelor's%20degree%20in%20four%20years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/just-41percent-of-college-students-graduate-in-four-years.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/education/most-college-students-dont-earn-degree-in-4-years-study-finds.html

These statistics are all within the last decade. Taking longer than 4 years to graduate used to be pretty rare. If the poster and her brother grew up during the 20th century, graduating late would've been unheard of.

Cite? I graduated in 1992 in 5 years and it wasn't "unheard of" at all- in fact, I'd say it was the norm in my program (engineering).

That PP is one of DCUMs delusional and (I'm convinced) borderline crazy anti-redshirt posters. This group lives in a crazy world of their own imaginations that does not reflect reality. Of course there were many, many people with five-year undergraduate degrees in the 1980s and 1990s. I was one, and it was frequent in my program (CS). In fact, four years was more unusual.

But I'm just here for the surreal entertainment spectacle that is unfailingly put on by DCUM anti-redshirt posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to hold your kid back a year so he is older than the rest of the class, but everyone holds their kid back a year, your kid won’t be older than the rest of the class. He’ll be the same age as the rest of the class because they’re all held back. That’s why it’s rare. It can’t work if it’s not rare. It’s based on one kid not following the guidelines that the rest of the class is following

Or maybe people don't care about the other kids so much as making sure their own kid is ready and able to keep up. People act like this is all done on a whim just to get one over everyone else and not because of real recommendations based on an individual child's needs.