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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. You are assuming the anti-redshirt posters have at least some logical reasoning skills, which, based on available evidence, is a significant stretch.

[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).

Joke's on you anti redshirter. Brother did take 5 years to graduate, and spent a few summers at school taking classes to catch up. He changed majors a few times. I was joking about not being able to graduate at 21 b/c a gap year was taken, because you don't get an extra cookie for graduating at 21. But it wasn't a big deal then, mid 90s. I'm not sure why you think you get to decide whether or not someone struggled through school and just b/c they eventually graduated. Needless to say, you're not making much of an argument against redshirting by saying he's lucky he graduated at all. It's equally likely he would have been more focused, driven, and motivated had he been more mature and taken school more seriously than he did, especially in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except for financial reasons/students had to work, I don't know anyone who took 5 years and this was a huge state university. It is not that normal. And pretty expensive.

[Anonymous]

Very, very common in engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS is turning 6 in November, and will be in kindergarten in the fall. Cut off is Sept 1 so no redshirting.

Same but a December bday. This is just the way it goes. I wouldn’t want him to be almost 7 in Kindergarten!

[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?

A gap year doesn't make up for struggling in school for 12 years. It's a cumulative effect.

[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

no clue what that means. work?

I don't think people hold back solely so their kid is older. There are a lot of other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, given the complete fiasco early education will be this year due to covid the last two years there is no way I would start a kid this year if I could avoid it. I don’t need a kid being tested and retested and in a classroom with kids all over the map in learning levels based on what the did or did not accomplish last year.

[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?

A gap year doesn't make up for struggling in school for 12 years. It's a cumulative effect.

+1

Suddenly being the oldest isn't going to erase 13 years of being the youngest.

[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?

I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school.

That fear would only be legit for enabling parents. When I told my parents I wanted to take time off to work before going to college, they made it crystal clear that I had one, and only one, year before I had to go to college. Parents who put their foot down shouldn't have to worry about their kids never going to school.

[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?

I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school.

That fear would only be legit for enabling parents. When I told my parents I wanted to take time off to work before going to college, they made it crystal clear that I had one, and only one, year before I had to go to college. Parents who put their foot down shouldn't have to worry about their kids never going to school.

Oh, come on. A high school grad taking a gap year is an adult. Parents can't force anything. The peer pressure of everyone going off to college together has an influence. After a gap year, that pressure is significantly diminished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Joke's on you anti redshirter. Brother did take 5 years to graduate, and spent a few summers at school taking classes to catch up. He changed majors a few times. I was joking about not being able to graduate at 21 b/c a gap year was taken, because you don't get an extra cookie for graduating at 21. But it wasn't a big deal then, mid 90s. I'm not sure why you think you get to decide whether or not someone struggled through school and just b/c they eventually graduated. Needless to say, you're not making much of an argument against redshirting by saying he's lucky he graduated at all. It's equally likely he would have been more focused, driven, and motivated had he been more mature and taken school more seriously than he did, especially in high school.

This story should be a lesson to all parents who refuse to redshirt on the basis that they don't want put their child behind. This story shows that kids who are rushed will ultimately, not get their college degree any sooner than if they had been redshirted.

[Anonymous]

Because, OP, competition isn't as important to some families as it is to others. Believe it or not, many people simple aren't born with a competitive streak.

[Anonymous]

Meh, there's pros and cons to redshirting, and it's hard to predict some of them because they don't surface until MS/HS. For MANY families the financial costs of an additional year of daycare are a significant factor to consider. I think many also aren't really giving it that much thought... unless there's a developmental issue, then you just go if your 5 before Sept. 30. That's the default (barring exceptional circumstances) for most.

For us, DD is 4 with a mid-September BD... physically small (~5th-10th percentile) but academically advanced with a WPPSI north of 130. She's already an avid reader and good with basic add/subtract and patterns, etc. We're concerned that holding her back from K would kind of stunt her academic development at this stage so inclined to proceed with K in the fall... despite it likely being a larger-than-usual cohort with a bunch of redshirted-due-to-COVID 6-yos. DD has a strong personality and expect she'll rise to the challenge.

Extra year of Pre-K isn't a financial concern... biggest concern is just that she's physically small, but (a) we're more concerned about academics than sports or social things where size matters more, and (b) by HS the extra year of age wouldn't really matter much size-wise since growth rates plateau earlier for girls.

[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?

I think the fear is real that if a kid takes a year off they won't ever go back to school.

That fear would only be legit for enabling parents. When I told my parents I wanted to take time off to work before going to college, they made it crystal clear that I had one, and only one, year before I had to go to college. Parents who put their foot down shouldn't have to worry about their kids never going to school.

Oh, come on. A high school grad taking a gap year is an adult. Parents can't force anything. The peer pressure of everyone going off to college together has an influence. After a gap year, that pressure is significantly diminished.

They most certainly can, if parents are paying or contributing financially. If you don’t go in a year, we won’t pay. Done.