STA Scholar-Athlete

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think, if I'm reading this correctly, the poster implies that St. Albans is doing a worse job in admissions than Landon, Prep, St. Stephens? My goodness, that is myopic. The last time I checked St. Albans was still a school, correct? So the problem with lots of academically strong applicants who go on to be very successful high school and college students is what, exactly?

They state that Landon, etc are doing a better job with scholar athletes in contact sports. Which is true.

There is no problem with a school being just a school, there are many schools/programs for kids that are smart and not athletic. But, St. Albans bills itself as "While our students reach exceptional academic goals and exhibit first-rate athletic and artistic achievements".

But they are not delivering on "first-rate" in the athletic department for most sports. I don't think there is any shame in that. My son goes to a similar school, the only difference is the faculty, parents and students know the sports are mediocre compared to the area and nationally. So what? I don't care but to pretend we are a "first rate" athletic school is wrong.

The school can not just claim they are first rate in athletic achievement because they have a few students who achieve this outside the school programs.

[Edited for typos and accuracy -- sorry]

Well, I read the post as saying that at the other IAC schools the Admissions Director would be fired for not recruiting enough athletes in football/basketball/lacrosse. Which, I suppose, could be true -- but to me just emphasizes that St. Albans is smart not to focus on athletic recruiting at the expense of bringing in academically strong students who can do the work at what is a rigorous school but is also one that parents generally see as warm and caring. I like a great dessert after a good meal too -- but if I have to pick I'm going to take the nutritious meal first. If St. Albans can bring in top students who help them win football, basketball, baseball, and lacrosse games -- great! But if they would be bringing in students who would struggle, that's not great for those kids nor for St. Albans as an educational institution.

I would also take issue with the idea that St. Albans isn't delivering "first-rate athletic and artistic achievements" along with strong academics. They've currently got alums on Ivy League rosters for cross-country; track; rowing; swimming; ice hockey; football; sprint football; lacrosse; and baseball just from what I can remember from the past 3-4 years. Along with some additional Division I athletes (baseball, football, lacrosse, basketball, rowing, tennis at schools ranging from Navy for rowing to Indiana for football to Maryland for basketball to UVA for baseball) and lots and lots of kids at NESCAC schools like Amherst/Bowdoin/Middlebury and other great academic schools like Davidson playing the same range of sports. They are not as strong as they have been in football, baseball, and lacrosse, but I would say what they are doing is similar to what the Ivies do at the collegiate level, and it's a blend that most parents and alums and board members are very happy with (of course, not everyone).

My bottom line is that I think St. Albans has a great niche -- it's different from Landon or Prep or Bullis's niche -- but it is working for STA and yes, it does include a lot of athletic excellence although more focused on the running/rowing in recent years. I would venture to say that the fact that school is doing a capital campaign to expand their athletic fields suggests that the school wants to signal to applicants and current families a continued or heightened emphasis on athletics, including in "field sports," so if that's what other posters are suggesting I don't disagree. But the idea that there is some big rebellion brewing because STA hasn't won banners in football/basketball/baseball/lacrosse in the past few years doesn't comport with what I'm seeing/hearing.

[Anonymous]

Really? Are any of the IAC schools considered a powerhouse in any sport except Lacrosse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really? Are any of the IAC schools considered a powerhouse in any sport except Lacrosse?

No. So why all the protest about STA being "first rate" in sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? Are any of the IAC schools considered a powerhouse in any sport except Lacrosse?

No. So why all the protest about STA being "first rate" in sports.

Nobody is comparing St. Albans athletics to Dematha, but they also are not comparing Denatha academics to those at St. Albans. It's like the Ivy League -- excellent mix of academics and strong athletics. It doesn't mean that Harvard athletics are a joke because they don't play SEC football or top level basketball. St. Albans certainly sends more kids on to at college sports than my well regarded public school even though my school was much bigger. I would say generally the IAC offers first-rate athletics when you include the breadth of sports options and the number of grads who play a sport in college, whatever the division.

[Anonymous]

I think this is just one of those issues on which there will not be agreement, both because people never agree on anything where sports is involved (see argument over whether a football player who specializes in kicking can be an athlete, compare "is golf a sport" argument), and because the definition of what it means to be a school that is "first-rate at sports" is not something people agree upon. For me, the fact that about 20% of a St. Albans graduating class goes on to play a varsity sport (Division I or IAA or III) in college provides enough support for them to say they offer a "first-rate" academic and athletic experience. And the fact that so many kids end up playing a sport at the Ivy League schools is a plus for me, not a negative, as is the fact that they have kids playing college sports in a variety of sports.

But if somebody defines "first-rate" sports program as being linked only to the percentage of kids who are Division I letter of intent signees, or are playing in the "revenue sports" of football and basketball, or the "helmet sports" of football/ice hockey/lacrosse, then they won't see athletics as a strong point at a St. Albans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? Are any of the IAC schools considered a powerhouse in any sport except Lacrosse?

No. So why all the protest about STA being "first rate" in sports.

Nobody is comparing St. Albans athletics to Dematha, but they also are not comparing Denatha academics to those at St. Albans. It's like the Ivy League -- excellent mix of academics and strong athletics. It doesn't mean that Harvard athletics are a joke because they don't play SEC football or top level basketball. St. Albans certainly sends more kids on to at college sports than my well regarded public school even though my school was much bigger. I would say generally the IAC offers first-rate athletics when you include the breadth of sports options and the number of grads who play a sport in college, whatever the division.

Even Harvard does not describe their Athletic department as "first rate".

Also, check out the latest list of Rhodes scholars, many don't even play a sport for college. It is too bad... Sit all day, then eat, then sit and study, memorize, regurgitate information, go to bed,, wake up, do it again.

Obesity, diabetes, cancer, all in our kids future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is just one of those issues on which there will not be agreement, both because people never agree on anything where sports is involved (see argument over whether a football player who specializes in kicking can be an athlete, compare "is golf a sport" argument), and because the definition of what it means to be a school that is "first-rate at sports" is not something people agree upon. For me, the fact that about 20% of a St. Albans graduating class goes on to play a varsity sport (Division I or IAA or III) in college provides enough support for them to say they offer a "first-rate" academic and athletic experience. And the fact that so many kids end up playing a sport at the Ivy League schools is a plus for me, not a negative, as is the fact that they have kids playing college sports in a variety of sports.

But if somebody defines "first-rate" sports program as being linked only to the percentage of kids who are Division I letter of intent signees, or are playing in the "revenue sports" of football and basketball, or the "helmet sports" of football/ice hockey/lacrosse, then they won't see athletics as a strong point at a St. Albans.

Exactly... That is what people are looking for in a 1st rate athletic department. Just like a 1st rate academic school uses matriculation to Ivy's and SLACs as a way to show their school is 1st rate in academics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? Are any of the IAC schools considered a powerhouse in any sport except Lacrosse?

No. So why all the protest about STA being "first rate" in sports.

Nobody is comparing St. Albans athletics to Dematha, but they also are not comparing Denatha academics to those at St. Albans. It's like the Ivy League -- excellent mix of academics and strong athletics. It doesn't mean that Harvard athletics are a joke because they don't play SEC football or top level basketball. St. Albans certainly sends more kids on to at college sports than my well regarded public school even though my school was much bigger. I would say generally the IAC offers first-rate athletics when you include the breadth of sports options and the number of grads who play a sport in college, whatever the division.

Yes. Damatha is 1st rate in athletics, so then STA is what? Not 1st rate.

[Anonymous]

Kept thinking of stuff you wanted to post, huh? (15:32, 15:34, 15:35 -- isn't that when the Redskins went down by 30+ points? Is that you, Dan Snyder?)

Joking aside, your post seems to prove the point of the 19:27 point. If you only care about football/basketball (DeMatha's no good at lacrosse), then nobody but the big Catholic schools can be defined as having good (or "first-rate") athletics programs. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kept thinking of stuff you wanted to post, huh? (15:32, 15:34, 15:35 -- isn't that when the Redskins went down by 30+ points? Is that you, Dan Snyder?)

Joking aside, your post seems to prove the point of the 19:27 point. If you only care about football/basketball (DeMatha's no good at lacrosse), then nobody but the big Catholic schools can be defined as having good (or "first-rate") athletics programs. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

ad hominem is not effective you should have learned that at your SLAC.

No, hospital with friend but I could have predicted that outcome, oh and my fantasy league is ahead in the playoffs, thanks for caring.

Damatha still has more lacrosse kids to college, and they have a better baseball team, STA's marque sport.

Also, Damatha has a better arts program.

But this is not a pissing match, the question is does STA value scholar athletes. I think they are happy to get a few here and there but the majority of kids are not. Also, they do not aquire the skills at school, it is from private clubs and lessons.

But this is like most schools so I don't know why STA cares so much, they have to pretend to be the best. It a little bizarre. You don't see other schools claiming 1st rate athletics and not delivering. Say we value athletes and teamwork, believe in exercise, mind-body, etc but 1st rate?

[Anonymous]

Again, there is not one independent school that dominants a sport outside of lacrosse. Flint Hill used to be a strong in B-Ball. In general, independent schools are meant to prepare kids for acceptance to the top colleges and universities. Athletics are meant to assist in that process. The Landon websites advertises a few of its seniors that have signed LOIs with Div I programs but all in what most people would consider non-significant college sports (lacrosse and golf).

Most people would consider a school a major program when they start to consistently place kids in top colleges and onto the pros. That is not the IAC.

Also, IMHO, the Ivy League is not a serious athletic conference. Sure, they produce strong student athletes but so does Stanford and Stanford does it by successfully competing against the best. I think it is great that a STA kid was newcomer of the league in the Ivy League but I would be more impressed if he started at Notre Dame, Stanford or Duke.

[Anonymous]

Sports are more important than academics to the American psyche. To play sports is ultimate service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really? Are any of the IAC schools considered a powerhouse in any sport except Lacrosse?

Ice Hockey; Tennis; Golf; Water Polo - most non-urban sports

[Anonymous]

Sports are important in most western societies, the US just has more sports where you can make a real living. The UK has golf and the English Premier League. The US has the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, PGA, etc. To show the absurdness, you can making a living fishing for bass, snowboarding, bowling, etc. The only sport which you can't make a real living in lacrosse, the only sport which the IAC is strong.

[Anonymous]

Well, lacrosse is not a sport catering to natural athletes. Lacrosse was adapted by the stratum of American society who would have a difficult time competing in the traditional sports with athletes. Hence, a "sport" where they too can experience the euphoria of victory and the agony of defeat.