Best Private School Sports for College Admissions?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Sorry to let out a little psi from your pin head. You are wrong. |
Anonymous
Not the same as the college admissions office identifies desirable candidates that may be eligible for an endowment scholarship. In contrast, the admissions office has no role at all in the identification or selection of students awarded ROTC scholarship. Another huge difference is that the ROTC scholarship is really more of an education loan from the military to be paid back with several years of your life after graduation, and even possibly with your life itself. |
Anonymous
I did not say the admissions office had role. As a matter of a fact, I have repeated over and over it s not manged by the school. They are private scholarships, from private donors that the coach is knowledgable about and hooks kids up with these scholarships and private benefactors. Yes, ROTC is paid back with service and these are only paid back by playing a sport. It is also done for the art students. |
Anonymous
Uh huh. Keep telling yourself this. But others should not be deluded. |
Anonymous
True, there is a rule. If you receive a scholarship from a private institution as soon as you are accepted to an Ivy school it is rescinded. |
Anonymous
Bumping this explanation in response to the poster who keeps asserting that Ivy League schools can dodge the prohibition on athletic scholarships by giving what the poster terms as "endowed scholarships." Regardless of the source of the money (named, endowed fund given by a sports-minded donor or the general operating funds of the school), Ivy League athletes cannot receive aid without a finding from the school that they qualify for Financial Aid, and the amount of the award is capped by the amount of need found. Any supposed "private aid" (if that is what this poster is talking about) would be an NCAA violation -- all aid must go through the school. Not sure what is complicated about this fact, which leads me to believe it is possible the "endowed scholarship" poster is out to deliberately mislead and thus gin up false controversy. |
Anonymous
|
A little bit more about the landscape of the Ivies when it comes to available money for athletes (and other students).
A few years ago, Harvard announced an initiative to try to make its education more affordable for middle class families; basically, it raised the income cut-off for true aid (grants, not just loans). I know that Princeton and Yale (other big endowments) matched the initiative -- not sure about the other Ivies. In practice, this has played out very favorably for Ivies in recruiting athletes. Take ice hockey, which is a relatively blue collar sport in places like MA and Minnesota. An ice hockey player coming from a family making, say, $75,000 per year can get major financial aid from Harvard or Yale. So of course, can a flute player from a family making $75,000 -- the FA is equally available for the entire student body. In men's sports that are not "fully funded" in terms of scholarships (pretty much everything except football and basketball), this aid policy can make the Ivy competitive with other schools than are perhaps less expensive but can only offer minor scholarship money. Now, let's take a basketball player (male or female). If the family has a relatively low Household Income, the Harvard need-based financial aid package may be functionally the same as a full scholarship to a conference that gives athletic scholarships; yet the Ivy basketball player is receiving need-based aid that, unlike athletic scholarships, is guaranteed and not contingent upon playing the sport. This phenomenon means Harvard can now compete for many top players in men's basketball, and the team's success in recent years shows this. Similarly, Princeton Women's basketball has been outstanding in recent years and recruits VERY well -- this is part of the landscape. This is all more nuanced than most people are interested in, but the point is, this can be a relatively nuanced and complex area. The poster who seems to think that rich patrons like Montgomery Burns of the Simpsons can just give money to Ivy athletes does not have it right. But the major increase in available FA (at least at the wealthiest Ivies) has also put the Ivies more in the grasp of great athletes who might have been priced out before. (Note: this also works against another -- or the same? -- poster's assertions that rich children of average athletic talent can get roster spots for the asking. Ivy sports have never had more athletes from which to choose.) |
Anonymous
|
A little bit more about the landscape of the Ivies when it comes to available money for athletes (and other students).
A few years ago, Harvard announced an initiative to try to make its education more affordable for middle class families; basically, it raised the income cut-off for true aid (grants, not just loans). I know that Princeton and Yale (other big endowments) matched the initiative -- not sure about the other Ivies. In practice, this has played out very favorably for Ivies in recruiting athletes. Take ice hockey, which is a relatively blue collar sport in places like MA and Minnesota. An ice hockey player coming from a family making, say, $75,000 per year can get major financial aid from Harvard or Yale. So of course, can a flute player from a family making $75,000 -- the FA is equally available for the entire student body. In men's sports that are not "fully funded" in terms of scholarships (pretty much everything except football and basketball), this aid policy can make the Ivy competitive with other schools than are perhaps less expensive but can only offer minor scholarship money. Now, let's take a basketball player (male or female). If the family has a relatively low Household Income, the Harvard need-based financial aid package may be functionally the same as a full scholarship to a conference that gives athletic scholarships; yet the Ivy basketball player is receiving need-based aid that, unlike athletic scholarships, is guaranteed and not contingent upon playing the sport. This phenomenon means Harvard can now compete for many top players in men's basketball, and the team's success in recent years shows this. Similarly, Princeton Women's basketball has been outstanding in recent years and recruits VERY well -- this is part of the landscape. This is all more nuanced than most people are interested in, but the point is, this can be a relatively nuanced and complex area. The poster who seems to think that rich patrons like Montgomery Burns of the Simpsons can just give money to Ivy athletes does not have it right. But the major increase in available FA (at least at the wealthiest Ivies) has also put the Ivies more in the grasp of great athletes who might have been priced out before. (Note: this also works against another -- or the same? -- poster's assertions that rich children of average athletic talent can get roster spots for the asking. Ivy sports have never had more athletes from which to choose.) There is a reason rich children of rich parents of borderline average athletic talent get shuttled to boutique sports like lacrosse, water polo, rowing and squash at young ages? This is not quantum mechanics. |
Anonymous
|
Reposted without the weird, incomprehensible coda from the resident thread hijacker:
A little bit more about the landscape of the Ivies when it comes to available money for athletes (and other students). A few years ago, Harvard announced an initiative to try to make its education more affordable for middle class families; basically, it raised the income cut-off for true aid (grants, not just loans). I know that Princeton and Yale (other big endowments) matched the initiative -- not sure about the other Ivies. In practice, this has played out very favorably for Ivies in recruiting athletes. Take ice hockey, which is a relatively blue collar sport in places like MA and Minnesota. An ice hockey player coming from a family making, say, $75,000 per year can get major financial aid from Harvard or Yale. So of course, can a flute player from a family making $75,000 -- the FA is equally available for the entire student body. In men's sports that are not "fully funded" in terms of scholarships (pretty much everything except football and basketball), this aid policy can make the Ivy competitive with other schools than are perhaps less expensive but can only offer minor scholarship money. Now, let's take a basketball player (male or female). If the family has a relatively low Household Income, the Harvard need-based financial aid package may be functionally the same as a full scholarship to a conference that gives athletic scholarships; yet the Ivy basketball player is receiving need-based aid that, unlike athletic scholarships, is guaranteed and not contingent upon playing the sport. This phenomenon means Harvard can now compete for many top players in men's basketball, and the team's success in recent years shows this. Similarly, Princeton Women's basketball has been outstanding in recent years and recruits VERY well -- this is part of the landscape. This is all more nuanced than most people are interested in, but the point is, this can be a relatively nuanced and complex area. The poster who seems to think that rich patrons like Montgomery Burns of the Simpsons can just give money to Ivy athletes does not have it right. But the major increase in available FA (at least at the wealthiest Ivies) has also put the Ivies more in the grasp of great athletes who might have been priced out before. [b](Note: this also works against another -- or the same? -- poster's assertions that rich children of average athletic talent can get roster spots for the asking. Ivy sports have never had more athletes from which to choose.) |
Anonymous
Please stop shopping this line. It is NOT accurate any more. Your knowledge is dated at best. I was an all-Ivy athlete/team MVP in the late 1980s (a woman's team sport). I would not make the roster now, and would be hard-pressed to make the roster at a strong Division III program. If you look at strong athletes at area independent schools, the coaches will tell you that this generation's NESCAC player (the multiple all-ISL player who is 5'6" and not 6", and not All-Met), was a former generation's Ivy athlete. In the 1980s, still fairly early days from a Title IX perspective, a determined and competent athlete, particularly in women's sports, could often find a roster spot. Recruiting was fairly haphazard and coaches relied in large part on athletes of strong academic standing self-identifying. Now, recruiting has become "industrialized." Coaches used to hopefully see a few dozen players (the assistant coach driving around the East Coach in a rental car). Now they can see hundreds and even thousands of athletes at club tournaments, showcase events, and it is also easier for players to send in game tape (just upload to YouTube). The number of roster spots are the same but the pool has increased exponentionally. The team at my alma mater in my sport looks like Amazons now! (In the best possible way -- they are BIG BIG BIG and STRONG and FAST and very, very skilled.) Bottom line: The Ivies are Division I. They require size, speed, and athleticism. At the Division III schools you might be able to have a little less speed or a little less size but you need to be very, very good -- Ivy league starter or even all-Ivy caliber a generation ago. It is easier to play squash for Princeton than basketball for Duke, but it is not easy. An average or even above average athlete who has played sports since childhood will NOT be good enough to get a look at Princeton, in large part because squash is a sport with a very big international presence. Many Ivy league teams have very few American players. Check out the crew roster for the Harvard heavys -- lots of international athletes. There is a growing international presence for women's sports as well. Parents -- you don't need to take this on faith (me or the other anonymous poster -- who can tell, right?). Go to a roster for field hockey, or squash, or lacrosse. You will see names and hometowns (and the international presence). For most schools, the Sports Information Dept. has a blurb for each athlete and you will be able to see Under Armour All-American status; junior national team status; all-state status; tennis and squash rankings. You will see the credentials are very, very impressive. And you will see some very strong credentials for Division III teams as well. |
Anonymous
|
Please stop shopping this line.
It is NOT accurate any more. Your knowledge is dated at best. I was an all-Ivy athlete/team MVP in the late 1980s (a woman's team sport). I would not make the roster now, and would be hard-pressed to make the roster at a strong Division III program. If you look at strong athletes at area independent schools, the coaches will tell you that this generation's NESCAC player (the multiple all-ISL player who is 5'6" and not 6", and not All-Met), was a former generation's Ivy athlete. In the 1980s, still fairly early days from a Title IX perspective, a determined and competent athlete, particularly in women's sports, could often find a roster spot. Recruiting was fairly haphazard and coaches relied in large part on athletes of strong academic standing self-identifying. Now, recruiting has become "industrialized." Coaches used to hopefully see a few dozen players (the assistant coach driving around the East Coach in a rental car). Now they can see hundreds and even thousands of athletes at club tournaments, showcase events, and it is also easier for players to send in game tape (just upload to YouTube). The number of roster spots are the same but the pool has increased exponentionally. The team at my alma mater in my sport looks like Amazons now! (In the best possible way -- they are BIG BIG BIG and STRONG and FAST and very, very skilled.) Bottom line: The Ivies are Division I. They require size, speed, and athleticism. At the Division III schools you might be able to have a little less speed or a little less size but you need to be very, very good -- Ivy league starter or even all-Ivy caliber a generation ago. It is easier to play squash for Princeton than basketball for Duke, but it is not easy. An average or even above average athlete who has played sports since childhood will NOT be good enough to get a look at Princeton, in large part because squash is a sport with a very big international presence. Many Ivy league teams have very few American players. Check out the crew roster for the Harvard heavys -- lots of international athletes. There is a growing international presence for women's sports as well. Parents -- you don't need to take this on faith (me or the other anonymous poster -- who can tell, right?). Go to a roster for field hockey, or squash, or lacrosse. You will see names and hometowns (and the international presence). For most schools, the Sports Information Dept. has a blurb for each athlete and you will be able to see Under Armour All-American status; junior national team status; all-state status; tennis and squash rankings. You will see the credentials are very, very impressive. And you will see some very strong credentials for Division III teams as well. *************** There is an inverse relationship between truth/trust and verbosity. Aka Trump. |
Anonymous
You lost me at Hockey is a Blue collar sport! 
If you can afford to fly to Boston, Chicago, Ontario ... Not blue collar. You information is so uninformed. OP, train you kid to be a goalie. |
Anonymous
|
Not every scholarship earner is a stellar HS stud.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2015/08/30/maryland-football-awards-scholarships-to-five-walk-ons/ |
Anonymous
In this area, hockey is the pursuit of suburbanites (and, because in DC one of the few rinks is at the Chevy Chase Club, the population skews very affluent). However, in states with a higher number of rinks per capita, there's not that barrier to entry. You also don't need to have your child fly everywhere for good hockey, because it's available locally. Minnesota, Michigan, and Massachusetts -- the three Ms -- are the holy trinity of hockey and are deeply rooted in the youth sports culture. Many blue collar or lower middle class families have kids playing hockey in those states. (The same is true for Canada.) By the time a player gets to high school age, if they are highly talented they can get scholarships to boarding schools (if pursuing the more academic route) or they are recruited to play junior hockey in the American midwest or the Canadian leagues. For example, in the top U.S. junior hockey league, the USHL, there are teams in places like Bloomington, Des Moines, Green Bay, Omaha, Sioux City and Sioux Falls. Typically, the model is that the team sponsors the junior player. He lives with a family and attends a local high school, and the team gives the family a small stipend to cover his room and board. It is not an expensive proposition for the families of the player because the local team bears the cost. If you look at a current roster for a good Ivy hockey team like Yale or Harvard, you will see that almost all of the players came not directly out of HS but by way of a junior league. Many Canadians as well. It is not unusual to see a 21 year old freshman (which I don't think is good, by the way.) When Yale won the NCAA Championship a few years ago, the star goalie turned 25 on the day of the championship game. Here's a link to a site with more information on the geographic concentration of ice hockey: http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?110326-Interesting-map-of-Rinks-per-state-and-per-capita Again, it's not surprising that in places with much broader participation ice hockey is not limited to the affluent. |
Anonymous
|
Your rants are bordering on demonic.
Sure bad hockey is everywhere, good hockey kids go to boarding school. It's expensive. |