Gonzaga has 13 boys playing lacrosse next year - no Ivy

Anonymous wrote:Prep has a boy going to Havard for LAX

and a boy headed to Princeton.

Landon has two going to Penn and one Cornell.

SSSA has one headed to Penn.

Prep has a boy going to Havard for LAX

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So generally speaking are top ayers at Landon, STA, Gtown prep good enough to play division 1 at Harvard, Yale, etc?

STA seniors will be playing at both Harvard and Yale next year.

STA also has kids going to Furman and Indiana for LAX.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So generally speaking are top ayers at Landon, STA, Gtown prep good enough to play division 1 at Harvard, Yale, etc?

STA seniors will be playing at both Harvard and Yale next year.

SSSA, St. Mary's and the Calverton school have kids playing at Yale.

What is in your etc?

Anonymous wrote:So generally speaking are top ayers at Landon, STA, Gtown prep good enough to play division 1 at Harvard, Yale, etc?

STA seniors will be playing at both Harvard and Yale next year.

Anonymous wrote:So a group of Ivy League and non-Ivy League athletes shared their SAT scores, high school grades, calls rank, etc. and then years later shared their career or post college earnings with the researcher?

It strikes me that no everyone would be willing to share such information. So the sample consists only of those willing to reveal sensitive personal information - in my experience such people are few and far between (do you know what your best friend has earned over the course of her career?) and those who are willing to share the information skew toward the successful in the group. I'd also be wary of a study based on the assumption that SAT scores etc. make two people alike.

But hey if a PRINCETON academic says it is true it must be true.

Found it!
Reclaiming the Game
College Sports and Educational Values

William G. Bowen and Sarah A. Levin
In collaboration with James L. Shulman, Colin G. Campbell, Susanne C. Pichler, & Martin A. Kurzweil

In Reclaiming the Game, William Bowen and Sarah Levin disentangle the admissions and academic experiences of recruited athletes, walk-on athletes, and other students. In a field overwhelmed by reliance on anecdotes, the factual findings are striking--and sobering. Anyone seriously concerned about higher education will find it hard to wish away the evidence that athletic recruitment is problematic even at those schools that do not offer athletic scholarships.

Thanks to an expansion of the College and Beyond database that resulted in the highly influential studies The Shape of the River and The Game of Life, the authors are able to analyze in great detail the backgrounds, academic qualifications, and college outcomes of athletes and their classmates at thirty-three academically selective colleges and universities that do not offer athletic scholarships. They show that recruited athletes at these schools are as much as four times more likely to gain admission than are other applicants with similar academic credentials. The data also demonstrate that the typical recruit is substantially more likely to end up in the bottom third of the college class than is either the typical walk-on or the student who does not play college sports. Even more troubling is the dramatic evidence that recruited athletes "underperform:" they do even less well academically than predicted by their test scores and high school grades.

Anonymous wrote:You admit that you didn't get to far into the unidentified "study" but defend it with gusto and then urge me to read?

At most College placement offices are able to track job placement shortly after college. So at most they'd have information relating to short term benefit of Ivy/non-Ivy degree. Even then they don't get earnings information.

As for the long term, I can assure you that there is not an educational institution in the country that can accurately track career earnings of its grads.


I really don't have a bias, but common sense tells me that in general there is some benefit to getting a degree from a more highly ranked university. You haven't identified the study so there might be more to it - but as you've described it the study is deeply flawed.

Your "I don't have a bias" claim is just not credible. You appear offended by the results and want to argue with the methodology.

You, no doubt, are impressed by certain schools. Others, which appear to include many employers, are not similarly impressed.

There is a study that shows NCAA athletes graduate at a higher rate than the rest of the school population and lacrosse players at the highest rate of any other group.

NY times had an article about how lacrosse players are recruited for jobs more than other students.

You admit that you didn't get to far into the unidentified "study" but defend it with gusto and then urge me to read?

At most College placement offices are able to track job placement shortly after college. So at most they'd have information relating to short term benefit of Ivy/non-Ivy degree. Even then they don't get earnings information.

As for the long term, I can assure you that there is not an educational institution in the country that can accurately track career earnings of its grads.


I really don't have a bias, but common sense tells me that in general there is some benefit to getting a degree from a more highly ranked university. You haven't identified the study so there might be more to it - but as you've described it the study is deeply flawed.

So generally speaking are top ayers at Landon, STA, Gtown prep good enough to play division 1 at Harvard, Yale, etc?

Anonymous wrote:So a group of Ivy League and non-Ivy League athletes shared their SAT scores, high school grades, calls rank, etc. and then years later shared their career or post college earnings with the researcher?

It strikes me that no everyone would be willing to share such information. So the sample consists only of those willing to reveal sensitive personal information - in my experience such people are few and far between (do you know what your best friend has earned over the course of her career?) and those who are willing to share the information skew toward the successful in the group. I'd also be wary of a study based on the assumption that SAT scores etc. make two people alike.

But hey if a PRINCETON academic says it is true it must be true.

You have used just about all the tricks to "potshot" a survey whose results run contrary to your obvious bias. (Non-representative sample, high rate of nonresponse, etc.)

Because of the requirement of the Ivy League Academic Index and the NCAA rules there's a great deal of information about academic qualifications coming in. And the College placement offices carefully tracks the jobs these kids get at graduation and I'm sure they survey the kids.

This "academic" went into this without a bias. He collected data. He analyzed and he published it in an environment of peer review of studies where his reputation was at stake. You on the other hand have an obvious bias. You're are trying to bluster and bully your way through this because you don't like the answer.

Such a thin attempt won't work most places. Do some reading. I recommend you start by understanding the Ivy League Academic Index for athletes and just how low the lowest band is.

The results of the study make perfect sense in the real world. Most people aren't fooled by credentials.

So a group of Ivy League and non-Ivy League athletes shared their SAT scores, high school grades, calls rank, etc. and then years later shared their career or post college earnings with the researcher?

It strikes me that no everyone would be willing to share such information. So the sample consists only of those willing to reveal sensitive personal information - in my experience such people are few and far between (do you know what your best friend has earned over the course of her career?) and those who are willing to share the information skew toward the successful in the group. I'd also be wary of a study based on the assumption that SAT scores etc. make two people alike.

But hey if a PRINCETON academic says it is true it must be true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woops! I meant Georgetown not Cornell.

Well. of course, 1/4th or 1/2 the tuition at Georgetown is a lot of money because Georgetown costs a lot of money. But that leaves a lot of money the parents come up with for the balance of the tuition, living expenses, etc.

The Ivies, however, offer an even better deal. Instead of giving a package of fractional scholarships and student loans and other stuff, the Ivies will meet 100% of demonstrated "need" from their own funds. Of course, that might mean little to high income people who have sent their children to private schools in DC, unless they cleverly cover their assets in their financial aid forms.

Two other points:

First, because of the spread of lacrosse across the country, you can look for the number of IAC recruits to decrease. Bigger, faster and stronger kids from public schools across the country will start to take their place. If parents are hoping to cash in in 4 or 5 years from the current system, they should be aware that the sand underneath their feet is shifting rapidly.

Secondly, for the past 15 years, lacrosse has been the ticket for some kids to get into schools that they normally couldn't aspire to. The downside of this is that they have been in classrooms with kids that are smarter and work harder than they do. While no one ever fails out of these top schools, at the same time the parents are paying whatever they pay to get and education that is not exactly what you might think.

A Princeton academic studied Ivy League athletes about 15 years ago and found that the post college careers of these students mirrored what it would have been if they were to have attended a state school. The Ivy League education had little impact on their careers versus what they would have had had they attended less-prestigious colleges.

I'd love to see that study. How in world could they come to any conclusion on what might have happened to students if they attended other schools? I can't imagine any harm that would result from attending a more elite schools as opposed to a less elite school. Most of the IAC players who attend Ivies handle the academics with ease. Duke is not an Ivy, but a Landon kid at Duke was just named a Collegiate Academic All-American and one of the Landon seniors headed to the Ivy League was a High School Academic All-American. Most kids from elite DC private schools can handle Ivy league academics. Frankly, the academic competition is often less than tehy experienced in high school.

Well, I didn't want to get too far into it, but obviously he had a control group. As I remember it, he took a group of Ivy League athletes along with their SAT scores, high school grades, calls rank, etc. and compared them against a group of other athletes with the same profiles who attended less prestigious schools to see if their post college careers, earnings, etc. were any different. His study found that they weren't. In terms of a career or post college earnings, the college they attended had little or no impact.

I can see harm here in terms of wasted time. Imagine yourself in a class where you are at the bottom in terms of preparation and basic smarts. The class is taught at a higher level and at a higher speed than you can easily absorb. What are you actually getting out of it? Now take the same student and put him or her in a classroom where they are of the same ability level as their classmates and the class is taught to this level.

I have been around this lacrosse world for a while. And for every success story you can come up with, I can show you the opposite. In my experience Duke and Georgetown and Brown and others have taken kids that have shocked and dismayed the faculty and college placement staff.

To many in the DC private school world, this is blasphemy because it suggest that education at prestigious schools isn't all they want it to be. It's great if you are prepared for it. But a waste of time and money if you are not. Of course, it is fun for the parents to impress their friends with. And they are hoping that somehow this academic credential will help. The data from this study said it did not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woops! I meant Georgetown not Cornell.

Well. of course, 1/4th or 1/2 the tuition at Georgetown is a lot of money because Georgetown costs a lot of money. But that leaves a lot of money the parents come up with for the balance of the tuition, living expenses, etc.

The Ivies, however, offer an even better deal. Instead of giving a package of fractional scholarships and student loans and other stuff, the Ivies will meet 100% of demonstrated "need" from their own funds. Of course, that might mean little to high income people who have sent their children to private schools in DC, unless they cleverly cover their assets in their financial aid forms.

Two other points:

First, because of the spread of lacrosse across the country, you can look for the number of IAC recruits to decrease. Bigger, faster and stronger kids from public schools across the country will start to take their place. If parents are hoping to cash in in 4 or 5 years from the current system, they should be aware that the sand underneath their feet is shifting rapidly.

Secondly, for the past 15 years, lacrosse has been the ticket for some kids to get into schools that they normally couldn't aspire to. The downside of this is that they have been in classrooms with kids that are smarter and work harder than they do. While no one ever fails out of these top schools, at the same time the parents are paying whatever they pay to get and education that is not exactly what you might think.

A Princeton academic studied Ivy League athletes about 15 years ago and found that the post college careers of these students mirrored what it would have been if they were to have attended a state school. The Ivy League education had little impact on their careers versus what they would have had had they attended less-prestigious colleges.

I'd love to see that study. How in world could they come to any conclusion on what might have happened to students if they attended other schools? I can't imagine any harm that would result from attending a more elite schools as opposed to a less elite school. Most of the IAC players who attend Ivies handle the academics with ease. Duke is not an Ivy, but a Landon kid at Duke was just named a Collegiate Academic All-American and one of the Landon seniors headed to the Ivy League was a High School Academic All-American. Most kids from elite DC private schools can handle Ivy league academics. Frankly, the academic competition is often less than tehy experienced in high school.