<p>BANDIT - I think high school/college grads who have had the benefit of doing some sort of balancing act - on a long term basis - are much better prepared for the real world. The responsibilities they have taken on do tend to creat better time management skills - better interpersonal relationship abilities and better all round multi tasking abilities - all that can be applied in the real world. The uninvolved student usually lacks in those areas - making it more difficult to adjust to the real world issues that they face.</p>
<p>So I agee. I have seen it in my own kiddos - and in their peers who have little to no involvement - my kiddos run circles around them and never get out of breath.</p>
<p>BULL - I have been involved in several high school/college sports types and it is important for them to really get that eye-full of all possibilities when it comes to committing to a college sport - have seen the very good and the not so hot - the successes - the ones who have struggled and the failures as well.</p>
<p>I do think that any student (and parent) considering participation in any college sport - at any level (D1, D2, D3) - needs to be very aware of all the possibilities - with their eyes wide open. There are times when that nice pretty package can turn into ones nitemare. It is best to know exactly what one is getting into - and not thru rose colored glasses. Some college athlete experiences are great - and others are not so great - and that is a real reality check for quite a few.</p>
<p>JeepMom- we are on the same page. Agree completely with you. Some experiences are great and others…</p>
<p>As I’ve tried to indicate to others here, this thread seemed to start with the proposition and the notion in general (assumed by many) that athletes are treated special, get all the breaks, get perks and face a “bed of roses” life at school. My point is that it is HARD WORK, you earn those perks- there is no “free lunch”. </p>
<p>You add to this the whim and caprice of coaches and the pressures to win and perform, the time obligations, the limits it places on your other college options… bottomline you need to face the realities of the good AND the bad of pursuing college sports as you’ve pointed out and I’ve tried to do… Not a knock on the activity and process-just a reality check as you so correctly point out.</p>
<p>…and I guess we’ll never know what sport, if any, latetoschool’s D played.</p>
<p>bullwinkle,
I actually think that the notion of the article (that I started the thread with) was to suggest that employers do recognize the hard work and sacrifices that college athletes go through. Because of this, they are valued in the workplace. Athletes are seen as beneficial employees because of the self discipline and work ethic that can be attributed in part to their experience with balancing athletics and academics while in college.</p>
<p>I don’t think the focus was to suggest that athletes are spoiled and undeserving while in college. At least that is not how I interpreted it at all.</p>
<p>I find this discussion fascinating, especially since two parents with experience in NCAA athletics can share very different experiences. </p>
<p>I believe that the issue of pampered athletes has been discussed several times on CC. Inasmuch as some athletes may indeed have a regal experience or life style, most NCAA athletes need incredible dedication to keep playing, or have pressing financial obligations. Some commentaries that NCAA athletes are our last version of indentured servants does have a ring of truth to it. </p>
<p>When looking at sports, I believe that one can learn a lot from checking the roster changes from one year to another. Thi step is crucial for any athlete that is considering applying to a particular school. </p>
<p>So, let’s take a name and a program that is easily identifiable: Harvard Women Soccer. </p>
<p>In 2006, Harvard added 11 fresh9wo)men to its roster.
</p>
<p>That is a remarkable recruiting year. Why would this happen? Check the number of seniors and juniors:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, only one senior will be returning and only 4 juniors. Obviously, there might be many valid reasons behind such attrition, but it does illustrate that students who are not bound by scholarship obligations might find the daily grind a bit much to take after the first year.</p>
<p>Lastly, recruited athletes may face other surprises. For instance, the 11 freshmen at Harvard learned that the coach who recruited them quit last week and moved to Northwestern. Depending on the next hire, this may spell disaster for some players.</p>
<p>XIGGI - the coach thing sure can be a HUGE issue - for just about any team…</p>
<p>I do admire those D1/Ivy and D3 (and the D2 no $$) athletes who participate in their sport for the love of it - being as they don’t get the $$ benefit that other D1 athletes get… yet - they still make for some mighty fine job prospects no matter how you cut it.</p>
<p>WOW just noticed the first 2 freshmen recruits - must be twins!! LOL and the timely recruiting of a goalkeeper as well.</p>
<p>Xiggi, you’re right, a new head coach coming in could be disastrous for recruits - but a new novice coach wouldn’t necessarily be an issue, if the head coach is the same. But an Ivy might not be the best example, for a few reasons - there are no athletic scholarships; the coaches have a lot less pull with admissions; the Ivys and Harvard especially offer a LOT more variety in terms of other types of activities - non-sports - that are going to be very attractive (and who could stand to do the same thing for four years when there must be 200 way cool other things to sample and experiment with at Harvard and similar schools) - last, there is something the Ivys adopted three years ago that I cannot quite remember what it is called (the 33 hour, 7 week rule or something) - anyway, the controversy at the time was that it was going to very severely restrict playing/practice time. </p>
<p>The (publically stated) intent behind the new rule was that the Ivys wanted student athletes to have more time to explore other activities on campus, and to take full advantage of their time in undergrad. Some of the coaches protested very publically though - they felt that the time restrictions would render their athletes unprepared for international and Olympic level competition, due to not having enough quality coaching and training. Princeton’s men’s coach for one of the sports in particular was very vocal and was quoted extensively in a few publications - I cannot remember all of the detail or even most of it but do recall that several of the athletes were reported to be “very disappointed” - this last I’m guessing because they were counting on being able to develop their skills to be able to compete at the Olympic level, and now their colleges were telling them they could not so do: under such circumstances, several might quit.</p>
<p>Of course, the few coaches who did protest could have simply been upset that they were going to be forced to accomplish the same goals, but with less practice time. </p>
<p>It would be interesting to see the attrition rate of other sports, as well as other college activities, in a variety of schools, if such data is available somewhere.</p>
<p>…but a new novice coach wouldn’t necessarily be an issue,…</p>
<p>Actually a new ‘‘assistant’’ coach could be an issue - especially if they are the one in charge of recruitment - which is sometimes the case. They are by no means novices at what they do also - especially at a school such as Harvard.</p>
<p>Just about any school has similar variety of cool things to do - the students just have to get out there and find them. The Ivy’s certainly don’t have the only hold on that situation. D3’s don’t give athletic scholarships either - and some of the D3’s have tougher teams - more successful - than the Ivy’s.</p>
<p>LTS are you talking about the ‘‘7 week rule’’?? that was instituted several years ago??</p>