<p>I see…it must have been a DII school (which uses the 820 cutoff); DI’s use a sliding scale which correlates with GPA…a 3.0GPA only requires a 620 combined score (they still use the old format, just taking the math and verbal). The higher the GPA, the lower the required SAT score and vice versa.</p>
<p>I had typed a long reply last night and went to post and BLAH…it is gone!! </p>
<p>Anyway, what strikes me and I mentioned it is that as GoalieDad (I think, it’s on the other page now) mentioned, someone should have put clear academic expectations in writing. Well, at least one of the kids applied the previous year. I’m guessing he was not accepted because of academics and they TOLD him what to do to get accepted the following year. This process had been going on for a couple of years according to the article. The coach thought everything was in order in the grades dept. Yes, he should have checked himself. Maybe the family honestly thought the grades were ok. I don’t know. </p>
<p>In any case, let’s hope some good HAS come of this for the boys. I would like to see a follow up - what have they done THIS fall with grades? Have they worked hard academically? Are they applying to schools where they can be successful academically and athletically? If so, then this was a good thing in the long run. If not, then sending them to Salisbury, quite frankly, may have been a waste of scholarship money anyway.</p>
<p>Keylyme - possibly the boy ny22 is taling about had a much lower gpa thus requiring a higher sat score? If he struggeled in prep school as she said, I’d guess a 3.0 was not even close.</p>
<p>I’ve been mulling over this case since yesterday when I first read it. What disturbs me the most is that all of the adults involved let down these two kids. Every boarding school has explicit rules regarding the application process. It baffles me that the kids were under the impression in June 2007 that they would be attending Salisbury in the fall. The application deadline was Feb. 1 with a March 10 decision date. It is unfair to put the entire blame on the Salisbury coach and label it as miscommunication or outright misleading of the boys. </p>
<p>Didn’t the boy’s current school guidance counselors, an interested teacher, or the current coach recognize the need to monitor the application process? And, on Salisbury’s part, was the plan to suspend all usual deadlines and just wait until the end of August to make a decision? The boys themselves couldn’t have been completely in the dark with respect to their academic weaknesses.</p>
<p>It’s bad, bad, bad all around. I hope the adults who are adamantly pointing fingers at the Salisbury coach realize they are in large part to blame for the disappointment these boys experienced.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with baseballmom, that the timing was off in that story—something must have been amiss for them to think, in the summer, that they would be going to the school in the fall.</p>
<p>As for Keylyme’s question, my student had offers from 8 Division I schools, (UWV, Texas A&M, etc), but he needed a 820 SAT to qualify to accept them, which was based on his GPA. I was surprised, he had been in some good programs over the years and was doing better than many other kids in his neighborhood.</p>
<p>It’s sad, but I think that most people don’t know the state of inner-city education today. The school that my student came from had only 33% of 9th graders ever graduating. And of those that did graduate, they had an average SAT score of 740 combined, with only about 30% reading at the “proficient” level, as measured by a state exam. We helped a few of them apply to prep school, but sadly, most were just too far behind to make it. </p>
<p>You might have noticed that many pro basketball players attend PG programs or prep schools–this is becuase they can’t make the grade/SAT cutoff either. It is a fairly common problem unfortunately.</p>
<p>As much as we joke about parents who have anxiety attacks over getting their newborns into the best pre-K program for eventual Ivy League matriculation, this story – and comments to it – underscore just how critical it is for all kids to receive quality childcare services beginning at the pre-K level. (By “childcare,” I’m not excluding home care from a parent.)</p>
<p>Any city that spends money building or subsidizing a sports arena before funding a comprehensive childcare program is acting criminally as far as I’m concerned. Sports arenas sound good, but they are at best morale and self-esteem boosts that drain critical and scarce funds away from important and useful programs.</p>
<p>Early childhood development programs actually generate a positive rate of return on spending. And the rate is a double-digit rate – in terms of economic impact felt directly by government – and it begins paying back quickly (about the same time it will take for the typical pro sports team owner to leave town for a newer, better stadium).</p>
<p>If you build fewer jails, have less crime, receive higher tax revenues from a large percentage of the population…you’ll get far more payoff than you’ll get from the parking surcharge and tax on hot dog and souvenir sales over the course of 8 NFL home games. Not only would the childcare free up parents to work and pay more taxes, but the impact on high school achievement of the kids who receive quality pre-K education is staggering. And, with that achievement, you get opportunities that are meaningful…to many.</p>
<p>In this case, there are many who don’t have opportunities and the two guys who got an opportunity found out that it wasn’t meaningful. And despite efforts that, by everyone’s accounts, represented extraordinary lengths to get them ready…these kids found out that it was just too late to unwind the disadvantages they’ve endured since birth.</p>
<p>I know that this sounds too good to be true – as I’m always skeptical when someone insists that mom’s common sense wisdom is on the money and not just another old wives’ tale – but this is the cold, calculated, unemotional finding of a special study by economists for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.</p>
<p>[Federal</a> Reserve Bank of Minneapolis - Special Studies - Early Childhood Development](<a href=“http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/studies/earlychild/]Federal”>http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/studies/earlychild/)</p>
<p>I still laugh at people who fret over their breastfeeding baby’s chances for admission to an Ivy League school. Right there, though, we know that that kid’s got a pretty good chance for success (on one path or another). What we need to think more about is directing attention and resources to the early development of at-risk children when it means something – and produces a positive return. </p>
<p>Throwing a handful of scholarships (to high school, let alone college) is too little and too late to make a real impact. When you read the reaction of the kids’ Pop Warner coaches, it’s actually very sad. The community holds out hope that a few kids will break free and survive. That’s what constitutes hope and it’s the stuff of their dreams. It’s like watching a cruise ship sinking and having the Coast Guard airlift as many people as possible from the one lifeboat before it capsizes. That’s not hope. That’s despair.</p>
<p>Hope is playing shuffleboard on the cruise ship and hoping the weather in St. Martin isn’t too hot when you get there.</p>
<p>Dyer Maker, I couldn’t agree with you more about the importance of early childhood education.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure about your characterization of Hope v. Despair, though. Does it have to be so stark? How about the kids who are identified by Prep 9 and similar organizations? They get proper guidance and find success, don’t they? I wonder if newyorker22 has any positive examples of inner city kids who found success in high school and college against all odds… I hope so.</p>
<p>However, from reading posts on CC, I do get the feeling that the rich keep getting richer and poor keep getting poorer in terms of education. In my country, the difference is less pronounced because the literacy rate is about 99%. Still, there is the education for the elite (which starts with preparatory pre-schools whose sole mission is to help your child pass the exam of a prestigious kindergarten attached to an elite university) and public education where chaos often rules from middle school and up.</p>
<p>It’s no wonder that countries like Finland and Singapore, with strong public education systems (incldg early childhood) have a well-trained workforce.</p>
<p>I was just throwing out an analogy, but as I now think about it as you suggest, I think it works (albeit unintentionally). If you look at the numbers of at-risk kids who could become academically successful at age 4 and then look at the numbers of kids that Prep 9 and similar organizations touch at high school, I think they’d probably be in a ratio that would bear out the cruise ship/lifeboat analogy…with only some in that lifeboat getting back to land.</p>
<p>Okay, I probably misread your analogy but we’re somewhat on the same wavelength, I think. (Note to myself: must improve English reading comprehension score in the DM Analogy section.)</p>
<p>
I know what you are talking about newyorker. I lived the experience, myself. 3300 kids in a 10-12 HS. 700 in the graduating class. Don’t have the 10th grade enrollment numbers, but doing basic division, I can see a similar dropout rate. And the test scores I remember hearing from my peers were similar. </p>
<p>The football program at this HS was (when I lived there) the best in LA - in the city championship game each of the previous 10 years, winning 6 of them IIRC. Multiple players in the NFL (although one snorted himself out) as that talent can “always find a way to make NCAA progression requirements”, always plenty of college scouts around, but many of the kids who got those offers washed out academically. They just weren’t prepared.</p>
<p>I agree that pre-K programs have a large impact on reducing the basic illiteracy, but ultimately you have to change the culture in the schools that being smart is a negative social thing. So many of the social leadership cues were taken from the gang culture at my high school that keeping your text books hidden (athletic bags were a good thing for this) was a smart thing to do.</p>
<p>At any school, there is always a small segment that is determined to get an education no matter what and a segment that is all about the current “lifestyle” - engaging in non-productive entertainment of the moment, be it hanging out at the [fill in local hot spot here], obtaining the current fashion statement or toys. </p>
<p>The culture war is over which of these 2 groups has a greater influence on the majority in the middle who can be led or intimidated into following (or at least acquiecing to) the dominant behavior.</p>
<p>You can get pre-schoolers a basic start on reading and quantitative reasoning, but as they develop socially you must also win their hearts to keep the positive (learning and achieving) behavior strong in the school culture.</p>
<p>And the youngest kids are always influenced by the older kids, so this battle has to be waged at all levels. Not an easy or quick thing to change, by any means. I think the reason so many of the kids who get pulled out for prep schools succeed is the removal from that culture that they have had to acquiesce to over the years.</p>
<p>reading about the poor city high schools makes me pretty thankful for my local option and the chance of going to boarding school next year. my parents had tickets to see “a bronx tale” in new york over thanksgiving but the show was cancelled due to a strike. i saw the movie recently and remember the key line that the worst thing is wasted talent. there seems to be too much of that in some cities. i wish that i could vote now instead of having to wait another four years.</p>
<p>newyorker…I think it is really up to the school. The rules do state that D2 schools use the 820 cutoff, but the sliding scale is used in D1 schools. My son had a PG friend at his prep school who had to take the SAT’s 3 times to get the cut-off his Ivy school required for him to play basketball with them
(900)…MUCH lower than for the “rest of us”. However, I believe his situation was unique in that my son said he was a very smart young man, but had only been in this country for a few years and was not totally competent in English yet.</p>
<p>I do know that when my daughter applied to Michigan State . she was a recruited gymnast - they told her to get her app. in ASAP and as long as she met the “minimum requirements for athletes” she would be admitted. She did, in fact, find out in September…and was told in person (handed her admission packet)…that she had been admitted. This was like a week after getting her app in (notice no grades from senior year, etc.) This isn’t even a revenue sport for them, for goodness sake! She did more than meet any minimum, and did not end up going to that particular school, but I imagine they are quite lenient with the revenue sport athletes.</p>
<p>This is a good discussion we have going. I agree with Dyer Maker’s analogy about the sinking ship. Programs like Prep 9 are wonderful but only help a small number of kids. Pre-K is the place to start. Once kids are in 4th or 5th grade, if they are unable to read, chances are they never will learn–it becomes something they hide rather than work on.</p>
<p>Keylme, D1 schools are not allowed to make their own admissions decisions for scholarships. There is a “NCAA Clearninghouse” and an athlete must pass that in order to accept a scholarship to any Div 1 school. There have been diploma mills set up (NY Times did a series on them recently), where students could get their grades up by “attending” these schools. As for my student, he scored in the 720-760 range three times, so he was far from the score he needed. </p>
<p>And to someone who asked, yes, I had some success stories with at-risk kids. Boarding school really helped for those who agreed to try it. But I did have a lot of kids come home and give up on it too. The kids who started in our middle school program faired much better.</p>
<p>Keylyme, also forgot to mention that for your son’s friend who went to an IVY—they do not award athletic scholarships at all, so they are not subject to the NCAA Clearinghouse. If the Ivy’s ever do decide to give out an athletic scholarship, their admissions decisions will be subject to the Clearninghouse.</p>
<p>newyorker…Actually D1 schools do make their own decisions for scholarships, however the student must at least meet the minimum standards on the D1 sliding scale found on the NCAA Clearinghouse website: <a href=“http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebab404a1266fa1/ie_quick_ref.pdf?MOD=AJPERES[/url]”>http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebab404a1266fa1/ie_quick_ref.pdf?MOD=AJPERES</a>
You can see that with a GPA of 2.0, you still need only a 1010 on the SAT; with a 3.55 or higher, you need only a 400 (combined!). Of course, the university may require a higher standard at their discretion. I thought I had mentioned the Clearinghouse in my previous posts; I am intimately familiar with it as my own daughter is a D1 athlete and we went through the Clearinghouse and recruiting processes.
As far as Ivy…well, yes, they are certainly subject to the rules as well and Ivy candidates also have to be cleared by the NCAA. My son’s friend was required to get that 900 on his SAT’s and I don’t know if it was using the Clearinhouse sliding scale or if it was what the school wanted it(he might have met the NCAA Standard and maybe it was lower). The “scholarship” he received quite possibly was need-based as that is what Ivy regs require, however, I am sure it was his athletic talent that helped make him one of the many qualified candidates who was admitted and received that need-based aid. So…while the money is “need-based”, it does go to the student with need who brings the “most to the table” in terms of what the school is looking for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, need-based aid often goes to the athlete the school needs the most ;)</p>
<p>goalie-dad,
Ha! Great way to put it!!</p>
<p>Keylyme, I’m going to disagree with you again on the statement that DIv I schools make their own decisions on who to award scholarships too. All the ju-co players who were recruited and given offers but failed to meet the clearinghouse requirements would disagree too. It was hard for my student–UWV, for example, decided they wanted him–so that was their decision, yet the Clearinghouse decided he was not eligible, so they had the final say and the offer was withdrawn</p>
<p>You say that for a student with a 2.0 they “only” need a 1010, but for most inner-city athletes that is an incredible feat to score that high. They come from schools that go years and years without anyone scoring over a 850 or 900. For kids consistantly scoring in the 700-800 range, getting up to 1000 is really hard. </p>
<p>Here is a curious example: Have you heard of Sebastian Telfiar, the NBA star from Coney Island? At his high school, the average score was around 760 on the SAT, and every year they had a handful of honors kids scoring in the 900’s. Sebastian was not in honors classes and was not a good student, or a good reader. Yet, he supposedly scored an 1100 on the SAT–the highest score from his high school in over 12 years. It makes you wonder if he actually took the test or someone else did it for him. that’s a little off topic, but interesting, I thikn</p>
<p>I think you guys are saying the same thing. Schools have the final say as to student-athletes who’ve gotten past the NCAA Clearinghouse. The NCAA Clearinghouse has the final say as to students admitted to colleges and universities but haven’t yet been through the NCAA Clearinghouse.</p>
<p>There are two bottlenecks to get past if you’re a student-athlete that a coach wants on his roster: the admissions office and the NCAA Clearinghouse. They both have a say. As to which has the “final say” is sort of beside the point and not relevant to much of anything. Neither one tells the other what to do. A school can admit a student who doesn’t get past the Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse can clear a student who doesn’t get admitted.</p>
<p>Thank you, D’yer, that is exactly what I was trying to say!</p>