<p>If you had five acceptances to:
Exeter
Andover
Deerfield
Lawrenceville
Hotchkiss</p>
<p>Which one would you pick and why?</p>
<p>I would pick Deerfield for a lot of reasons. 1. They have 7 sit down meals a week, so the students would get the chance to meet a lot of different people. 2. They don’t have Saturday classes. 3. The first class isn’t until 9 o’clock. 4. The Koch Center is amazing. And number five, when I toured the campus just made me feel very comfortable and at home.</p>
<p>Exeter
- When I toured their campus it made me feel like I belonged there and looked amazing
- They have so many courses
- Everybody seems so smart and intellectual
- The Grill has good looking food
And number five, they have half days two days of the week!!!</p>
<p>Andover because it fits my personality</p>
<p>andover probably</p>
<p>Answer: None, because they all have PG programs, which is unsportsmanlike.</p>
<p>Discuss.</p>
<p>Hotchkiss, the best fit for me.
and what’s wrong with PG programs…?</p>
<p>Tristan,</p>
<p>Agreed. In fact PG’s are downright Un-American. We are fortunate that these programs are limited to only the really crappy schools like Andover, Exeter, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, Loomis, Taft, The Hill, Lawrenceville, Choate, Peddie, Kent, Avon Old Farms, Salisbury, Northfield Mount Hermon, Mercersburg, Westminster etc…</p>
<p>FIF,
You forgot all of the Boston area day schools where many, primarily male, athletes simply repeat a grade during their high school years. Wait, I guess that’s SO (pronounced SOOOOOO) different from a PG year.</p>
<p>fifi,</p>
<p>As a former boarder, D-I walk-on, coach, father of state ranked athletes, brother of a PG who obtained D-I full-scholarship, teammate of athletes who later played pro, I have some great experiences to draw on. Still an athlete in spirit, albeit no longer in body.</p>
<p>Like other parents, we’re considering letting our 13 year old leave a healthy household during critical formative years. We’re searching for something special that we believe exists – a place where our child will continue to forge strong mind, body and character. For each of our five, we’re ready and willing to commit a couple hundred thousand over four years to the cause. With nothing less than this at stake, we’re looking at America’s upper tier boarding schools with a critical eye for the ideals that create not only a great intellectual experience but also a great athletic and character building experience.</p>
<p>There is indeed a legitimate place in sports for high school seniors who need an extra year to mature in order to have a better chance at athletic scholarship. But let that place be public schools or the relatively few private boarding schools that specialize in grooming potential D-I scholarship athletes. My brother attended one – sort of a finishing school for boys, hah.</p>
<p>Being honest, PG schools like Andover, Deerfield, and Exeter pursue greater glory for their communities by recruiting ringers onto their athletic teams. To my way of looking at things, ringers are anathema to America’s upper tier boarding schools. In all other dimensions, these schools rightfully hold themselves to the very highest standards – why not in sports? What message does this send to your young people, on and off the field?</p>
<p>In this regard, great schools like St. Paul’s, Groton, Milton, Middlesex, Cate, St. Andrew’s, St. George’s, Thacher, St. Mark’s, Episcopal, and Woodberry have integrated ideals that don’t break down on their fields.</p>
<p>To Andover, Deerfield, Exeter: Greater glory, but at what cost?</p>
<p>Beautifully put, Tristan. </p>
<p>Also, I don’t know whether “fifi” was a typo or not, but it is indeed HYSTERICAL.</p>
<p>Nothing against fun is fun. I’m rather partial to our resident, fun-loving ■■■■■, but I think I like “fifi” better!</p>
<p>Agreed…well said Tristan2</p>
<p>I assume that all those other schools just accept students with no input from coaches and form their varsity programs from whatever motley crew of students just happen to show up. Under the logic stated here it would be unsportsmanlike to recruit athletes and give them preference for admission. That All-American hockey player that had one too many B’s will just have to go somewhere else. Sorry All-State tailback, no room at the inn. A 6’ 9" center that can jump through the roof means nothing to us. After all, if we give a talented athlete admissions benefits it will send the wrong message to our students. </p>
<p>Fair is playing by an established set of rules. By definition a ringer is someone that is put on the team outside of the agreed upon rules. If some schools choose to join leagues that permit certain players in an above board manner that is their business. If others choose to affiliate with schools that use different rules that is their right as well. Nobody makes a school join a particular league or schedule a particular opponent. That’s the beauty of having choices - and by self-selection it provides the ultimate level of fairness.</p>
<p>Lot of replies for 2 days
Also, I’d pick Exeter pretty much for what UrbanFlop said</p>
<p>TYVM T2. Well said.</p>
<p>Tristan,</p>
<p>You are clearly not aware of the high quality of the pool that applies for a postgraduate year. They tend to be almost without exception bright, motivated and talented. You might be surprised to learn that this student isn’t always an athlete.</p>
<p>" greater glory for their communities"? Really? You really think that these schools are that wrapped up in who wins a couple of hockey or football games. Maybe they see a value in bringing in the above referenced kids so they can achieve their full potential that isn’t there yet due to any number of reasons including maturity, birth date, injury, home town, coaching etc. </p>
<p>Ain’t it great that you have the option of choosing an ISL school (see Hola’s post) or some of the others you list? That way, you can feel like you you haven’t lowered yourselves to the likes of Hotchkiss or Deerfield.</p>
<p>Yours,</p>
<p>fifi</p>
<p>I read on Exeter’s website about how, even though they find athletically talented PGs, it is really hard because they still look at their SSAT scores, grades, and the normal stuff they look at. If the person doesn’t have good grades (here by defined as mostly A’s) they don’t accept them.</p>
<p>If you don’t want your kids to go to a school with PG’s, that’s fine with me and I absolutely understand your point. If I had an athletic son (instead of an athletic daughter) we might have had to think twice about schools to apply to. However, it’s needlessly insulting to schools that take PG’s to call it unsportsmanlike. PG’s are no secret, it’s part of the rules, and as Padre said, it’s all about playing to agreed upon rules.</p>
<p>I know my opinion on this whole thing will be unconventional and likely unpopular. I think the obsession with sports/athletes in colleges and prep schools is ridiculous. The admission preference to atheletes is way out of line. Sports are not considered as extracurricular activities to show a student’s passion outside classroom, perseverence, and experience of teamwork, etc. It’s a commodity that one can trade for admission to the most selective schools with lesser academic qualifications and/or scholarship money. It is very sad. I am fully aware that this is not going to change any time soon or ever. We are Americans after all. We LOVE games more than anything else.</p>
<p>yeah, your opinion is unpopular. it’s to a school’s benefit to have athletes, and it helps more than the student. furthermore, these are the same students who are admitted into top colleges, helping college matriculation lists, and the school’s reputation even more.</p>