<p>Padre13 realizes that the discussion here is about 19+ year old PG athletes, not about regular high school age athletes. Therefore, Padre13’s first paragraph borders on nonsensical. Adapting a phrase from the '92 Clinton campaign: It’s about age, my good man. Added some Bush ‘kinder and gentler’ to that.</p>
<p>Padre13’s second paragraph makes a worthwhile clarifying comment. I believe most people, myself included, assume (or at least willing to stipulate) that the PG schools are indeed within both the letter and spirit of the athletic game-day PG rules, which specify limits to number and age, depending upon the league and sport. I use the term ‘ringer’ in the sense that, although within the rules, it’s unsporting on a higher level and driven by a desire for greater glory and by a sort of ‘arms race’ mentality.</p>
<p>For America’s finest boarding schools, shouldn’t we appeal to a higher set of ideals, to a higher sense of sportsmanship, to their own core values, beyond league rules?</p>
<p>As Padre13 says, we have choices, and that is indeed a beautiful thing! Notwithstanding, we can and should challenge schools to be better and to periodically examine their core values and to make sure their actions are in sync. Never too late to make a course adjustment. What if America’s best boarding schools still admitted only those who could fully pay? What if they still admitted only those from similar background? What if some still sanction ‘ringers’…</p>
<p>In an earlier life, I ran a number of change initiatives at the enterprise level for a multinational corp. In the early days, some people resist even healthy change, but over time the value of change can be seen in a clearer light. Similar dynamic in our great learning institutions.</p>
<p>Yeah, it is. These are schools, not athletic training camps. As important as I believe the training of the body to be, as much as I believe there is to be gained from athletics, I cringe when I hear of a student who looks as athletics to be “a ticket in.” It happens so much. So yes, I would say,
</p>
<p>That message is that being able to win on field (or court, or ring) is more important than what you can bring to the table. Yes, I do know that the dedication required to be a highly competitive athlete (or anything, for that matter) will provide a benefit by example for students in the classroom, but not nearly to the degree that a kid who knows so much history that she can argue forcibly the perils of a certain political view, or a kid who has read so much literature that he sees social patterns as clear as a bell, or a kid with such a gift of analysis that she can tease out an answer from what she already knows - and do it in such a way that all the kids around the table benefit from it.</p>
<p>Please don’t flame! I know that there are incredibly smart athletes out there. Some of the most brilliant kids I know are also gifted athletes. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Padre13 acted as if it was somehow unfair NOT to consider athletic prowess in admissions. </p>
<p>I have often heard people give talented athletes a wonderful bit of advice when deciding on schools. They have been advised to consider the school as if they were injured and could not play. Would they still want to attend? I think admissions should do the same, using athletics as a tie-breaker rather than a “hook.” Would they still want the student if they were unable to play? Maybe some schools do this. I don’t know.</p>
<p>They don’t need to recruit for athletes. The smartest kids are often the best players. </p>
<p>I don’t presume to know how much sports play in admissions. I would like to think that they just want kids who take their passion to the highest level they can, whether lacrosse or Latin. But from everything I’ve ever heard on these boards, lacrosse seems to rank higher than Latin. </p>
<p>@tennisgeek - Reputation and college matriculations are one thing, education is another.</p>
<p>PG Athletes at Andover/Exeter/Hotchkiss/Deerfield et al
vs.
Repeat juniors at ISL schools</p>
<p>Frankly, I don’t see the difference. All the schools give preference to kids with athletic prowess. The vast majority of these kids can also handle the academics as well.</p>
<p>neatoburrito, great post! I agree 100% with you. Now, some people would say it is not more unfair than the admission preference given to legacies, which may be true. I don’t pretend to know every thing about the operation of private schools, but if legacies are their “lifelines” for sustained endowment and ensurance for a steady applicant pool (?), recruting atheletes is more of a choice - if all schools abondon this practice, then no school would have those advantages whatever they are by having recrutied atheletes. I think it all goes back to the profound interest in sports this socity shares. Winning a game is just an easier and more effective way to gain fame for an individual and for a college/school.</p>
<p>@neatoburrito- Maybe this is true in an ideal world, but on earth, you get the best education at the schools with the best college matriculation, and the best reputation.</p>
<p>@Tristan2- You say that “it’s unsporting on a higher level and driven by a desire for greater glory,” but thats the reason for boarding school! We go to these schools because of our desire for greater glory. It would be stupid if the teams that represent us didn’t have these same desires.</p>
<p>@doschicos -The difference is that the repeating juniors have developed their abilities while maintaining the same academic rigor as the rest of his team. He’s been in it from the beginning. He is, truthfully, a product of the program. The coach, the school, can honestly “claim” him as talent that they helped develop. </p>
<p>All the school can say about the PG is that they are good at recruiting. I really look at the PG athlete thing as a tit for tat arrangement. You come play for us and help us win and we’ll help you beef up your academic record, give you access to our counselors, give you amazing athletic facilities on which to train and more exposure so the scouts can find you. It’s a business arrangement, as I understand it. Do PGs even eligible for FA? I don’t know.</p>
<p>I’d love to hear from students about how the athletic PGs are viewed. Are they considered by students to be as much a part of the school as the others? I’m curious.</p>
<p>Really! Wow, that’s not why my son is applying at. all. Some kids believe (really believe) that one can actually be a better person by knowing more.</p>
<p>So, when you were interviewed and they asked you why you wanted to go to boarding school, is that what you told them – that you wanted greater glory? </p>
<p>neatoburrito - what you state does apply to repeat juniors who have been attending the school and decide to repeat. I am thinking more of the kids that start the boarding school as a repeat junior having completed a junior year somewhere else e.g. hockey recruits from Canada, Vermont, etc. This is a fairly common practice at ISL schools. Kind of a way to get around the “no PGs” rule.</p>
<p>If the concern with PG’s is that they are older than the other athletes, I don’t think anyone should be so concerned with all the repeaters. I have no data, but it seems to me that it has become even more common since that article was written.</p>
Always good to have fifi, our resident court jester, prancing around, sprinkling frivolous comments. Hip hip fifi! x3</p>
<p>People are aware that the discussion is not about academic PGs. The dialog is about sport and athletic PGs.</p>
<p>I draw on experience with PGs from boarding days and benefit from conversations with current coaches, parents and players. Athletic PGs are not always, but tend to be, a reasonable academic fit for their particular school. They do tend toward the lower end of the particular school’s spectrum of academic strength. Most are recruited based mainly on their athletic qualifications; sometimes, the academic qualification is simply a determination of whether a candidate meets the ‘minimum’ for the school.</p>
<p>fifi doubts that athletic PGs are recruited to help a school achieve greater glory. Poor guy, woefully naive in this regard.</p>
<p>By the way, nothing wrong with pursuing athletic glory! – as long as the costs and trade offs are well understood and the consequences not unintended.</p>
<p>As I say, 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. America’s best boarding schools can create a better environment, an environment truer to their ideals, by discontinuing sponsorship of athletic PGs.</p>
<p>Schools like Andover, Deerfield, and Exeter are truly outstanding communities and learning institutions, across every dimension that I can think of, except the one under discussion. They are part of what makes our country great. If I didn’t think so, I would not expect the best and highest from these particular schools, and I would not be discussing them here.</p>
<p>@neatoburrito- As a matter of fact I am a recruited athlete. And if your son genuinely believes that he’s going to boarding school so that he can “be a better person by knowing more,” then you should save yourself $40,000 and just buy him a bunch of books. You don’t need to go to a fancy boarding school just to learn. If you’re motivated enough, you can learn anywhere.</p>
<p>fif has forwarded Tristan’s comments and concerns to the various Heads of School and Athletic Directors at alll of the northeast and middle atlantic prep schools in question,
(don’t worry about, he has that power). They have responded, and quickly!</p>
<p>Color him surprised, but they feel deeply ashamed of themselves and, as a group, are convening a summit meeting to be held at South Kent School in late January. Look for them to reverse 80 years of tradition and relegate several hundred post-graduates to “public schools or the relatively few private boarding schools that specialize in grooming potential D-I scholarship athletes”. fif thinks they’re being a little short sighted, but hey, he’s woefully naive.</p>
<p>In related news, Bridgton Academy announced that it is building 4 new dormitories.</p>
<p>There are some things that can’t be learned from books, things like teamwork and leadership - things he could learn on an athletic field or as part of a theatrical production or musical ensemble. Just like laws only exist in theory until one is tried before a court, education without experience is just theoretical. I know better than most that he could get the nuts and bolts of a great liberal arts education at our kitchen table. It would just be kind of sad that way…and hollow without people to challenge his conclusions, etc. But I can assure you that his motivation for going to boarding school is not “to gain further glory.” But if that is indeed the reason for a lot of kids going to BS, then perhaps we should rethink sending him. He would be really disappointed. </p>
<p>PS: I wasn’t trying to put you down or anything by asking if you were a recruited athlete. I think anyone who has read my posts can tell that though I am somewhat ignorant of all things athletic, I certainly have no disrespect for athletes and believe that it is an integral part of a good education. Quite the contrary, I admire anyone who’s good at what they do. I admit, though…I still don’t understand why anyone would run when no one is chasing them ;)</p>
<p>I’m sure you’re a really smart kid. I can tell by a lot of your posts (the humor of which has made me laugh out loud in some cases). And I honestly do respect your opinion. Do you find that there is a lot of pressure on you to do exceptionally well in your sports?</p>
<p>I do find that there’s pressure to do well in my sport, but if I would have stayed at public school, the same pressure would be on me. Furthermore, I do things besides sports, and that adds more pressure, but I love the pressure. I think that all boarding school students have pressure placed on them, whether from teachers, parents, or self imposed pressure.</p>
<p>“In related news, Bridgton Academy announced that it is building 4 new dormitories.”</p>
<p>I got a good laugh out of that one. The smart-*** part of me wanted to add “and a classroom” but that would be unfair. For all I know it may be a fine school, but I only know it for turning out athletes.</p>
<p>“I admit, though…I still don’t understand why anyone would run when no one is chasing them ;)”</p>
<p>That is very condescending – and only concerned with self-preservation, which is NOT what pure athleticism is about. It IS about the challenge to meet the limits of one’s physical abilities. And it is driven by curiosity (believe it or not) and how close one can come to one’s potential – a very rewarding and exhilarating experience if one stays true. </p>
<p>Very possibly on the same level of satisfaction as understanding a complex equation or authoring a beautifully written essay…</p>
<p>Do not sell short those who find their pleasure through forms not understood by you. That would not be nice!</p>
<p>I think that neato was trying to say that he/she would not be an athlete personally. I don’t think that he/she was putting athletes down, at least not intentionally…</p>
<p>fif is right. It’s been 80 years, so nothing will change. The practice of recruiting atheletes in prep schools is merely an extension of the same (but in a much larger scale) practice in colleges, which in turn is the extension of this nation’s craze over sports. What leanid said about athleticism may be all true, but the way it weighs in the admission to the country’s best academic learning institutions is so “American”. We are so used to it and don’t even think there is anything “abnormal” about it.</p>