Thank you for your reply and for pointing out the different experiences enjoyed by families from the varying programs. I believe I alluded to the same sentiment. They are a myriad of reasons fencers/families choose programs. Luckily there seems to be just as many choices.
I do feel the need to clarify something mentioned in your post. From my perspective it seems you allude to me naming minors or fencers in general. If you read my post closely you would see that I named 3 fencers that fence at the University level. Something that is public information and is not only posted on every school’s website, but on a list that is posted and circulated on this very thread every year. I also mentioned a fencer that is good enough to have Olympic aspirations. That is a very general statement. None of this was shared in a fashion that could be considered irresponsible, insensitive, or potentially dangerous to the fencers or families of the fencers. I think it was unfair to categorize it as such.
You also seem to speak toward my sharing of snippets of conversations between myself, and two coaches. I agree that sharing private conversations that denigrate or shed negative light on a coach or program would not be constructive. My sharing illustrated my belief that these 2 men were straight shooters, and that one in particular was unnecessarily gracious, helpful, and giving. I fail to see how this could be anything but useful to a parent just beginning the process. I know it would’ve been helpful to me.
I was urged to share some of my story. I stated I wasn’t completely comfortable doing so but complied if it could give others insight. Some of what has transpired has me regretting that decision. I have to say there is a bit of get off my lawn sentiment that has permeated with my exchange with some who have a done a great job and spent an enormous amount of time organizing and contributing to this thread. It seems a bit bullying and non inclusive. I’m sure, at least I hope, this isn’t the intent.
Replace “should” with “must.” So, as an example, if @SevenDad wants to say where his DD attends or who her coach is or what her club is, that’s his decision. Everyone else needs to remember that this site is called College Confidential even if a user has mentioned something in another thread.
Per Coach Ripa’s recent social media posts, it also appears that Brown’s annual fencing fundraising drive was extremely successful. I think that Coach Ripa has brought new enthusiasm and energy to the Brown program. There have been some nice recruits and some strong signs indicating a more proactive approach to recruitment. This is a great thing for parents, students, and for the NCAA fencing community as a whole. Kudos.
There’s a relatively new blog at fencingparents.org that recently (as in, today) released a compilation/analysis of data from the various college programs to give prospective fencers and their families a better picture of what kinds of fencers get spots on various teams.
I haven’t reviewed in detail, nor do I have any affiliation with this blog…but it looks interesting enough to spread the word about it.
The first installment covers Div1 schools:
MODERATOR’S NOTE: As helpful as @SevenDad is, the link violates ToS, so I’ve had to remove. But you can find it yourselves via their website as noted above.
-SE
I think you have to supply an email address to get access. I’m curious what other parents think of it.
@SevenDad; I took a quick look at the “handbook” and noticed several errors already (e.g., fencers we know who had different ratings than indicated, clubs were listed incorrectly, that sort of thing). I have no doubt that this was a challenging exercise, but I would caution anyone about relying on it. I have to wonder what the motivation is for the editor - there must be something in addition to “oh, this would be a cool thing.” I don’t know her but her background is listed in the “more info” section.
And while it’s true all that information about the fencers is public, I have to say that it makes me uncomfortable to know that my child’s statistics will be put together like that and dissected in the future. It goes a bit to the recent conversation, it would be preferable for people to be able to have more control over how their information is publicly disseminated. I doubt people think about any of this when they sign up for fencing!
@SpaceVoyager - All information is worth a second opinion and some personal research. The site in question seems to be a labor of love; certainly time and money-intensive. However, it’s links and sources are largely culled from other sites. While “non-profit” it does include commercial links and, despite best intentions, these are not always of the best quality to the unknowing consumer. The broad use and publication of fencer’s names is troubling. While “public” this information is the province of colleges and universities who clear rights to publish it. It is not necessarily open to the general public to use and publicize as one may deem suitable. As you point out, there are also many, many errors, some much more significant than others. Articles/blogs also seem to be unattributed as to source. For instance, of particular relevance to this thread, is an article entitled “Can fencing help me get into college?” There is no author identified and a Google search finds this article only on the site in question. There are a lot of claims, definitive opinions, and even statements of ‘fact’ that I think are questionable. It would be nice to know the source. As with most things, perhaps this thread included, caveat emptor!
I go to church, have dim sum with my folks, and run some holiday errands — and look what I miss!
@Fencingmom7: You don’t have enough posts to PM me, but I’ll send you a PM and you can reply.
@arwarw: For what they state on their site, it seems like they do intend to keep things going…but are going to start with expanding their report to Div2/3 schools by EOY 2018.
@SpaceVoyager: As I noted above, I had not reviewed in detail at all. Even in a cursory glance, I noticed an error — that they called the NLI a “National Letter of Interest”. A minor detail, but perhaps indicative that the author may not have much experience with college recruiting. However, I do applaud their efforts to compile all the info…goodness knows they have more time to do this sort of thing than I do!
@SpaceVoyager et all: I hear you about the privacy issues, the information compiled is public, but they’ve made it very easy as opposed to going to each college website and archived standings via USA Fencing. You can’t have points and rankings without trading some privacy.
I think the spirit of the document is to make it easy for people to see how they can fit into the college fencing landscape, because really it’s quite esoteric. I knew all those stats before looking at the document – generally speaking – because I am old hat at the ins and outs of the USA Fencing website, and an educated consumer on the recruitment front. But if you look through this thread – all 57 pages, there are literally dozens of questions asking the same thing (how can I get recruited/where do I fit in). The document gets to the heart of the matter, errors and all. Of course one has to take into account that the stats compiled there are simply guidelines – but it’s someplace to start and it’s objective.
@fencingmom: yes and the point is information not misinformation. @BrooklynRye articulated some of the things I was thinking most cogently.
I still say that when we started fencing, we had no idea that we were “trading privacy,” and I would posit that is the case for most people. No one ever communicated that, and I continue to feel that we all should have some control over our own names. This is one of the reasons I have so appreciated this particular listserv; as @skieurope wisely pointed out, there is a reason this is called College Confidential (thank you for keeping an eye on things as moderator!), and people can use names through PMs as they so choose.
The intent of the other website could have been achieved in a different way that did not actually name people with that level of detail. It would have involved more work, but would have been more supportable. It would have been possible to depersonalize and summarize the data (assuming it was accurate, which is a whole issue in itself), identifying the number or percentage of fencers at various colleges who had various ratings or rankings, for example. I totally get that people would find value in understanding that one can do very well at a college without being the #1 ranked fencer, and understanding the size and depths of the teams. I do agree that sort of information serves potential college fencers well. But that can be done without so blatantly disseminating individual data. It can become even more problematic with the inaccuracy of the information (e.g., “A” fencers being listed as "U"s); even with the appropriate disclaimers, it can be inadvertently harmful since few people are going to double check everything they look at.
For my part, I will continue to recommend this listserv and caution people (if asked) about the other.
One more thing: there is the potential for a great article that could be culled from the wealth of information in this listerv - I certainly want to thank again and applaud the writers who started it and spent so much time (@SevenDad; @BrooklynRye; @superdomestique,@Sherpa, @skieurope and whoever else I am missing). There is a lot of wisdom that has been shared (and without naming names), it’s just maybe not tied up in a succinct package. Maybe one year when I have recovered from fencing travel and have more time (ha!) I’ll try to create a summary of the most essential points that could be shared (or maybe I’ll use my time reading escapist novels instead ;-D).
This is a very interesting document and follows a similar approach I took with my child, who has just committed to a top 10 school. Over the past 18 months, I analyzed all prospective schools, the number of fencers in each class, their junior and senior points rankings at the end of their Junior year, and the constantly-changing rankings of all fencers in my child’s graduating class. This allowed us to be realistic about which schools would be good mutual fits and it worked out exactly as we hoped. My child though I was crazy for the amount of analysis I did, but it allows you to get a very good feel for the chance of being admitted and fencing for each school.
Sorry for the lengthy post, meant to add this note: there are factors about students and their prospects that go beyond point standings or even academics. It isn’t always all about the numbers …
RE: the controversial handbook mentioned recently
I’ll be interested to see the Div2/Div3 version and whether the authors have any qualms about posting information for fencers who are not yet 18.
“qualms” might not be the right word; regardless of sport, basically every recruiting site/club page/conference site, etc will have information about athletes <18, as will many high school athletic dept pages.
That said, what another site chooses to include/exclude is not germane to this thread, so let’s move on.
Further information regarding the Brown fencing program. Per my sources the coach now requires an average AI of 221 for each recruiting class. The program currently has 4 recruiting spots due to some solid effort on the part of the coach. Next year, however, for 2024 hopefuls, apparently do to some athletic department machinations, the program will only have 3 official recruiting slots. It is the strong hope of the program that, after that, the program will be restored to 5 and upwards of 6 official recruiting slots, which was the peak of the prior head fencing coach. For what it’s worth, during the last coach’s tenure, official recruiting slots dropped to as low as 2 in a one year. There is a real sense of renewed energy and commitment to the team. It just apparently takes time and patience to fully restore Brown to the front lines of Ivy League fencing.
