Sigh. I continue to rail against the facile belief that sending a kid to a so-called prestigious university somehow guarantees that they will get a better education. They will not! Every college offers fantastic opportunities for students who want to learn and offers nothing but chances to slide through to students who don't want to learn.
Yes, prestigious degrees do get you your first job interview. But after that, you're own your own in life. Just ask all those Ivy graduates fighting for jobs in Silicon Valley.
Do not be fooled. Let your kid determine what are the 3 best basketball programs she might want to play for. Then let her spend 2 days (overnight in the dorms) at each of them. She should talk with non-athletes as well. Where she thinks she will be happiest is where she will learn the most. At the end of those visits, she should decide by trusting her gut.
Will that always be the right choice? of course not. Life is full of mistakes. But it's by far the best chance to get it right the first time.
I agree with you, Coco. As someone who has taught many athletes (at least one of whom is currently playing professionally), I see this all the time. They even sit together (and often away from other students) in class. But I do believe that athletes need to have the opportunity for those interactions and they do exist--though certainly not to the extent as happens in the general student population.
But what frustrates me is the belief that going to the highest ranks colleges equates with getting the best education. Certainly, the very best, most highly motivated students do get the best opportunities offered them at the highest-ranked schools. Note my phrasing: "offered them." They are available everywhere, if you want it, though far easier to get at these schools. But precisely because D-1 athletes spend so much of their time in athletic endeavors, they do not nearly so often take advantage of what is "offered." Happy students learn the most. Go where you think you will be happiest.y
Another good point! I think of Molly Bent, who had Ivy offers....
IMHO, under no circumstances would I send a player with outstanding potential, a UCONN-type HS player, to:
Brenda Frese- I would not submit any potential star to BF's pre-game BS!
The Muffett- With many chances has only one title that UCONN gave her in 2001!
Kim Mulkey- won only one title with supposedly the greatest difference maker, Brittany Griner, & didn't prepare for L'ville!
Dawn Staley- great player that cannot coach up to her player level!
J. P. McCallie- Anyone that cannot remember players' names can't get best out of players talent!
I do appreciate
Scott Rueck at Ore. St.
Gary Blair at TX A&M
Vic Shaefer at Miss. St.
Mike Neighbors at Washington
Tara Vanderveer at Stanford
Karen Aston at TX
Sherri Coale at Okla
Doug Bruno at DePaul
Duke cause if she doesn't get a job as a waitress she would want to drive a bus.
I don't like either side in the dispute but in her book Griner said Kim did not even let her know that Baylor would have an issue with her sexuality. I think Kim should let her kids know if school policy is in contradiction with there life style.
There was a thread on this maybe 4-5 months ago, maybe in the wake of the scandals at Baylor, and maybe spawned further by Griner's participation on the Olympic team. I THINK I remember some folks bringing up a Griner complaint that Mulkey pretty actively discouraged her from revealing her sexual orientation while at Baylor. Those with a better memory than I (= everyone else on this board) can deny/confirm/find the thread. If I'm wrong, I apologize to the Green and Gold. And even if I remember correctly, it doesn't mean that Griner understood Mulkey correctly. Just sayin'There is so much to say on this, but I'll refrain most of it: Have you ever recruited a "kid"? Discussions about their sexuality is not something that is talked about. They are recruiting for basketball - an athletic scholarship. Most coaches will talk about the pro's and con's of the school, the expectations of the recruit, etc. I don't know of any school coach that walks into a recruits home and asks what their sexual preference is...it's not ethical nor should you do it. Their preference is their own business, hence, the recruit should look into the school if they feel they have a special need. Mulkey is very straight forward with EVERYONE, which is the reason many don't like her.
There was a thread on this maybe 4-5 months ago, maybe in the wake of the scandals at Baylor, and maybe spawned further by Griner's participation on the Olympic team. I THINK I remember some folks bringing up a Griner complaint that Mulkey pretty actively discouraged her from revealing her sexual orientation while at Baylor. Those with a better memory than I (= everyone else on this board) can deny/confirm/find the thread. If I'm wrong, I apologize to the Green and Gold. And even if I remember correctly, it doesn't mean that Griner understood Mulkey correctly. Just sayin'
The Baylor administration told Griner to tone it down. At 6-8 and with a voice deeper than Lou Rawls' it's not like she was really hiding her sexuality. Griner and her girlfriend were known to be seen all over the Baylor campus together and it was no secret that they were together. However, Griner was discouraged from discussing her relationship in the media.
At the end of the day, Mulkey is not "the decider" at Baylor. That honor still goes to the administration. No player or coach is bigger than the university.
completely agree with you on never asking that question. However Griner volunteered it and asked Kim if she was ok with it. at this point I think it is on her to volunteer that the school may have problems with Griner. You should never ask, nor should you care if a student is gay but when you know your trying to get a kid for your program and you know there may be problems for that kid on your campus you should at least worn them.There is so much to say on this, but I'll refrain most of it: Have you ever recruited a "kid"? Discussions about their sexuality is not something that is talked about. They are recruiting for basketball - an athletic scholarship. Most coaches will talk about the pro's and con's of the school, the expectations of the recruit, etc. I don't know of any school coach that walks into a recruits home and asks what their sexual preference is...it's not ethical nor should you do it. Their preference is their own business, hence, the recruit should look into the school if they feel they have a special need. Mulkey is very straight forward with EVERYONE, which is the reason many don't like her.
completely agree with you on never asking that question. However Griner volunteered it and asked Kim if she was ok with it. at this point I think it is on her to volunteer that the school may have problems with Griner. You should never ask, nor should you care if a student is gay but when you know your trying to get a kid for your program and you know there may be problems for that kid on your campus you should at least worn them.
Bags - I agree completely, and a motivated student can get a fabulous education at almost any school in the country, but ...
The environment does make a huge difference for most students and the seriousness of fellow students is a huge part of that environment. The difference between walking out of a class and continuing a discussion of some interesting topic with classmates vs. discussing the keg party on Friday is real. And even if most of the time is spent with fellow athletes, that still makes a difference - a much higher portion of those athletes at Stanford are actually attending serious classes and doing serious academic work than those at Kentucky or Florida State, and it does make a difference in the level of temptation to slack off if you are not a athlete particularly driven to succeed academically. Uconn WCBB has academic competitions within the team every semester which I suspect is not a standard practice at all schools, and I am pretty sure is not a standard within all of the Uconn athletic programs either. But an academically inclined athlete will feel they are more in tune with the whole student population at a school with top flight academics and it will be easier for them to feel part of that whole community.
It isn't that you cannot find a group of similarly serious students as 'State U' it is that you are more of a minority there than at 'Super Academic U'.
By the way - it is the same in HS as well - I went to EO Smith in Storrs and 50+% of the student population was from a family connected to Uconn, and so I was surrounded by high achieving students and felt part of a large segment, perhaps the majority, that took grades and homework very seriously. That was unique amongst my freshman dorm when I got to college - everyone else had been seen as a fringe part of their high school classes because they took the school work seriously. And when I transferred from an Ivy to a non-ivy half way through school, there was a noticeable difference in the seriousness of students, I found my set, but it was a much smaller universe of the college population.
I agree with you, Coco. As someone who has taught many athletes (at least one of whom is currently playing professionally), I see this all the time. They even sit together (and often away from other students) in class. But I do believe that athletes need to have the opportunity for those interactions and they do exist--though certainly not to the extent as happens in the general student population.
But what frustrates me is the belief that going to the highest ranks colleges equates with getting the best education. Certainly, the very best, most highly motivated students do get the best opportunities offered them at the highest-ranked schools. Note my phrasing: "offered them." They are available everywhere, if you want it, though far easier to get at these schools. But precisely because D-1 athletes spend so much of their time in athletic endeavors, they do not nearly so often take advantage of what is "offered." Happy students learn the most. Go where you think you will be happiest.