As it should be. I'm sure it's the same way for female asst or head coaches to get a coaching position on a male soccer college team.
I didn't say the ratio of qualified coaches is 85% male to 15% female. I said that appears to be what you are saying. If you think that's true, could you give actual evidence to support it? (But, I did say the actual proportion of male to female DI coaches is 85% male to 15% female.)
while Women have been making strides breaking in to the coaching ranks in college soccer. More younger women/players need to be encouraged to do so as well. It appears that there isn't enough interest in coaching from young women after their playing days are over.
WHY??? Can't someone just go for a job and be judged by his/her merits not what is in their respective shorts?
I don't think anyone is saying sexism (or agism, or racism or any bias really) doesn't exist. Of course it does. But is there the possibility than females in this particular cycle just aren't that interested in coaching? Female coaching school numbers are down. Female club coach numbers are down. Female college coach numbers are down. Is there the possibility that for whatever reason, that in this cycle, women just aren't that interested in coaching?
My bad CPThomas, I misunderstood what you said. I don't have evidence for the 85-15 male:female ratio for qualified coaches based on experience and licensing. So at the expense of spreading fake news I will recant that statement. Although based on the numbers I have seen at licensing courses for USSF and NSCAA and that number would probably be in the ballpark. If that were the case and the current male:female ratio is 74% to 26% as you stated then it would show that females are actually overrepresented, not underrepresented as the article stated. But I don't have factual numbers to come to that conclusion so I'll keep quiet.
I totally agree. There just isn't the same degree of interest yet from young females wanting to coach than males (in my experience anyway). If Cromwell wants there to be a significant change in the amount of women coaching she should stop moaning about how many men are in the game and focus on tackling the real problem: getting more women into coaching in the first place.
Again, marriage/child bearing years overlap the "ranx" years...dir of soccer ops --> GK coach --> 2nd asst --> 1st asst --> HC...throw in that most college jobs are in the boonies where the husband has to find something equating or exceeding the above salaries. With telecommuting, maybe this could change somewhat. Not to mention "stability" is rarely in this job equation. It's never going to happen en masse. Dambach is extraordinarily fortunate as the husband has an ez gig with the local minor league team, so it's easy to juggle in an affordable locale. With all that, the female career pool is generally limited to women who aren't going to have families, or plan to have one...swimming against the current.
Let me know when the mens college soccer programs start hiring more female coaches. Until then, I would rather see AD's favor women college coaches over male coaches to run female soccer programs, correction ANY female college sports program!
Let me know when women want to coach Men's college soccer. Actually, let me know when women want to coach U11 boys.
Don't get your pink panties in a bunch.Women will want to coach men's college soccer as soon as they realize they can make a nice career as female college coaches. Baby steps grasshopper!
Again, the market sets the bar. It's a free market society. Meaning if there were gobs of women in coaching schools, applying and unable to get jobs, frustrated with their lot in life, I think this argument would have merit. We took our DD on a bunch of visits. 1 of the coaches mentioned his last hire he had over 80 applicants. 2 women! Maybe this was an outlier and women do not want to work for this particular man. I do not know that. Do I think women are capable of coaching men? Yes. Do I think men are capable of coaching women? Yes. There is a problem. We need more quality, willing, talented, qualified women's coaches. I think most people would agree that having a diverse staff is important. The issue isn't women are being discriminated against. It's that there is a complete lack of even willing and wanting female candidates. I am not saying gender bias does not exist anywhere in the world. I am saying when someone has 80 people apply and only 2 are women, it would be unrealistic to say that he should disregard 95% of his applicant pool and only look at the female candidates.
Obviously the female player has to be informed that they can make more financially as a entry level collegiate assistant coach than chasing an NWSL salary. If more of the top female players pursued the entry level women collegiate coaching positions they should have stronger resumes than their male counterparts based on their playing accomplishments, because the top male players are on MLS teams. Only a fraction of the top female players are playing in the NWSL. I believe Tobin Health has a coaching gig with the Portland Thorns DA club and eventually one day will be a collegiate head coach. When female collegiate players see more female college coaches, it will inspire more to pursue the career. For example, I already know of a current Stanford player who wants to become a womens college coach after her playing days are over. That's how much she loves the game.
When this Stanford player finishes school and tries to become a coach, she'll get a job faster then any male would at that age in the female game.
I agree, these are the type of female players needed to fill the female entry collegiate level positions with hopes of climbing the coaching ladder. Stanford's last 2 associate head coaches are now the head coaches at Notre Dame and the University of Penn. If Radcliff hired male associate head coaches there would be 2 less female head coaches in the Womens D1 game . With that said, I'm sure Hideki Nakada is next to be named as a head coach and is Jen Klein at USC.
Wow, so women are qualified to coach but not smart enough to ask a friend, do a google search, or use common sense to realize that many many women are making a nice career as college coaches? It isn't difficult to educate yourself. It is not life's job to educate people on the opportunities that are out there. And you would think that a majority of the women who would move on play at a decent level so they have numerous people they could ask. If you are a representative of women coaches, women everywhere are in deep trouble. The only worst representative is Cromwell. Playing the victim isn't always a great look.
Genius, it's not as black and white as you perceive it to be. It's the same hiring problem that's seen with female engineers. Females know a engineering career is lucrative, yet there is still shortage of females majoring in engineering. Engineering is a male dominated occupation. Psychologically, if a particular gender dominates a profession maybe it's an occupation for that gender only (even though that isn't the case) or they don't want to work in a profession dominated by males. It's no different than having an absence of male cosmetologist or within the last decade breaking the mold and accepting males as nurses and airline stewardess. I will bet though if club, collegiate and pro coaches were dominated by female coaches we would see more females pursuing the occupation. Only recently has the NBA hired it's first full-time female assistant coach in Becky Hammon and it took a progressive coach to do it in Popovich!
Most women seem to pick a major during college and stick to it. They pick a major that leads to a career. I'm guessing those careers lead to a better starting salary that the 25-35k average assistants start on so they go with the career they majored in. Men seem to try and stay in the sport so they want to coach. Again I'm being general but working at a D1 school with men's and women's soccer it seems true.
Probably the most influential soccer coach my daughters had was their U7-U10 female coach. A former college player, she absolutely instilled the love of the game into a group of little girls. She stopped coaching for a couple of years for work reasons and my kids moved on to other coaches. She eventually came back to coaching and got her B License but struggled to get to even the top level of club soccer with older age groups. Maybe she just wasn't a good coach, but I'm pretty sure she would tell you that it didn't seem easier for her to get a position than the men she competed with. She could also tell you about dozens of sexist comments made by club administrators, parents and referees that didn't make it any easier. I'm sure there are fewer women competing for these jobs but I think the more important issue is why there are fewer women competing. Undoubtedly there are many reasons, but to deny that sexism is one of them is just sticking our collective head in the sand.
For the third time, it's a woman's maternal clock. Nothing more, nothing "sexist", whatever that is. The women who are at the "top levels" are 1) childless or 2) dadda with sweet local job in affordable college town (Dambach, Hoppa...) or 3) staff nepotism for dadda (UCF, South Carolina...). The latter is especially useful for load sharing..."hey, uh, boss, could I take off the fourth day in a row to take care of our kids?" and, upon closer inspection, Dambach and Hoppa in 2) went childless during their working through the ranx years, they had their babies after reaching the "pinnacle", So this all goes back to 1) and what I've said 3x's in this thread...how difficult a decision it is for a woman to pursue a career gamble while on the clock. It could sometimes be a decision between a suitor she sees as father or no stability/little pay/tight prospects soccer. We know where that'll go. As with all of us, I like the gossip of calling somebody else an ist, but this one, meh.
I am sure that sexism (as well as racism and agism) are issues. No one is saying they aren't. Soccer could use more great women coaches. I have said as much numerous times on here. But to sit back and play the victim card when there is a strong precedent for women to be successful at the college level (club you probably have a point on lack of precedent.) doesn't make much sense. My guess it has as much to do with other reasons as to why. I just don't have much sympathy when a person or group doesn't do everything within their power and yet still cries sexism. The "It won't work out so why even try" is as poor a rationale as exists. I'd love for US Soccer to set up an initiative to try and get more women's coaches involved at every level. I will say this, ask any college coach you know if they have ever heard of a University or even coach saying "I have to hire a man." Then ask him if he has ever heard "I have to hire a female." Gender should play no part.
I think it's likely, when one talks about college men's teams, that you don't hear "I have to hire a man" because it's so ingrained that it's taken more as a natural law than a matter of choice.
Here is an article just written today by a former female coach... The title SEXISM KEPT ME FROM COACHING, TOO. http://kickthescale.com/sexism-kept-coaching/ This is exactly what I was trying to say before about just thinking there is entitlement to coach college soccer. "It was at that time, I declared I wanted to coach college soccer immediately following my playing career at Michigan State University" I commend her for taking coaching courses while in college to become certified on paper, and eventually getting all the way to what I presume is her A license, but I do not think male or female coaches are prepared to coach collegiately with NO coaching experience. I stated it before, it is not reality to start at the top you have to work your way up the ladder for any job. My first division one college assistant coaching job was over 10 years in to my coaching career, that is with division 1 and professional playing experience as well USSF and NSCAA coaching licenses. I also declared while I was playing in college that I would like to coach collegiately, however I was willing to do what ever was necessary to make that a career which included taking jobs that were not as fulfilling or glamorous, these jobs are what taught me to manage players, run my own sessions, and grow up and mature as a coach. At the ripe age of 27 she is offered a division 1 head coaching job, but turned it down because she was 8 months pregnant. How is this sexism? You a were offered the job as a young, pregnant, female...isn't that the opposite of sexism? My wife and I have 2 children and my wife went back to work 3 weeks after each of them were born, this was her choice and I supported it and we as a couple parented and made it work. To say that sexism kept her from coaching is ludicrous. Her husband could of taken a more active role parenting to allow her to take this job. So either her husband is sexist and told her she could not take it or she chose not to coach, but sexism did not keep her from coaching. As someone who has been a coach for 20 years in club, high school, and college I have found my schedule is much conducive and flexible when it comes to parenting schedule and do not think we would of been to manage it as a family otherwise. Again, I am completely in favor there being a female on every single staff in all female sports in the NCAA. However, I am not in favor of just giving these jobs unless they are deserved and qualified candidates, which there are good, qualified, and deserving female candidates out there.
The article itself, apart from the headline, is quite good and I don't see anything out of line in it. Sure, at 18 (just out of high school and in college) she wanted to coach college immediately on graduation. But, she doesn't say head coach, she doesn't say paid assistant coach, for all we know she could have been thinking volunteer assistant. And, she doesn't say DI. So, I think you're reading a little too much into that quote. The headline itself bears virtually no relationship to the contents of the article. In fact, the article and what you say are quite consistent. She says she made a personal choice to spend enough time with her children that she couldn't coach at the college level at the same time. She doesn't blame anyone for her having made that choice, rather she makes clear it was what she wanted to do and she has no regrets. Indeed, her article is one of the first pieces of direct evidence I've seen suggesting that some otherwise qualified women of their own volition may be taking themselves out of the competition for head coaching positions. I think, by the way, that the basic content of your post is very good. I'm only saying that I don't think the article itself (other than the stupid headline) indicates the author was complaining. It seems more to me like the article was directed to her female peers, explaining why she decided that her desires to spend time/energy with her children were not compatible with the time/energy demands being a DI college head coach.
Absolutely. My point exactly! Are their hurdles that women face with families? I haven't seen anyone argue against that. This article supports the theory that women are given opportunities should they decide they want to make the commitment to the career. And in some instances, have advantages getting hired. Whether it is for them is up to them. It is certainly noble for her to choose family over career. But she isn't saying sexism kept her from her passion.