I never understood the scholarship thing. This article points out why. Soccer is great for admissions if you keep the grades up, though. A girl at our local high school has been preliminarily admitted to Harvard and Dartmouth. She's an excellent student but would have the proverbial snowball's chance of acceptance at either school if they didn't want her on the soccer team. These days at the Ivies, it's a) either be a high school valedictorian and get lucky, because they turn down most of them, or b) be wanted on the sports team, be a concert musician, or have some other personal outstanding story to tell. Regular kids who are just really good students, forget it.
I'm on board with this too, although I can't resist adding that there is also c) be the child of an alumnus or major donor As I recall from Shulman and Bowen, this is the one admissions factor that rates up there with intercollegiate athletics.
I got brutally ripped for suggesting c) on another web site, by somebody who swore up & down that this was a myth. Couldn't figure out whether she was a true insider or a mean-spirited nut job.
Looks like I wasn't quite right, but it's by no means a myth. From Shulman & Bowen (p 41), here are the 1999 admissions advantages at "A Representative Non-Scholarship School" ... Athlete 48% Legacy 25% Underprivileged Minority 18% In another part of the book, they mention that part of the reason for this is that once they become alumni, legacies and athletes (and very rich people) donate money at higher rates. (No idea whether this link will work) http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/069...PHazCNxG4zpfzapn5a/E3vJBET5kLqqo=#reader-page
Amazing how the latter has been so controversial politically, while nobody seems to have a problem with the notion that a much larger number of 18 year olds are admitted into the nation's top universities in great part because they are physically fast & agile (and for some sports, large).
Great article. Regarding this passage... "Only about 100 of them are fully funded (to offer 9.9 scholarships),'' Santa Clara men's coach Cameron Rast said. "The others might offer five scholarships. There are 5,000 student-athletes trying for 1,500 scholarships in a year when there are 100,000 senior players coming out of high school. The percentages are low.'' (The smaller Division II schools also offer scholarships. The NCAA limits the 213 women's teams to 9.9 scholarships, the 159 men's teams to 9. Many of those programs are not fully funded. Division III schools do not award athletic scholarships.) ...I will point out that several DIII schools will offer "leadership grants" (under a variety of names) to athletes at a greater rate than they give them to non-athletes receive. The school where I work is going from NAIA to DIII over the next three years, and the administration is already looking at ways of insuring that they can continue to give money to our "student" athletes.
Yes, San Francisco Chronicle did a great job on this youth soccer topic. In addition to the main story, which was posted by Fulham Fan, Chronicle had three (3) additional and smaller articles on the same topic in the same Sunday issue. One of them even covered the topic of when or if kids need to specialize in one sport, a topic that we beat to death here in the last few weeks. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/30/SPGRBFG0DE1.DTL http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/30/SPGRBFG0DI1.DTL http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/10/30/SPG6LFGDSI1.DTL
Those SF Chronicle articles are excellent. Fresh & thoughtful, not the same old tired half truths. I found this quote interesting, from a women's college soccer coach. "It used to be that players could do that (playing multiple sports) because they were so athletically gifted, but nowadays the athleticism in soccer is extremely high. It's not like you can be a great athlete and just step in and be better than other kids if you don't have the technique. That doesn't fly." This is one of those things that people often talk at cross purposes about. I encounter e-acquaintances who take for granted that a highly athletic girl (or on rare occasion, even a boy) can be a successful high school varsity player despite having little previous background in the sport. However, where I live, people laugh at the idea. It's been quite a few years since that particular barrier was closed. If you haven't played years' worth of club soccer, don't fool yourself - you won't make varsity even if you're the fastest girl in the school.
Always an exception. This kid who plays (or played, as she "retired" from soccer after winning two national championships) for Eclipse almosr never practiced soccer other than once or twice a week before a major tournament. She was recruited by so many D1 schools offering full scholarship. Too bad, she was a national team material, in my opinion.
Yes, that's the problem with generalizing. Must have been some athlete! You think that can/does happen on the boys' side? I can't recall seeing such a player ...
2 cents...everyone wants their child to attend a D1 on scholarship, but as previously discussed those opportunities are rare. What you need to prepare your child for is a major decision. All the "select" and "club" players don't know life without soccer. Most have been playing since they were 4 or 5. Can your child quit highly competative soccer for 4 years to attend a D1 school or would they like to keep playing and attend a D2 or D3? My child is an honors student, I am completely confident that he can get into a high level university from an academic level. But even though he is a state level odp player I can't guarantee that he will have a soccer opportunity at that same D1 school. If he chooses to attend a D2 or D3 so he can play soccer I understand completely. Bottom line he will get a degree. My spouse graduated from a prestigious university, I on the otherhand went to a state school....guess who has the better job ?
Most likely not. I knew a defender in college who was somewhat like that but soccer back then was not what it is now. She didn't do ODP as far as I know. Pretty amazing player, though. Won the golden boot at the natioals. But now she will be shooting hoops at some big D1 school.
So all this stupidity how the PDL and W-League have to remain completely amateur and all that bunk is over 9.9 scholarships, where most players don't even get very much?
From the article "When is it time to pick just one sport?": "Some clubs pressure their players not only to drop other sports but to skip playing soccer for their high schools. "That's ridiculous,'' San Jose State men's coach Gary St. Clair said. "There are so many social aspects that they miss by doing that. It's shortsighted. The benefits (of playing on high school soccer teams) far outweigh the drawbacks.'' Dave Siracusa, the San Jose State women's coach, says middle school and high school is "their only time to play other sports. I would never try to limit somebody's athletic experience. ... I want players that are well rounded.'' In my state it would be very difficult to do both HS and club due to rules of the state interscholastic athletic association. The MIAA doesn't prohibit it; however, players are sanctioned if they miss a game or practice and with many school soccer teams with 6 day a week schedules, a player would most certainly be faced with conflicts during the season,..... not to mention such issues as getting one's homework down and overuse injuries. How are kids in California possibly managing to do both???
In many parts of California you cannot do both. HS rules prohibit this. However, there is no uniform season for HS soccer, and in some places you can do both, perhaps. I think what the coaches were objecting to was not doing both, but opting out of (inferior) HS soccer to train with the (superior) club team.