College D3: Just need some town soccer and you'll be fine

[Unregistered]

Like for instance, a teaching career after going to a very expensive private school? Like 100K+ in loans with a starting teaching salary that is very low? The crisis is twofold, defaulting screws the banks, actually paying the bills screws this generation. Elitism drives school choices that are unaffordable for many. The parents kick the can down the road, deferring saving for retirement, or worse use home equity and then are in a financial hole.

The kids do the same, overspending on an education that they cannot afford. The resulting school debt chokes them financially.

Dunning-Kruger strikes yet again.

[Unregistered]

Much of this debate (if you want to call it that) comes down to the value of an education or of different types of educations. We can debate the most profound meaning of the word "value" but let's stick with the most superficial meaning now.

BTDT's perspective is shaped by his child's particular goal which, from what I can tell, is to become a teacher. That's a great ambition and I hope she becomes the best teacher out there and enjoys a long satisfying career. For certain professions, like teaching, education is more of a certification process than a scholarly pursuit. You prove you have the basic credentials and then you build yourself professionally much as a nurse or doctor would. It's the practical experience and (often) personal qualities that determine how good a teacher the person will become. If you come from this perspective, college is either (a) free, if you can get an athletic scholarship, (b) cheap, if you choose a state school close to home, or (c) very expensive, if you choose an elite D3 college. Since you are only in it for the credential, you go for (a) if you can and (b) if you can't. There should never be any question of (c) based on the assumptions of this case - that would be throwing money away.

There are many other scenarios for which the above decision process would be wholly inappropriate. For example, many kids do not have a professional track in mind at the age of 17 when critical decisions are being made about college. For them, keeping all options open is highly valuable and, thus, a different type of education becomes more appropriate. For example, a classic liberal arts curriculum might be optimal. Once you are in the realm of "liberal arts" and the possibility of a profession where brand name on the degree is potentially important (e.g. Wall Street, consulting or an area in which graduate school will be required) there is a completely different set of factors that could justify the cost of even the most expensive degree. In any event, the decision process would be completely different. In such a case, getting a degree paid for by an athletic scholarship may not make sense and not only because the family has the ability to write a check. The athletic "job" nullifies some portion of the value of that education whether that be lab courses, study abroad or simply the ability to excel academically and suck everything out of the scholarly experience. There are many flavors of the "liberal arts" scenario - some which lead to a kid going for the D1 scholarship, some which lead to playing D3 and some which lead to playing no sport at all in college.

In addition to the superficial analysis of return on investment in education there is also the factor of personal consumption. You can solve it on your spreadsheet that junior should not play ball in college but that can't necessarily put out the competitive fire. An accommodation may need to be made. On the other hand, you could calculate that taking an athletic scholarship is the optimal solution, yet if junior is burnt out on soccer and cannot wait to be a "normal" person in college then the scholarship is going to be a 1 year event anyway - best not to go down that path.

This seems like the DI vs DIII debate. A bunch of people taking extreme positions based on their own very specific perspectives. The decisions made by others seem completely baffling and even insulting when they generalize them publicly. It would be nuts for BTDT's daughter to go to Williams. Similarly, it might have been a very bad decision for Perspective's kid to go to Framingham State. The difference doesn't only have to be driven by intellectual snobbery or anti-intellectualism but by the prospects and interests of each kid.

[Unregistered]

No, you miss the point. If you cannot be a D1 player, then soccer does not matter in your college choice. So if your life plan is to be a teacher, why waste the money on a small liberal arts school when you can get a perfectly adequate teaching degree at a lesser price.

Really? If not D1 then soccer does not matter in your college choice??? There are thousands of families who disagree with you.

And if saving money is the only criterion then why send kids to private schools and ISLs?
How does that compute?

I'll give you some examples in the "elite" world where this happens all the time. A kid gets in Williams and Haverford but only gets recruited to play soccer at Haverford and chooses Haverford. Or gets in Colby but not for soccer so goes to DePauw, Centre, or Rhodes.

What we rarely hear about is cases like the one being discussed here....a D1 player going to the lowest level of D3, unless the kid absolutely could not qualify academically for a better D3.

[Unregistered]

Like for instance, a teaching career after going to a very expensive private school? Like 100K+ in loans with a starting teaching salary that is very low? The crisis is twofold, defaulting screws the banks, actually paying the bills screws this generation. Elitism drives school choices that are unaffordable for many. The parents kick the can down the road, deferring saving for retirement, or worse use home equity and then are in a financial hole.

The kids do the same, overspending on an education that they cannot afford. The resulting school debt chokes them financially.

Or heaven forbid, the actually planned for their kids going to college over the previous 18 years.

[Unregistered]

...It would be nuts for BTDT's daughter to go to Williams....

No, it wouldn't have been "nuts." Assuming she is capable, she would have a gotten a truly excellent education, learning with and from some of the very best students and professors around, and earned an elite degree--regardless of monetary ROI.

[Unregistered]

No, it wouldn't have been "nuts." Assuming she is capable, she would have a gotten a truly excellent education, learning with and from some of the very best students and professors around, and earned an elite degree--regardless of monetary ROI.

We have a winner. College is not a trade school, it is a place to learn to think.

[beentheredonethat]

Everyone entitled to their own take on this so if you want to spend a quarter of a million dollars on your kid's education just so they could play soccer that is your prerogative. That is just not how I would spend that sort of money that is all. Contrary to what some of you apparently think I do value education and am willing to pay for it. Believe it or not I have another child down at Fairfield which is a great personal fit for that specific kid and what she wants to do in life. She is not an athlete so the sports there had nothing to do with the choice.

Ultimately what I have been trying to say is to focus on the individual fit and unless the school is paying your child to play soccer for them don't let the soccer component distract from the primary goal which in most cases is getting the education. My experience in life has been that playing a sport in college can be a huge distraction so unless the school is contributing to that education with some scholarship money I just don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to filter your child's choices of schools just so your they can continue to play soccer. If it just so happens that they can do both play soccer and get the education they want, wonderful, that's a win. It is when the list of schools starts getting filtered specifically to play soccer that I start to quibble with people.

Specifically what I push back on is when I feel people try to push the impression of the intensity and competitiveness of the D3 level. It always strikes me as they are trying to make it more than it really in in order to justify their personal choices. I'm not trying to put down that personal choice but I am trying to put it back into the proper context. The D3 level is academics first and athletics second. As far as I am concerned anyone who is wants to turn into more than that is a bit over zealous.

[Unregistered]

Just like it does not matter one whit where they play college ball, academics aside.
It ends on the day of the final whistle. It will not land you a better job, it will not make you more money and it surely does not make a better person.
If any posters here actually played, you would know that.

I played for a top D1 team. It has been both beneficial to me as a person and there are great memories, friendships, and networking benefits.

[Unregistered]

Like for instance, a teaching career after going to a very expensive private school? Like 100K+ in loans with a starting teaching salary that is very low? The crisis is twofold, defaulting screws the banks, actually paying the bills screws this generation. Elitism drives school choices that are unaffordable for many. The parents kick the can down the road, deferring saving for retirement, or worse use home equity and then are in a financial hole.

The kids do the same, overspending on an education that they cannot afford. The resulting school debt chokes them financially.

Parents do their kids a great disservice not having frank discussions about the long-term implications of student debt. For many professional areas there is still grad school to pay for as well that most students are thinking about when they are 17+. I wish my kids could attend any school they want, but with 4 kids it isn't realistic (because I'm not risking my retirement for it. Love ya kids but sorry!). Even if the sky were the limit I believe kids should have some loans so they have skin in the game. There are many, many good values out there outside of the NE at excellent schools. Being a bit less picky about location or facilities can mean the difference between having $25k in debt vs $80 (our example). Put the numbers down in black and white and watch the light bulb go off for your high schooler.

[Unregistered]

Much of this debate (if you want to call it that) comes down to the value of an education or of different types of educations. We can debate the most profound meaning of the word "value" but let's stick with the most superficial meaning now.

BTDT's perspective is shaped by his child's particular goal which, from what I can tell, is to become a teacher. That's a great ambition and I hope she becomes the best teacher out there and enjoys a long satisfying career. For certain professions, like teaching, education is more of a certification process than a scholarly pursuit. You prove you have the basic credentials and then you build yourself professionally much as a nurse or doctor would. It's the practical experience and (often) personal qualities that determine how good a teacher the person will become. If you come from this perspective, college is either (a) free, if you can get an athletic scholarship, (b) cheap, if you choose a state school close to home, or (c) very expensive, if you choose an elite D3 college. Since you are only in it for the credential, you go for (a) if you can and (b) if you can't. There should never be any question of (c) based on the assumptions of this case - that would be throwing money away.

There are many other scenarios for which the above decision process would be wholly inappropriate. For example, many kids do not have a professional track in mind at the age of 17 when critical decisions are being made about college. For them, keeping all options open is highly valuable and, thus, a different type of education becomes more appropriate. For example, a classic liberal arts curriculum might be optimal. Once you are in the realm of "liberal arts" and the possibility of a profession where brand name on the degree is potentially important (e.g. Wall Street, consulting or an area in which graduate school will be required) there is a completely different set of factors that could justify the cost of even the most expensive degree. In any event, the decision process would be completely different. In such a case, getting a degree paid for by an athletic scholarship may not make sense and not only because the family has the ability to write a check. The athletic "job" nullifies some portion of the value of that education whether that be lab courses, study abroad or simply the ability to excel academically and suck everything out of the scholarly experience. There are many flavors of the "liberal arts" scenario - some which lead to a kid going for the D1 scholarship, some which lead to playing D3 and some which lead to playing no sport at all in college.

In addition to the superficial analysis of return on investment in education there is also the factor of personal consumption. You can solve it on your spreadsheet that junior should not play ball in college but that can't necessarily put out the competitive fire. An accommodation may need to be made. On the other hand, you could calculate that taking an athletic scholarship is the optimal solution, yet if junior is burnt out on soccer and cannot wait to be a "normal" person in college then the scholarship is going to be a 1 year event anyway - best not to go down that path.

This seems like the DI vs DIII debate. A bunch of people taking extreme positions based on their own very specific perspectives. The decisions made by others seem completely baffling and even insulting when they generalize them publicly. It would be nuts for BTDT's daughter to go to Williams. Similarly, it might have been a very bad decision for Perspective's kid to go to Framingham State. The difference doesn't only have to be driven by intellectual snobbery or anti-intellectualism but by the prospects and interests of each kid.

You have laid out very clearly what happened (surprising you would know BTDT's thinking so well :)

And in doing so you have made clear that you believe there are certain variables which automatically dictate a certain answer. It isn't enough for you to suggest that this was your reasoning. You insist on generalizing that this really should be the case for anyone in a similar situation. It's a very pre-professional view. Very much a technical training view. And I might add a very popular view these days for the very financial reasons you cite. That doesn't mean it is right or right for anyone else but you. All things being equal, I don't want my doctors to have a pure technical background from age 17 onwards. I'm more impressed with a surgeon who majored in Russian or political science and philosophy while still completing the pre-med reqs. I also don't agree that most kids should have a life plan at age 17 (or 13). For my money, part of the college experience is exploring and becoming more dynamic and finding out what you are really passionate about once you are actually exposed to a bunch of good stuff. And yes, that is my liberal arts bias. And btw, all of your arguments are presuming the rest of us are paying full price. I would bet there are at least a few mid-tier to above average D3s where your kid could have gotten 12-20K in merit aid.

[beentheredonethat]

Much of this debate (if you want to call it that) comes down to the value of an education or of different types of educations. We can debate the most profound meaning of the word "value" but let's stick with the most superficial meaning now.

BTDT's perspective is shaped by his child's particular goal which, from what I can tell, is to become a teacher. That's a great ambition and I hope she becomes the best teacher out there and enjoys a long satisfying career. For certain professions, like teaching, education is more of a certification process than a scholarly pursuit. You prove you have the basic credentials and then you build yourself professionally much as a nurse or doctor would. It's the practical experience and (often) personal qualities that determine how good a teacher the person will become. If you come from this perspective, college is either (a) free, if you can get an athletic scholarship, (b) cheap, if you choose a state school close to home, or (c) very expensive, if you choose an elite D3 college. Since you are only in it for the credential, you go for (a) if you can and (b) if you can't. There should never be any question of (c) based on the assumptions of this case - that would be throwing money away.

There are many other scenarios for which the above decision process would be wholly inappropriate. For example, many kids do not have a professional track in mind at the age of 17 when critical decisions are being made about college. For them, keeping all options open is highly valuable and, thus, a different type of education becomes more appropriate. For example, a classic liberal arts curriculum might be optimal. Once you are in the realm of "liberal arts" and the possibility of a profession where brand name on the degree is potentially important (e.g. Wall Street, consulting or an area in which graduate school will be required) there is a completely different set of factors that could justify the cost of even the most expensive degree. In any event, the decision process would be completely different. In such a case, getting a degree paid for by an athletic scholarship may not make sense and not only because the family has the ability to write a check. The athletic "job" nullifies some portion of the value of that education whether that be lab courses, study abroad or simply the ability to excel academically and suck everything out of the scholarly experience. There are many flavors of the "liberal arts" scenario - some which lead to a kid going for the D1 scholarship, some which lead to playing D3 and some which lead to playing no sport at all in college.

In addition to the superficial analysis of return on investment in education there is also the factor of personal consumption. You can solve it on your spreadsheet that junior should not play ball in college but that can't necessarily put out the competitive fire. An accommodation may need to be made. On the other hand, you could calculate that taking an athletic scholarship is the optimal solution, yet if junior is burnt out on soccer and cannot wait to be a "normal" person in college then the scholarship is going to be a 1 year event anyway - best not to go down that path.

This seems like the DI vs DIII debate. A bunch of people taking extreme positions based on their own very specific perspectives. The decisions made by others seem completely baffling and even insulting when they generalize them publicly. It would be nuts for BTDT's daughter to go to Williams. Similarly, it might have been a very bad decision for Perspective's kid to go to Framingham State. The difference doesn't only have to be driven by intellectual snobbery or anti-intellectualism but by the prospects and interests of each kid.

I just wanted to clarify that my daughter is not studying to be a teacher. MCLA was a very good fit for her and it is really rather mean spirited when others disparage it. Could she have gone other places, absolutely but when push came to shove it was the right place for that specific kid. Anyone who wants to second guess that decision doesn't really know my kid that well nor what her personal goals are in life.

[Unregistered]

Everyone entitled to their own take on this so if you want to spend a quarter of a million dollars on your kid's education just so they could play soccer that is your prerogative. That is just not how I would spend that sort of money that is all. Contrary to what some of you apparently think I do value education and am willing to pay for it. Believe it or not I have another child down at Fairfield which is a great personal fit for that specific kid and what she wants to do in life. She is not an athlete so the sports there had nothing to do with the choice.

Ultimately what I have been trying to say is to focus on the individual fit and unless the school is paying your child to play soccer for them don't let the soccer component distract from the primary goal which in most cases is getting the education. My experience in life has been that playing a sport in college can be a huge distraction so unless the school is contributing to that education with some scholarship money I just don't believe that it makes a lot of sense to filter your child's choices of schools just so your they can continue to play soccer. If it just so happens that they can do both play soccer and get the education they want, wonderful, that's a win. It is when the list of schools starts getting filtered specifically to play soccer that I start to quibble with people.

Specifically what I push back on is when I feel people try to push the impression of the intensity and competitiveness of the D3 level. It always strikes me as they are trying to make it more than it really in in order to justify their personal choices. I'm not trying to put down that personal choice but I am trying to put it back into the proper context. The D3 level is academics first and athletics second. As far as I am concerned anyone who is wants to turn into more than that is a bit over zealous.

You expressed some the views here you've been repeatedly posting anonymously and which you claim are being falsely attributed to you. It's fine for you to have your views but you state them as fact....that D3 automatically means you're choosing academics first. In which case, btw, some would pick the better academic school. You may have noticed that a lot of people want to go to more academically elite D3s even when they are not playing a sport. Some spend the money just for the academics. And trying to balance your blanket statements about the competitive level and commitment involved at different D3s isn't overzealous. It's simply making sure that your distortions are countered.

[Unregistered]

Another couple of points, and btw, BTDT, many posts get wrongly attributed to me. I, for example, would never argue that NESCAC soccer, even Amherst and Williams, is equal to or better than the Ivies. I don't think they would look silly on the field, but I think the Ivies consistently would win by 2-3 goals. Messiah and a couple of other schools are probably a different story. I also, believe it or not, am not the world's biggest fan of the NESCAC.

Now, that said, given the arguments about athletics hurting academic performance, and athletics being at least a distant second in importance consistent with the "dallying" comments, it is very interesting to note that the top academic D3s tend to be among the top athletic D3s as well. The NESCAC schools are notorious for having overweighted athletic student bodies and Williams wins the overall sports D3 title basically every year. How do you explain that? It seems some believe there should be no D3 athletics at all, since they have decided a choice for D3 by definition MUST be all about the academics.

[beentheredonethat]

You expressed some the views here you've been repeatedly posting anonymously and which you claim are being falsely attributed to you. It's fine for you to have your views but you state them as fact....that D3 automatically means you're choosing academics first. In which case, btw, some would pick the better academic school. You may have noticed that a lot of people want to go to more academically elite D3s even when they are not playing a sport. Some spend the money just for the academics. And trying to balance your blanket statements about the competitive level and commitment involved at different D3s isn't overzealous. It's simply making sure that your distortions are countered.

Putting academics before athletics is one of the stated goals of the D3 level. It is actually you who are distorting what the level is about, not me.

[Unregistered]

Putting academics before athletics is one of the stated goals of the D3 level. It is actually you who are distorting what the level is about, not me.

You probably were writing this before you saw the post just above your latest. I'd be interested in your take on that. You are correct that at least the NESCACs stress academics over athletics (in mission statements) and yet athletics may be more valued in reality than in any other D3 conference.