Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coach Support and “Tufts Syndrome”

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    BTNT, you need to study a little harder before you try to exploit adn co-opt concepts into your agendas.
    .. and you apparently need a new crystal ball before you start guessing who is posting what and what their agendas are.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      BTNT, you need to study a little harder before you try to exploit adn co-opt concepts into your agendas.
      I'll bite. Please explain why kids not getting into safety schools doesn't speak to a problem in the selection process of schools to apply to?

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        .. and you apparently need a new crystal ball before you start guessing who is posting what and what their agendas are.
        Not going to play games with you today BTDT. Maybe you can snag a couple of newbies if you keep at it with all 3 threads (or more) you've got going today. Good luck!

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Yet another reason why the Perspective school of thought to focus on the reach schools is a bad idea and the buyer/seller analogy very appropriate. When you are a buyer these sorts of things don't happen to you.
          Did I miss something in life? Besides the obvious dig at Perspective, is there anything really inflammatory in this post?

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Not going to play games with you today BTDT. Maybe you can snag a couple of newbies if you keep at it with all 3 threads (or more) you've got going today. Good luck!
            Not going to play games with you either. You are wrong. Your ideas are stupid and end up pushing people into situations where "Tufts Syndrome" can happen to them. Have a great day.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Not going to play games with you today BTDT. Maybe you can snag a couple of newbies if you keep at it with all 3 threads (or more) you've got going today. Good luck!
              Translation: I got called on my Perspective sock-puppet routine. Exiting stage left.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                I'll bite. Please explain why kids not getting into safety schools doesn't speak to a problem in the selection process of schools to apply to?
                Perfect example of the BTDT method. Throw things out as true, create confusion, sell whatever it is he is selling, and then presto.

                No one said anyone didn't get into any safety schools! And if someone thinks or knows that a school is employing "Tufts Syndrome" then they make sure they apply to some other schools that are safeties. Pretty simple.

                And here's a tip: Just because Harvard wants you doesn't by definition mean that Swarthmore wants you.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Perfect example of the BTDT method. Throw things out as true, create confusion, sell whatever it is he is selling, and then presto.

                  No one said anyone didn't get into any safety schools! And if someone thinks or knows that a school is employing "Tufts Syndrome" then they make sure they apply to some other schools that are safeties. Pretty simple.

                  And here's a tip: Just because Harvard wants you doesn't by definition mean that Swarthmore wants you.
                  So why don't you log in and show everyone just how "real" you are then?

                  You keep spinning conversations off into this btdt vs perspective realm but all that you are really doing is pushing them away from the topics people are actually interested in. What are you afraid of? That people can't make up their own minds about what they want to believe?

                  For once, why don't you stay on the topic and allow a discussion to move forward.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Topic must hit too close to home.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Tufts syndrome is very real. Who knows why, but there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that almost top tier schools (eg Tufts) reject applicants who are above their demographic at a higher rate than those who are in their demographic.
                      Your weak critical reasoning skills are in full effect again. No one is denying the rejection part of "Tufts syndrome"; what's being challenged is the explanation. There's little mystery. "Tufts" isn't quite a "top-tier" school, as people associated with the school would readily acknowledge: that's why admissions will reject fairly obvious "safety school" applicants. A summary of the straightforward explanation is reposted below:

                      In short, "Tufts syndrome" has little or nothing to do with protecting the school's yield rate. All that admitting relatively "over-qualified" students does is complicate the admissions practice to hardly any practical end--other than giving those students "safety-school" options they almost certainly won't need. This is not much different than when job candidates deemed "over qualified" aren't hired.

                      Apologies if this information doesn't so neatly line up with your latest agenda.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Your weak critical reasoning skills are in full effect again. No one is denying the rejection part of "Tufts syndrome"; what's being challenged is the explanation. There's little mystery. "Tufts" isn't quite a "top-tier" school, as people associated with the school would readily acknowledge: that's why admissions will reject fairly obvious "safety school" applicants. A summary of the straightforward explanation is reposted below:

                        In short, "Tufts syndrome" has little or nothing to do with protecting the school's yield rate. All that admitting relatively "over-qualified" students does is complicate the admissions practice to hardly any practical end--other than giving those students "safety-school" options they almost certainly won't need. This is not much different than when job candidates deemed "over qualified" aren't hired.

                        Apologies if this information doesn't so neatly line up with your latest agenda.
                        You are the one that always seems to arguing against objectivity. If parents realistically assessed their child's academic/sports abilities these types of situations wouldn't happen.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          You are the one that always seems to arguing against objectivity. If parents realistically assessed their child's academic/sports abilities these types of situations wouldn't happen.
                          What they are really arguing against is natural selection. You see it in several of these threads today. Whether it be arguing for recreational soccer or college admissions, what they seem to believe is necessary is you keep everyone engaged and in the same basic grouping as it advances. It is the grouping that seems to define quality in their world. The conflict they have is when you get to the types of schools we are talking about everyone is a really good student with top scores so what the schools are really looking for is the "spike" talent or gift that makes the candidate stand apart from the crowd. This person spends all of their time measuring their kid relative to the group and hasn't the first idea that doing so actually makes them non-descript. They are trying to fit them into acceptable bands when that is not what the game really is. The game really is about being in a band of 1, about being unique and finding a place where that uniqueness is valued.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            What they are really arguing against is natural selection. You see it in several of these threads today. Whether it be arguing for recreational soccer or college admissions, what they seem to believe is necessary is you keep everyone engaged and in the same basic grouping as it advances. It is the grouping that seems to define quality in their world. The conflict they have is when you get to the types of schools we are talking about everyone is a really good student with top scores so what the schools are really looking for is the "spike" talent or gift that makes the candidate stand apart from the crowd. This person spends all of their time measuring their kid relative to the group and hasn't the first idea that doing so actually makes them non-descript. They are trying to fit them into acceptable bands when that is not what the game really is. The game really is about being in a band of 1, about being unique and finding a place where that uniqueness is valued.
                            Great post, BTDT.

                            FYI....Wheaton and Wooster are two school renowned for doing just what you suggest with your bands of 1 idea.

                            And congrats...we are getting closer now to why you started all of these new threads today.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              This thread started with an example of student that applied Early Action who was then deferred, but likely made the regular admissions. We don't really know what the discussion was between student and coach (or do we?). However, with regard to the coach, any verbal contract/commitment carries the same value as the paper it is written on, which is very little. The coach that might back out risks his/her reputation and future ability to recruit. However, if the school is good enough then that coach might be less concerned.

                              As for the student, applying early action shows a only a little more interest in the school compared to regular admissions. The yield rate is lower for early action as compared to the early decision. For the latter, a coach will be more supportive of the student. Either the student (who applies early action) was not as interested in the school, or the coach was not as interested in the student. Either way, early action has a weaker connection than early decision. For my kid, the coach made it clear that he preferred his recruits to apply early decision and show commitment to the school. It was made clear that it was also easier for the coach to support the kid through admissions in the early decision round as compared to any other round.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                This thread started with an example of student that applied Early Action who was then deferred, but likely made the regular admissions. We don't really know what the discussion was between student and coach (or do we?). However, with regard to the coach, any verbal contract/commitment carries the same value as the paper it is written on, which is very little. The coach that might back out risks his/her reputation and future ability to recruit. However, if the school is good enough then that coach might be less concerned.

                                As for the student, applying early action shows a only a little more interest in the school compared to regular admissions. The yield rate is lower for early action as compared to the early decision. For the latter, a coach will be more supportive of the student. Either the student (who applies early action) was not as interested in the school, or the coach was not as interested in the student. Either way, early action has a weaker connection than early decision. For my kid, the coach made it clear that he preferred his recruits to apply early decision and show commitment to the school. It was made clear that it was also easier for the coach to support the kid through admissions in the early decision round as compared to any other round.
                                I thought schools have either EA or ED, but not both.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X