My question is if a student and his/her family choose to go to a school for athletics that is a bad thing but if a student and his/her family opt to go to a school because of a great drama department or a great marching bad no one bats and eye?

 

IMO, it is not a bad thing to choose a school for athletics, drama, band, etc. The issue is the political correctness of saying it is based on academics. Let's call it what it is.

 

My son is good at football.

What schools are good at football? Create list.

What school with the best football program has the best academics? Narrow choices.

Select the best football school with the best academics.

 

The list is created with football first, not education.

It may be based on education first, but sports plays a part also.

 

I sent mine to NewCath because it has the Best view, bar none!!!! :lol:

Why to the first bolded?

Why not to the second bolded?

 

Also, according to the Diocese of Covington, Brossart had a 2011 ACT composite average 23.3. NCC had a composite of 21.6.

 

They both have football. Why NCC? If this score means anything, your child would get a better education at Brossart.

 

Newcath's top 25% score higher than all, at 29.6

Newcath's top 25% score higher than all, at 29.6

 

That means the bottom 75% (or most of the school) scored pretty low.

Not sure where the bus rumor came from. If he did, i'm not sure where they hide it. They rent buses for travel. let's not go there again! (another post awhile back was all about that!)

 

Not sure, I was asking because I heard it also.

Why is that a bad thing?

 

It's not a bad thing, I wish some would admit that and stop using the education factor when it's not the only factor.

Edited December 3, 201213 yr by truthbtold

That means the bottom 75% (or most of the school) scored pretty low.

 

This topic was also discussed in another thread and I don't want to get "under the skin" of Qryche11 & TAC.

IMO, it is not a bad thing to choose a school for athletics, drama, band, etc. The issue is the political correctness of saying it is based on academics. Let's call it what it is.

 

My son is good at football.

What schools are good at football? Create list.

What school with the best football program has the best academics? Narrow choices.

Select the best football school with the best academics.

 

The list is created with football first, not education.

 

Maybe for you and others, but this is exactly what we disagree on. My list would have "what school provides the best education" first!

 

My process would look like this:

 

What schools provide the best education!

Create list of schools

My son is good at football.

What schools are good at football and are on my list?

Determine what school is best for MY kid based on ALL factors...yes, football could be one of them. But it would be a long list of factors.

 

If I split all the hairs and all things were equal (key point here, there are a lot of "things"), I would chose the football school if my kid loved football. That's pretty simple, but that's not the example for the majority of insinuations that go on this board. You are narrowing it down to a very very small percentage. Because first and foremost, not all things are equal when 99.9% of the kids that go to these top schools are equal to what they are leaving.

Maybe for you and others, but this is exactly what we disagree on. My list would have "what school provides the best education" first!

 

My process would look like this:

 

What schools provide the best education!

Create list of schools

My son is good at football.

What schools are good at football and are on my list?

Determine what school is best for MY kid based on ALL factors...yes, football could be one of them. But it would be a long list of factors.

 

If I split all the hairs and all things were equal (key point here, there are a lot of "things"), I would chose the football school if my kid loved football. That's pretty simple, but that's not the example for the majority of insinuations that go on this board. You are narrowing it down to a very very small percentage. Because first and foremost, not all things are equal when 99.9% of the kids that go to these top schools are equal to what they are leaving.

 

I agree with you. I appreciate your approach. You are doing what you deem is best for your child.

 

The approach I mentioned is also very common, but what parent is really going to say that they sent their kid to Highlands, Beechwood, etc. because of football. It is much more socially accepted and politically correct to say it is due to academics and football is just the 'icing on the cake'.

It's not a bad thing, I wish some would admit that and stop using the education factor when it doesn't apply.

 

No one is saying it never happens, but it is much less and in the vast minority than everyone thinks. You can't make general statements about top programs that insinuate that the program succeeds because of transfers and move ins when it it a very very small number and every other school gets them too.

 

It's easy to point out stars over the years. But would those kids have been stars in other programs or districts? Maybe yes, but maybe they don't because they are ineligible because the program wasn't enough to keep them motivated to study hard enough to stay eligible. Maybe the off-season program wasn't as robust and they didn't have to work as hard and they end up becoming just above mediocre. Maybe they get in the wrong crowd and lose passion for sports for whatever reason. Maybe the community doesn't support the program and they lose interest or don't feel they have to work as hard. I'm just saying that just because a kid transfers to a good program, it doesn't guarantee that kid success. It's the program that takes that athlete and makes him a D1 prospect. I can tell you I've seen way better athletes playing on the blacktop or parks than what HHS has in their halls. They aren't playing D1 sports. I played competitive flag football all over the country against a lot of ex D1 football players and some of the best athletes we came up against didn't even play anything in college! Athletes are all over the place. It's how you develop them. You can't convince me that Ryle, Boone, Cooper, Conner, HOLMES, SK, CC, Scott don't have just as many or MORE athletes in their halls as HHS, even with all the transfers and move ins that you guys think they get! Let's pretend HHS gets a lot for now. If you're talking natural athletes, I bet those schools have more and in some cases way more than HHS. It's what you do with them!

Heres the way I look at it. I'll give you two scenarios.

 

Moeller, Elder, St X (in either state), Trinity, LaSalle, Colrain, HHS, Beechwood, NCC, Cov Cath (i'm sure there are others). What do these school all have in common besides good sustained progams? Excellant acedemics! Families flock to the great academics first. That creates good programs. None of these schools opened their doors on the first day of their existance and said, we are going to be excellent in football! I bet they said, we are going to be excellent in academics and families migrated that way, eventually making them successful in other things.

 

Second scenario. Let's pretend we started a new state. Now we've started 10 schools in that state and all 10 will have football programs. We're a new state, so we haven't created ANY rules for governing football. All kids in the new state can go wherever they want. You can recruit, market, sell, influence your program anyway you want (without paying your kids, etc). Let's pretend all the schools are within a city block of each other. Now let's pretend that two of those schools (we'll call them school 1 and school 2) have proven that they will provide a superior education (i don't know how they did it since they are a new school, but let's pretend!).

 

Now flash forward 10 years...who do you think is competing for the state championships? It all starts with education! The rich get richer because of education, not their football programs.

No because they take kids that need help in School, Brossart is not a inter city School like NCC and Holy Cross.

Can any of you guys in the Fort make a list of kids over the last 18 years that were born and bred in Ft. Thomas but grew up to be 'Breds? Just curious.

Can any of you guys in the Fort make a list of kids over the last 18 years that were born and bred in Ft. Thomas but grew up to be 'Breds? Just curious.

 

I cannot. But are you looking for only the ones that played football or any boy from Ft Thomas that went there at all?

Can any of you guys in the Fort make a list of kids over the last 18 years that were born and bred in Ft. Thomas but grew up to be 'Breds? Just curious.

 

One off the top of my head is Mac Franzen. There was no way he was going to HHS. I coached him in Junior league and I did everything I could besides offer him a car:sssh:, to get him to play for the Blue & White and not the Blue & Yellow. I am so happy that Mac is having a great career at NCC and is really a great young man.:thumb: I'm sure there are many more!