Brad Baughman

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Soianka

It is well known that applicants who were home-schooled are encouraged or required to submit more subject tests than regular applicants.

As for requiring 2-3 subject tests at Ivy league schools, most Ivys require at least 2 subject tests from all applicants and certainly encourage more for applicants who were home-schooled.

I cited the Harvard admissions page which is contrary to what you have posted above. Harvard requires two subject tests for all applicants, not "at least two".

I cannot find an Ivy that requires anything more than two subject tests. You say most of them do. That means at least five of them.

Which five?

EDIT: The above quote was accurate at the time it was quoted and before the post was amended multiple times. Anyway, which five?

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Soianka

Finally, I would encourage you, Mister Bill, to be accurate in what you post rather than being so overly eager to always correct others.

Post up what I said that was inaccurate and I will retract it.

And I encourage everyone on the Board to be eager to correct mistakes, especially about college application requirements posted in the Junior thread.

So I reject your advice about correcting others

[Soianka]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

I cited the Harvard admissions page which is contrary to what you have posted above. Harvard requires two subject tests for all applicants, not "at least two".

I cannot find an Ivy that requires anything more than two subject tests. You say most of them do. That means at least five of them.

Which five?

EDIT: The above quote was accurate at the time it was quoted and before the post was amended multiple times. Anyway, which five?

So now you are dropping your claim about home-schooled applicants NOT BEING encouraged to take additional subject tests?

Yes, I edited my post to be as clear as possible.

1. Most, if not all, Ivy's require 2 SAT subject tests or the ACT.

2. Most, if not all, Ivy's (and other top schools) encourage HS'd applicants to take additional subject tests.

Both claims are accurate. You claimed they were not.

I did, however, misstate "2-3" subject tests required when it is actually only 2 as the requirement was recently scaled back.

Ya got me Mister Bill. Bravo.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by Soianka

So now you are dropping your claim about home-schooled applicants NOT BEING encouraged to take additional subject tests?

Where did I say that?

I thought I was talking about requirements. Please put an end to this silly discussion by just posting up where I said what you said I said and I will say sorry........otherwise I'm standing by everything I've said

[Soianka]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Where did I say that?

I thought I was talking about requirements. Please put an end to this silly discussion by just posting up where I said what you said I said and I will say sorry........otherwise I'm standing by everything I've said

We've heard this "post up" thing from you before.

I guess people are always misquoting you and misunderstanding what you are saying.

Funny that.

[Soianka]

By the way, when talking about college admissions, there is a very fine line between a requirement versus an "encouraged to"

I wonder how many students are admitted when they do not meet criteria that students are "encouraged to" meet.

NY requires a diploma or equivalent. Some private colleges demand extra SAT II exams from homeschoolers. When my son was applying for college with an intended major theater or film, Yale and Carnegie Mellon wanted three SAT IIs from him as a homeschooler, while NYU wanted only the regular SAT and no more. I think if he had been applying to NYU for math or business or science, he might have needed those extra SAT IIs.

http://homeschoolnyc.com/resources/college.html

Anecdotally, I have heard the same from friends and acquaintances.

Namely, that their HS'd children were "required" to take more than normally required amount of subject tests when applying to certain top colleges (including ivies).

I could visit each ivies website to see which one uses the word "encouraged" versus "required" but that would be a profound waste of time.

[tennis5]

Soianka's post below:
Definitely SAT II subject tests would be very important for HS'd kids.
Every applicant has to take 2-3 SAT II's but I think the requirement for HS'd youngsters is more subject tests, if I recall correctly.


MisterBill's post -
Wrong information again....this time about 2-3 SAT Subject tests being required, and a separate Subject Test requirement for home schoolers


1) Well, it might not be a "requirement" for homeschoolers, in that if you didn't take 4 subject tests,
we won't take your application.
But, it is heavily advised that homeschoolers take more subject tests than the applicant from high school.
I think that is a well known fact.

Per "Ask the Dean" -
Once it’s time to actually apply, homeschooled students should:
Take as many SAT Subject Tests or AP exams as possible to provide objective information about what you’ve learned

2) MisterBill, I did enjoy your posts when you first came on. But, you are so argumentative and looking for a fight half the time.
Look at your language used in addressing Soianka, "Wrong information again".

3) In regards to your sexuality, you jumped to that conclusion.

4) In fairness to Brad, he wants to focus on DB.
So, I do hope we can get back to TT's main focus.

[Soianka]

Originally Posted by tennis5

Well, it might not be a "requirement" for homeschoolers, in that if you didn't take 4 subject tests, we won't take your application.

But, it is heavily advised that homeschoolers take more subject tests than the applicant from high school. I think that is a well known fact.

2) MisterBill, I did enjoy your posts when you first came on. But, you are so argumentative and looking for a fight half the time. Look at your language used in addressing Soianka, "Wrong information again".

3) In regards to your sexuality, you jumped to that conclusion.

4) In fairness to Brad, he wants to focus on DB.
So, I do hope we can get back to TT's main focus.

Thank you!!!

We could have had a civil conversation if he simply said, "I would like to clarify what Soianka wrote" or asked me for clarification.

I'll post no more on the subject so we can post about Deiton and Brad on this thread.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Soianka

I could visit each ivies website to see which one uses the word "encouraged" versus "required" but that would be a profound waste of time.

Not nearly as profound a waste of time as arguing with Mr. Bill It's like nailing jelly to a wall.

Anyway, anybody smart enough to potentially get admitted to a Ivy League School is probably smart enough to know that they should contact the universities for specific requirements, and should not be relying on the Brad Baughman thread of TT for this information. If they are, they are probably not Ivy League material, irregadless whether they are taking 2 or 3 subject tests

[tball2day]

......................

[klu375]

Originally Posted by Number1Coach

Tcf the boy holds a pretty nice GPA 3.8 and this is 4 or 5 AP classes and some other nonsense he has to do but I hate to break it to you , he can do what he wants and he is leaning towards what you think is impossible , I would back him which ever way he chooses .

Think about this and formally uneducated man has a child playing a high level of tennis nationally and has pretty much the choice of any school he wants at 16 oh wait 16.5 ,,having done that you don't think. I can calculate wheather the tour is possible ?

For what I see DB is preparing for the Ivy. So this thread is finally on the right track.

[Misterbill]

Originally Posted by tball2day

Will stay out of the bickering, but there is so much misinformation on here about subject tests and other particulars. Also, not everyone has or needs a perfect SAT, this is the most erroneous legend going and is freaking kids out. And what applies to a blue chip is different than a 2 star, etc. Go to each college website and find out what they want, call admissions officers, talk to coaches. Don't rely on any of this info.

Correct. Thanks for the concise summary. There is a lot of wrong information being put out here, again and again.

[INTO10s]

ok, enough of this thread its gotten quirte boring. lets move on

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Soianka

We've heard this "post up" thing from you before.

I guess people are always misquoting you and misunderstanding what you are saying.

Funny that.

People are always misunderstanding what a lot of other people say and write, because we are afflicted by fuzzy thinking and most of us are skimming along instead of reading. I think the internet, TV, etc., are making all of us a little bit ADD. I find myself skimming through things way too much. I did not used to do that. Maybe it is the sheer volume of stuff online that we want to read that encourages bad habits.

[coaching32yrs]

Here is what happened. Ivy coach and I were watching a match. One of the kids playing, a fabulous player, is home schooled. I know the kid well and told the coach, half in jest, I can get you that kid. Coach said, " I cannot get a kid in who is home schooled". I questioned him saying there are a couple home schoolers playing tennis at Ivies. He said, " only because those kids have perfect SAT scores." Nothing more to discuss. He said it. I believe him. He coaches one of top Ivies. Maybe lower Ivies different.

[Rob_C]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

I am sorry that I had that one wrong. I had mistakenly thought I had seen doubles points charts on Futures draw sheets that included the quarterfinal rounds. It makes zero sense that winning earns nothing (what's the rationale? Doubles is easy? First round losers are all chumps, so who cares if you beat them?) Nevertheless, it can be confirmed from the doubles ranking breakdowns of players who play a lot of Futures. For example, I looked up Reid Carleton on the ATP web site. He won in the round of 16, lost in the quarterfinals, in two consecutive weeks in August of 2012 in Canadian Futures tourneys, and got zero points both times. My mistake.

Seriously, if anyone knows a rationale, I would love to hear it. FYI: Carleton won prize money (chump change) in the two Futures that earned zero points.

It used to be that way. It got changed in 2004ish. I know guys that got pts by winning 1st rd Futures dubs.

Originally Posted by 10isplayer

Don't know the rationale behind not giving points, but I can tell you that if you lose in the first round of doubles at a futures event you get no prize money so they really do devalue doubles.

If you lose 1st rd singles you dont get any pts in Futures either, or Challengers, or 250/500s.

[floridatennisdude]

Originally Posted by Rob_C

It used to be that way. It got changed in 2004ish. I know guys that got pts by winning 1st rd Futures dubs.



If you lose 1st rd singles you dont get any pts in Futures either, or Challengers, or 250/500s.

http://www.************.com/rankpoints.txt

steve g tennis.com/rankpoints.txt (no spaces) provides a pretty good table

[andfor]

Originally Posted by mikej

rough first round result for britton - the struggle continues

and novikov seems to be showing that his us open form was an exception

Sarcasm? Novikov makes the finals of doubles and his first round win was over the #651 ranked player. That player he beat has wins over Halebian and the #186 player in the last calendar year. Less than a month from his US Open and his form is now judged an exception. Harsh.

[mikej]

Originally Posted by andfor

Sarcasm? Novikov makes the finals of doubles and his first round win was over the #651 ranked player. That player he beat has wins over Halebian and the #186 player in the last calendar year. Less than a month from his US Open and his form is now judged an exception. Harsh.

get a life, dude...are you just going to argue with anything i post nowadays to see if you can find one argument where you don't look like an idiot? keep trying

no...not sarcasm...he took down a top 90 player in the world relatively comfortably in us open, and held his own quite well with benneteau after that...since then three futures tournaments where he hasn't gotten past rd of 16 and has lost to jason jung (#609) in straights, xavier smith (unranked) in straights, and daniel nguyen (#1003) in straights

i don't follow futures doubles results, but that final is nice i suppose

edit - corrected some rankings, smith tricked me with his dubs ranking that pops up first on the atp site, no singles ranking yet

[andfor]

Originally Posted by mikej

get a life, dude...are you just going to argue with anything i post nowadays to see if you can find one argument where you don't look like an idiot? keep trying

no...not sarcasm...he took down a top 90 player in the world relatively comfortably in us open, and held his own quite well with benneteau after that...since then three futures tournaments where he hasn't gotten past rd of 16 and has lost to jason jung (#623) in straights, xavier smith (#1380) in straights, and daniel nguyen (#1003) in straights

i don't follow futures doubles results, but that final is nice i suppose

Your statement about the doubles sums it up.