Maybe our USTA 12s aren't so bad

[Tennishacker]

In my experience at L1,2,3 tournaments years ago, never saw coaches from UW at those tournaments recruiting.

Yet, many coaches from D2 and D3 programs recruiting at those tournaments.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Its generally in the top 50 American universities(#46). In the Pac 12, it ranks behind Stanford(#6), Cal(#21), USC(Tied #24), UCLA (Tied #24) and ahead, in most cases significantly, of all the other Pac 12 schools, including Arizona(#120). Other rankings may have them ranked differently. I don't know where you draw the line at prestigious.

You can use the US News & World Report if you want... if you really need an explanation of why "prestigious academically" and "UW" don't coexeist in the same sentence, then you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Let's just say that having a bare minimum of a 4.0+ GPA just to even be considered by admissions is a good sign the college is academically prestigious.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

You can use the US News & World Report if you want... if you really need an explanation of why "prestigious academically" and "UW" don't coexeist in the same sentence, then you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Let's just say that having a bare minimum of a 4.0+ GPA just to even be considered by admissions is a good sign the college is academically prestigious.

Wow, how snobbish can you get. Let me guess, you went to Harvard, got your JD at Yale and your MD Johns Hopkins ? Your definition of academically prestigious seems to be over the top.

And the issue is not whether it is an Ivy school or not, it's how it compares to the other schools in its conference or other 'traditional tennis powerhouses'. 47th is about the lowest it is ranked anywhere, some places have it ranked as high as 16, and many places have it ranked above UCLA and USC. Sorry, you don't need a 4.0+ GPA to get into UCLA either.

[goober]

Originally Posted by hound 109

You might be "tired" of the argument...but this thread title suggests the conventional wisdom (that their 20 y/o freshmen are better than our 18 y/o freshmen).....might be inaccurate. The 12 y/o american beat the 20 something non american. She evidently "adjusted" in the tie break, while the ITF veteran folded like a lawn chair.

The "argument" that 5 star Americans are being passed over in favor of unproven non-americans is a topic that is logical to have in a Junior Tennis Forum.

I had no idea that the UW coach was THE lightning rod coach (when I posted that she should be embarrased that she had traveled half way across the world to recruit a player who lost to a 12 y/o.). Unlike others, i could care less what the coach says. I just think she's a numnut for not snagging better players given the prestigeous school & conference & given the "cool" vibe factor that Seattle gives off to the average youngster. She could have recruited 6 Asian Americans that would have been more solid competitors (& would have loved to compete in the Pac 10 & attend UW) than the player that lost to the 12 y/o girl.

Let's look at Grace Ysidora record thus far just in the US- she has only started playing for Washington just a couple months. Here are some of the wins she has accumulated so far in this short time period:

Marina Nikolic 4 star highest national recruit ranking #67, 6-0 6-2

Makenzie Craft Univ. Georgia, 5 Star highest national recruiting rank #13, 6-3, 2-6, 6-4

Alice Duranteau 26-10 record last season playing for Cal- Berkeley 6-4, 6-3

Marianne Jodoin (Duke) ranked #27 6-4, 6-3

Named University of Washington Student athlete of the week for going undefeated in the USTA Collegiate Invitational in Portland in singles and doubles.

Yes she lost to a 12 year old, but are there any US 4 star players who could do this? I highly doubt it. I will bet she will turn out to be one of the UWs top players by the end of the season.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Wow, how snobbish can you get. Let me guess, you went to Harvard, got your JD at Yale and your MD Johns Hopkins ? Your definition of academically prestigious seems to be over the top.

And the issue is not whether it is an Ivy school or not, it's how it compares to the other schools in its conference or other 'traditional tennis powerhouses'. 47th is about the lowest it is ranked anywhere, some places have it ranked as high as 16, and many places have it ranked above UCLA and USC. Sorry, you don't need a 4.0+ GPA to get into UCLA either.

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing.

2012 Incoming Freshmen Average GPA:

UC Berkeley 4.38
UCLA 4.27
Stanford (I would guess it is a bit higher)

I'm not sure why you need to resort to namecalling... that's what it takes to get in. If you don't like it, take it up with their admissions committee. Other than Stanford, UCB, and UCLA, it's pretty easy to get into any PAC-12 schools. In other words, easy to get in = not academically prestigious.

[NLBwell]

How do you get more than a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale? Are you guys using a different scale?

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

How do you get more than a 4.0 on a 4.0 scale? Are you guys using a different scale?

Weighted average. AP/Honors classes carry more weight. It is used to differentiate between candidates that take more challenging classes and others that take easier classes.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing.

no, thats not the reason. Just too much time on my hands. And easy targets.

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

2012 Incoming Freshmen Average GPA:

UC Berkeley 4.38
UCLA 4.27
Stanford (I would guess it is a bit higher)

cute, post the overall average, rather than the instate average and don't even bother too mention UW GPA. And lets ignore the most important point, its what comes out, not what goes in.

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

I'm not sure why you need to resort to namecalling...

huh ? LOL.You must study rhetoric with Mr.Bill. You said I was "arguing fo the the sake of arguing". That's basically name calling, by any other name, AKA BS, Sorry, I dont put up with that kind of passive aggressive crap, as you may have noticed. You accuse people of 'arguing for the sake of arguing' and then play the victim card. Sweet.

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

that's what it takes to get in If you don't like it, take it up with their admissions committee. Other than Stanford, UCB, and UCLA, it's pretty easy to get into any PAC-12 schools. In other words, easy to get in = not academically prestigious.

You left out Cal. Oh, and, conveniently, UW too. CAL is harder to get into than UCLA. In actuality, whether it's harder to get into UCLA than UW I think largely is dependent on whether you are an instate resident(hint instate GPA lower) , the particular program,etc. These are also average GPA's, not min. I am quite certain whether you are an athlete factors in too. Pop Quiz : the average athletes GPA is a) higher, ) equal too, c) lower or d) significantly lower than the average students GPA ?

Really, this is preposterous. You accuse me of being the one of auguring for the sake of arguing and your point that UCLA is some kind of Cambridge upon LA River. Seriously ??

At the end of the day, UW offers educational opportunities an a reputation that equal or exceeds the majority of institutions in the PAC-12, including UCLA. Whether you want to call it prestigious or not is really pretty inconsequential. What matter is that there are quite a few Americans who would not mind having their children earn a degree from UW, an ultimately those are the voices that will matter.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

cute, post the overall average, rather than the instate average and don't even bother too mention UW GPA. And lets ignore the most important point, its what comes out, not what goes in.

Really? Damn... should have known that community college was just as good.

[Alohajrtennis]

You crack me up jiggly. You're really grasping at straws now. Ardent supporter of the pedigreed society are we? Go Google the phrase the "Getting In is the Hardest Part". See what shows up.

Really pathetic. Any "study" that evaluates kids or an educational institution based on what it takes to get in rather than the how the real word evaluates the students it turns out isn't worthy of being used to wipe my ***.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing.

2012 Incoming Freshmen Average GPA:

UC Berkeley 4.38
UCLA 4.27
Stanford (I would guess it is a bit higher)

I'm not sure why you need to resort to namecalling... that's what it takes to get in. If you don't like it, take it up with their admissions committee. Other than Stanford, UCB, and UCLA, it's pretty easy to get into any PAC-12 schools. In other words, easy to get in = not academically prestigious.

Do you know the difference between average and minimum ? Back to your prestigious alma mater to study English vocabulary, please.

[Misterbill]

Junior players who may be reading:

Here is a handy little site for comparing colleges, based on SAT scores of admitted students. The first chart is for the Ivies:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...ide_x_side.htm

Then they have a chart for "Top Universities", presumably as rigorous, or maybe a little less so than the Ivies

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...iversities.htm

They also have charts for Top Liberal Arts, Top Engineering, More Top Liberal Arts, and Top Public Universities. No mention of U Washington yet. You have to go to "More SAT Charts"> "22 More Public Universities" to see UW.

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...iversities.htm

According to this site UW is in an academic league based on SAT scores with...maybe slightly lower than.... schools such as Clemson, Binghamton, Pitt, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas.

U Washington is a fine school. Juniors who may be reading this can make their own judgments whether it is "prestigious"....within the Pac-12 and nationally. Within the Pac-12, seems Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA have higher SAT scores, and Washington is below that.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

You crack me up jiggly. You're really grasping at straws now. Ardent supporter of the pedigreed society are we? Go Google the phrase the "Getting In is the Hardest Part". See what shows up.

Really pathetic. Any "study" that evaluates kids or an educational institution based on what it takes to get in rather than the how the real word evaluates the students it turns out isn't worthy of being used to wipe my ***.

Not sure what you're getting at. Nothing in this world is guaranteed.

"Pedigree" has nothing to do with it. Study your butt off, you'll get into better schools.

And how exactly does the real world evaluate students? Money? Happiness? I guess you won't be wiping your *** anytime soon.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Junior players who may be reading:

Here is a handy little site for comparing colleges, based on SAT scores of admitted students. The first chart is for the Ivies:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...ide_x_side.htm

Then they have a chart for "Top Universities", presumably as rigorous, or maybe a little less so than the Ivies

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...iversities.htm

They also have charts for Top Liberal Arts, Top Engineering, More Top Liberal Arts, and Top Public Universities. No mention of U Washington yet. You have to go to "More SAT Charts"> "22 More Public Universities" to see UW.

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...iversities.htm

According to this site UW is in an academic league based on SAT scores with...maybe slightly lower than.... schools such as Clemson, Binghamton, Pitt, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas.

U Washington is a fine school. Juniors who may be reading this can make their own judgments whether it is "prestigious"....within the Pac-12 and nationally. Within the Pac-12, seems Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA have higher SAT scores, and Washington is below that.

Exactly. It's like Blue Chips are better than five stars and so forth. I'm sure the 5, 4, and 3 stars would beg to differ, but it is what it is.

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by ClarkC

Do you know the difference between average and minimum ? Back to your prestigious alma mater to study English vocabulary, please.

I sure don't. Sorry, I should have used the maximum instead.

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

Not sure what you're getting at.

Pretty straightforward concept here. Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit. Kind of like measuring a tennis team based on the stars of its recruits rather than its performance. Of course any UC system school is overrated by measuring the inputs, huge population base to draw from and huge discounts for instate students.

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

"Pedigree" has nothing to do with it. Study your butt off, you'll get into better schools.

I was talking about the pedigree of the school, and subsequently the students once they graduate. It has everything to do with it. Ivy League schools learned ago that he endowment grows a lot faster when everybody gets A's and high paying jobs at law firms and investment banks. Give the kids C's and they dont get good jobs and seem to donate less the the capital campaigns. Can't have that now can we. Remember, the guys running these places are pretty sharp tacks. Hence the phrase "the hardest part is getting in". I didn't just make that up. Its a pretty simple business plan: Get the top .5% of kids who are probably going to be successful no matter how bad we screw them up, and then they will wear our shirts and send us checks for the rest of their lives...

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

And how exactly does the real world evaluate students? Money? Happiness? I guess you won't be wiping your *** anytime soon.

Its obviously much harder to measure this, but many organizations try. See the Shanghai index :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi...d_Universities

which actually has UW at 16

Be right back, got to go to the...well, you know.

[Alohajrtennis]

BTW, congratulations to Arizona State, aka the Oxford upon the Salt river, managed to recruit a California 5 star and an Australian. Good on them. Looking forward to UW signings...

http://www.thesundevils.com/sports/w...111612aaa.html

[Alohajrtennis]

Originally Posted by Misterbill

Junior players who may be reading:

Here is a handy little site for comparing colleges, based on SAT scores of admitted students. The first chart is for the Ivies:

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...ide_x_side.htm

Then they have a chart for "Top Universities", presumably as rigorous, or maybe a little less so than the Ivies

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...iversities.htm

They also have charts for Top Liberal Arts, Top Engineering, More Top Liberal Arts, and Top Public Universities. No mention of U Washington yet. You have to go to "More SAT Charts"> "22 More Public Universities" to see UW.

http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/...iversities.htm

According to this site UW is in an academic league based on SAT scores with...maybe slightly lower than.... schools such as Clemson, Binghamton, Pitt, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota, and Texas.

U Washington is a fine school. Juniors who may be reading this can make their own judgments whether it is "prestigious"....within the Pac-12 and nationally. Within the Pac-12, seems Stanford, Berkeley, USC, and UCLA have higher SAT scores, and Washington is below that.

Junior players who may be reading :

Ask not what you can do for you school, but what your school can do for you.

You need to look beyond how your test scores compare to the to the test scores of the other student. None of that matters after school starts, unless all you are looking to get in and get a pedigree. If you are really interested in an education, than you need look at your particular major and how students in that particular major are view by the market place. If you are pre-med, what med schools do the kids get into? etc ?

[Misterbill]

UW grads do better or are "viewed better" in various professional marketplaces than those from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, the Ivies, and other top colleges? This is what we are discussing, right?

If this is just someone's anonymous message board opinion, cool. If it is being represented as fact, can anyone post a link or citation? If I am misreading something, I'm sure I'll hear about it!

As far as the advice that kids should pick schools that will best help them achieve their career objectives......very insightful and perceptive.....I think we can all agree on that one.

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by Alohajrtennis

Pretty straightforward concept here. Input = high school students. Output = college graduate. If you measure a schools solely by what it takes in(SAT,GPA's,ect) you are not really measuring any thing the school does, besides recruit. Kind of like measuring a tennis team based on the stars of its recruits rather than its performance. Of course any UC system school is overrated by measuring the inputs, huge population base to draw from and huge discounts for instate students.



Its obviously much harder to measure this, but many organizations try. See the Shanghai index :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academi...d_Universities

which actually has UW at 16

By the way, that is #16 in the world, not in the U.S.A. So, if we believe those rankings, then UW is ahead of every public university in the country except Cal-Berkeley, as well as being ahead of such private schools as Johns Hopkins, Carnegie-Mellon, Brown, Dartmouth, etc.

Of course, the Shanghai rankings are based almost entirely on the faculty: awards received, research papers published, citation rankings for research papers, and so on. So, like most rankings, these are not measures of output, which was your criticism of other rankings. Undergraduate students at colleges do not get to study at the feet of Nobel prize winners. I got B.S. and M.S. degrees at a school with a Nobel laureate in Physics, but he made no difference to my education in Computer Science. Ranking based on anything besides inputs is very hard. If I get time, I will start a thread about a study that actually measured outputs. The elite colleges were not thrilled with the study, by the way.