Going from 3.5 to 5.5/6.0 in 2 years?

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Oh okay, I just have a couple of questions.
1. Is it better to play at a D3 or club at a D1?
2. Are club teams walk on tryouts or do you need to be recruited like a regular D1?

It's all a personal choice. Many D1 club teams are more competitive than D3 teams and U of M club is likely one. Their club team appears to be very active and quite good. They have a link:

http://www.tenniscb.umn.edu/index.html

I think just making their club team would be a very tough goal... but a fun, achievable one with tons of work.
 
Exactly, that is why OP is full of bs. There is no team in this country that just randomly takes players for their team. It isn't that easy at all. He met maybe 1 3.5 D3 player at the ****tiest universiity in the world. D3 varsity who never played before? Lol wtf is OP high or something? They wouldn't be eligible for D3 status if they were that bad. **** even my high school team cuts at least 5 people from jv every year and some other schools in the area cut up to 20 from jv. The fun team for college is usually just rec tennis. Go up a level and you have club tennis(but like i said even this can get very competitive up to like 5.5 level) then go up another and you have the D3 or D1 teams
I don't get it either. They were telling me they were gonna go out for the tennis team and I laughed about it on the inside. Turns out they made it. I didn't get why. I assume its because the schools they go to are struggling to find tennis players.
 
Exactly, that is why OP is full of bs. There is no team in this country that just randomly takes players for their team. It isn't that easy at all. He met maybe 1 3.5 D3 player at the ****tiest universiity in the world. D3 varsity who never played before? Lol wtf is OP high or something? They wouldn't be eligible for D3 status if they were that bad. **** even my high school team cuts at least 5 people from jv every year and some other schools in the area cut up to 20 from jv. The fun team for college is usually just rec tennis. Go up a level and you have club tennis(but like i said even this can get very competitive up to like 5.5 level) then go up another and you have the D3 or D1 teams
I also have some video of one of the D3 3.5 players I'm talking about if you'd like to see for yourself?
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
There are plenty of academically sound d3 schools were a kid could play at the 3.5 - 4.0 level (or without ever getting a star.)
 

snvplayer

Hall of Fame
I want to go to the U of M for studies, maybe UCSD, but tuition is expensive because it's out of state. I want to play tennis in college, but not recreational. Reading through all these replies, obviously playing at a D1 is nearly impossible. Would it possible to play club at the U of M? What are the main differences between club and playing for the college itself?

I was at U of M briefly several years ago, they have a great indoor tennis stadium...

Club tennis is run by students and travel and compete against club teams in other universities and colleges. They usually have twice a week practice session.
They had a try-out back then, I am not sure if it's still true. I doubt they recruit at all since they don't have the personnel to scout... From what I saw, the level was strong 4.0 and above.

Club tennis requires less commitment than being on the college team, and you do not have a coach on club team. I believe college teams have practice daily during the season and one on one practice with the coach (please correct me if I am wrong). Club tennis will be more social with still great tennis and less pressure. Some D3 teams are very strong, but there are others who aren't good at all (3.5s and 4.0s).
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Depends what youi're looking for.
D-1 club is player's who want to play tennis, already play at least 4.0, and want to play organized team tennis, not always serious and certainly not gathering spectators.
D-3 is competitive tennis, for the school, and is more serious, but not necessarly at a higher level of play.
You path is open to you. Some say to bear down and study, some say to play your sports and enjoy your life, some say to get married and bear a ton of kids, but you should do what YOU want to do, since you are allowed one life only, and although you can deviate your path at any time, it's always best to live with no regrets, for yourself, and giving it a shot......in my view, not necessarily your parent's view.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
What'd I say?
Not you talking about you, talking about aeroprostaff

There are plenty of academically sound d3 schools were a kid could play at the 3.5 - 4.0 level (or without ever getting a star.)
To my knowledge there isn't. Think of it this way, if they were academically sound then people would obviously want to go there right? If they lack a tennis team they could recruit since they are academically sound. Recruitment also leads to competition which means that only the more desirable players get in. So there is no way at all a D3 school could have a 3.5 on their team and still be academically sound. Plenty? I think you mean not even one.


I also have some video of one of the D3 3.5 players I'm talking about if you'd like to see for yourself?
yes I would. Its absolutely absurd that people who could barely hit 10 shot rallies can play college tennis. Yes I know there are always exceptions but in terms of prestige, going to a college where a 3.5 could get on the team.....I just can't imagine where you'll get a job coming out of there other than at Mcdonalds(exaggerating of course but you get my point).
 
Last edited:

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
To my knowledge there isn't. Think of it this way, if they were academically sound then people would obviously want to go there right? If they lack a tennis team they could recruit since they are academically sound. Recruitment also leads to competition which means that only the more desirable players get in. So there is no way at all a D3 school could have a 3.5 on their team and still be academically sound. Plenty? I think you mean not even one....
I gotta hand it to you, it's rare to see utter ignorance spouted with such smugness.

Let's take a quick look at a local (to me) d3 conference -- on trn:

http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/conference.asp?id=160

This conference contains such strong schools as Swarthmore, Haverford, Hopkins, F&M, Dickinson, etc. Very academically solid; in fact just a step down from the Ivies. Go to 2014 women commitments. These academically strong schools are filled with 3 - 6 lines without stars. I've seen many of their matches... (And for the purpose of discussion, I'd equate a star to 3.5 give or take)

Just curious, what colleges interest you? What are/were your SATs?

There are many fine d3 schools where an 18 yo freshman "3.5" could end up seeing much playing time.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
My goal the last 6 months was to improve my game by 7-8 percent.
That was extremely difficult but I think I did it. By improving backhand by adding loop motion and using a basic topspin second serve rather than flat.

Could I improve by another 7-8rcent. NO!!!!! My athletic ability says NO WAY.
So maybe I went from 4.0 to 4.4 level
Maybe I can get to 4.5 or 4.6 tops.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Also I swear that my game improved by 4 percent by shifting from Multis to Polys

So 4 percent for Polys
And 4 percent for improved backhand and second serve.

That is 8 percent.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
To go from 4.0 to 4.5 is possible and doable for some.

To go from 4.5 to 5.0 for me is utterly impossible.

Very few people can get beyond 4.0 to 4.5
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
True, very few MEN can get beyond 4.0.
But here, we're talking about a high school girl. Who knows how many years, and how many hours, she has played? She doesn't say, and we don't know if she's athletic or well built for tennis.
I do know two women who started tennis at around 30, got to 4.5 women's in two years total time. One was a WNBA player, a forward, so she can serve pretty big, at 6'2" tall and super athletic, but she had a kid in '10, ending her B-ball career (travel is tough with a kid). The other was a former college hurdler who got married early at 20, kid grown to 12 now, so she has time to play tennis. She's only 5'9" or so, but springs for legs and a total athlete trapped in a housewives guise.
And Jeanne Hepner proved you can have the worst possible athletics, and still play OPEN level women's tennis, if you try, if you practice, and if you listen to your coach's.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
I gotta hand it to you, it's rare to see utter ignorance spouted with such smugness.

Let's take a quick look at a local (to me) d3 conference -- on trn:

http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/conference.asp?id=160

This conference contains such strong schools as Swarthmore, Haverford, Hopkins, F&M, Dickinson, etc. Very academically solid; in fact just a step down from the Ivies. Go to 2014 women commitments. These academically strong schools are filled with 3 - 6 lines without stars. I've seen many of their matches... (And for the purpose of discussion, I'd equate a star to 3.5 give or take)

Just curious, what colleges interest you? What are/were your SATs?

There are many fine d3 schools where an 18 yo freshman "3.5" could end up seeing much playing time.
Already submitted my ED to Northwestern and EA to UMich and am working on application for a lot of other top 30 schools right now.

2210 SAT

A star is not 3.5. I personally am not ranked but play third singles behind a two star and one star for my school. The challenge match between me and the one star last year was really close and I can guarantee you that we aren't just 3.5. There is no way I am getting recruited and even our two star and some of the other 2 stars that I know aren't trying to get recruited since they know they won't go pro(obviously) and want to pursue a standard college education.

When I went to public school the tennis was even more competitive with the #1s from the schools in the region being pretty much all 4 or 5 stars and many #2s at the 3 star level. I currently go to a school where our boys lacrosse are one of top in the nation and have beat IMG, our ice hockey is #1 in the state, and many other sports still produce a lot of D1 athletes(tennis is obviously not our forte though). These were the people who got recruited by D1 schools or D3 schools. So yes you can say that I am smug but I am only speaking from what I've seen.

A lot of the non rated that you see simply don't play tournaments(check their TR profile) but are still very good and are at least at a 1 star(again this is definitely not 3.5, at least a 4.0) level. If you check, many "non-rated" even beat 1 stars or 2 stars in some of the tournaments they played.
 
Last edited:

LeeD

Bionic Poster
1. Don't need a car, you can walk up to 2 miles, or ride a bike up to 10 miles each way.
2. No scholarships unless D-1, so you'd have to make at least a women's 5.0 level of play, and do well in tournaments.
3. Probably need to be somewhat athletic, somewhat tall, somewhat physical.
4. If tennis scholarship is not on your mind, start D-3 or 2, then transferr if you get good grades.
5. The job you get in the future, while somewhat dependent on your education, is much more determined by your luck, and being at the right place at the right time, than by what school you graduated from.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
Well i take back some of what I said. Don't watch womens tennis pretty much at all and I wasn't too knowledgeable of lower level D3 schools. Took a look at some of Swarthmore womens tennis. Does look like 3.5, probably a 4.0 in womens tennis though. Still, OP shouldn't put D3 tennis on the top of her list of things to do and if she can she should be trying to get into better colleges anyways. Most colleges at this lower level of D3 suck in terms of prestige. Swarthmore is fine in terms of liberal arts if that is what OP is interested in but at the end of the day they aren't going to take 3.5s for free, gotta still have a decent GPA, SAT, courseload, ECs, etc.

1. Don't need a car, you can walk up to 2 miles, or ride a bike up to 10 miles each way.
2. No scholarships unless D-1, so you'd have to make at least a women's 5.0 level of play, and do well in tournaments.
3. Probably need to be somewhat athletic, somewhat tall, somewhat physical.
4. If tennis scholarship is not on your mind, start D-3 or 2, then transferr if you get good grades.
5. The job you get in the future, while somewhat dependent on your education, is much more determined by your luck, and being at the right place at the right time, than by what school you graduated from.
First of all, education does matter A LOT. You build connections(not talking about friends, talking about connections that can land you jobs and people that could potentially help you succeed) and if you get into an at least relatively prestigious college(which is the goal) then its the name recognition of the college that gets you places. Do you think it is a coincidence just about all top investment bank CEOs got MBAs from Harvard? It isn't a coincidence either that those who tend to do better in high school go to better colleges and get better jobs/lives when they grow up. Luck does play a factor but your education plays a much bigger factor. OP should start working to a better career now(if she hasn't already). Playing tennis extensively won't help.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Yes, your life should be governed by a need to make tons of money, to the exclusion of anything else, except maybe a pursuit of love sometime somewhere, somehow.
You should exactly work to advance yourself, until you hit 35, then get married and raise a family.
That is the prescribed course, so follow it, no deviations, no variations, no ad libbing allowed.
 
Not you talking about you, talking about aeroprostaff



yes I would. Its absolutely absurd that people who could barely hit 10 shot rallies can play college tennis. Yes I know there are always exceptions but in terms of prestige, going to a college where a 3.5 could get on the team.....I just can't imagine where you'll get a job coming out of there other than at Mcdonalds(exaggerating of course but you get my point).
Heres that video you wanted to see. The big guy is me, the other guy is the 3.5 in question.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
Nope, thats me. I dont know the school or his position. just that this was his recruitment video and after seeing it the schools coach accepted him.
so this http://www.tennisrecruiting.net/player.asp?id=714044 is him? Don't know how he got a star(well I do looking at his record). I guess Indiana is just less competitive than where I'm from. We're in the same graduating class and the 1 stars in my class that I know are ranked a lot higher than him nationally.

No offense to him but considering the colleges he was looking at on tennis recruiting and got rejected by he probably didn't end up going anywhere good even if your standards of "good" are low.
 
You probably wont find him on TR. Im surprised im even on there. I didnt play USTA before college, and I didnt do anything noteworthy in high school or earlier.
 

Moveforwardalways

Hall of Fame
The NTRP rating system is not really great because it doesn't really reflect the logarithmic nature of the tennis advancement. Most people get 'stuck' at a certain level and never advance.. But the ascent to that 'stuck' level can be quite quick. In fact some guys pick up tennis play to some level - really liking it - and then give up when advancement ends. Other just stay stuck at the same level.

This is what makes the NTRP system both unique and misleading, and it may contribute to a lot of people becoming discouraged with tennis. Try this thought experiment. Create in your mind an NTRP system for recreational basketball or soccer or golf or any other sport that goes from day 1 beginner to professional. What would the qualifications be for each level? It's almost ridiculous to suggest.

Now consider this. The NTRP scale gives the impression that moving up is a matter of learned skill. IOW, if you are a 3.5, there are skills you can learn through practice to become a 4.0 or a 4.5. It perpetuates the illusion that there are incremental steps on the way to becoming the guys/girls you see on TV, and if you only tried hard enough you would take the next step. By contrast, that would be considered absurd for a basketball player. You can either ball or not, you are an elite athlete or not. Sure, there is coaching and players get better from coaching, but no average joe playing pick up ball in the park truly believes that they can become almost an NBA player (equivalent of going 3.0 to 5.5?) through learning incremental skills. And if so, what would that even mean? They readily admit that there is no shot and they are just having fun playing basketball.

Some people are just better athletes than others. Some people just pick up a tennis racquet and they are playing at the 4.5 level in less than a year and then never move beyond that. Some people work hard at tennis for years and never move past 3.5. Some people pick up a racquet at 6 years old and can instantly hit clean balls right on the sweet spot, and then become 6.0+ players by the time they are teenagers.

So to ask what one needs to do to move from a high school player to college or to go from 3.5 to 6.0 is really tough to answer. There is a component of "drill your backhand" and stuff like that, but there are natural athletes out there that can just hit a backhand easily. So just be aware that the things you need may very well be genetic gifts rather than instructional training. You might as well ask what Joe in the park playing pick up basketball needs to do to reach the NBA. Well, be taller, be faster, be more coordinated, jump higher, etc. In the end, you got to enjoy playing this sport for its own sake. It's a lifelong fun sport, just play your best and appreciate the game.
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
Tnr rewards good results in few tournaments, and punishes good results with occasional losses of bad tournaments

If I didn't play every tournament I could and only played the ones I would win, I'd be a 3 or 4 star. Maybe somewhere in mid to high 3 star range. But I have 14 losses weighing me down from when I first started playing 18s. And my record is like 16-22 16 coming just from May-now which would put me at 3 star if I didn't have many losses weighing me down

Anyways, I'm going d3, most guys who care about academics are because they won't settle with an easy degree just to play d1 unless they're getting a full ride
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Still, OP shouldn't put D3 tennis on the top of her list of things to do and if she can she should be trying to get into better colleges anyways.
Swarthmore is every bit as difficult to get into as Northwestern; in fact you appear to be on the bubble at both schools. U of Mich is a step below both. Most kids that choose to go d3 do so (among a host of other personal reasons) *because* of the strong academics.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
Swarthmore is every bit as difficult to get into as Northwestern; in fact you appear to be on the bubble at both schools. U of Mich is a step below both. Most kids that choose to go d3 do so (among a host of other personal reasons) *because* of the strong academics.
Not at all, first of all, Swarthmore is a liberal arts college. I am not looking to apply or attend any Liberal arts colleges since they don't offer the connections needed for a good future in business. Also, Northwestern is at least a good amount more prestigious than Swarthmore. Not saying liberal arts colleges are bad, they are obviously perfect for certain people; but, for liberal arts colleges you definitely have to lower the standards a bit. I know a few people who are going to Swarthmore and a few going to Northwestern. The standard for Northwestern is a good amount higher. NU has 5% less acceptance rate in the first place but even then I'd say the gap should be a bit larger than that considering the people that I know who got accepted by NU were a lot better in terms of GPA, SAT, ECs, APs, courseload, etc than the people I know who accepted by Swarthmore.


Also, I am obviously not only applying to schools of Northwestern caliber. That would be stupid considering my chances at Norhtwestern aren't that high at all and the main reason I choose to ED there is because their ED acceptance rate is around 33% vs their 13% regular decision acceptance rate. Which is why I'm also looking even lower than Umich at schools like Rutgers.

Umich is still pretty prestigious and Ross especially is a good amount better in terms of prestige than LSA.
 
Last edited:

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
Not at all, first of all, Swarthmore is a liberal arts college. I am not looking to apply or attend any Liberal arts colleges since they don't offer the connections needed for a good future in business. Also, Northwestern is at least a good amount more prestigious than Swarthmore. Not saying liberal arts colleges are bad, they are obviously perfect for certain people; but, for liberal arts colleges you definitely have to lower the standards a bit. I know a few people who are going to Swarthmore and a few going to Northwestern. The standard for Northwestern is a good amount higher. NU has 5% less acceptance rate in the first place but even then I'd say the gap should be a bit larger than that considering the people that I know who got accepted by NU were a lot better in terms of GPA, SAT, ECs, APs, courseload, etc than the people I know who accepted by Swarthmore.


Also, I am obviously not only applying to schools of Northwestern caliber. That would be stupid considering my chances at Norhtwestern aren't that high at all and the main reason I choose to ED there is because their ED acceptance rate is around 33% vs their 13% regular decision acceptance rate. Which is why I'm also looking even lower than Umich at schools like Rutgers.

Umich is still pretty prestigious and Ross especially is a good amount better in terms of prestige than LSA.
liberal arts colleges are the future and business degrees are worth less than you pay for them

business degrees are so common and barely differentiate you from your opposition as everyone has one.

if you have the personality for it, go for it...but if you lack charisma good looks charm etc go into a science field

liberal arts colleges are better for doctors and basically any field that requires well roundedness

small d3 liberal arts colleges are also more prestigious than their public university counterpart

kenyon colorado college johns hopkins case western wooster earlham.... look at these schools and tell me they arent as prestigious if not more than their public school counter parts.

d3 small liberal arts schools also give better educations with smalled class sizes and more educated teachers. at most of these schools endowment is around 100k-300k per student where its not even close to that in public universities
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
liberal arts colleges are the future and business degrees are worth less than you pay for them

business degrees are so common and barely differentiate you from your opposition as everyone has one.

if you have the personality for it, go for it...but if you lack charisma good looks charm etc go into a science field

liberal arts colleges are better for doctors and basically any field that requires well roundedness

small d3 liberal arts colleges are also more prestigious than their public university counterpart

kenyon colorado college johns hopkins case western wooster earlham.... look at these schools and tell me they arent as prestigious if not more than their public school counter parts.

d3 small liberal arts schools also give better educations with smalled class sizes and more educated teachers. at most of these schools endowment is around 100k-300k per student where its not even close to that in public universities

First of all no, small liberal arts schools are not more prestigious than public unievrsity counterparts. Not many people would consider Amherst and Swarthmore more prestigious than say Berkeley, UCLA, Umich, and UVA. Colorado college is not as prestigious as these and neither is case western. John Hopkins is not liberal arts.

You need NEED a good undergrad and a MBA from a top college to go into business(we are talking about wall st here with Goldman and JP Morgan or consulting like Mckinsey here). Like I said, it isn't a coincidence that so many top 15 school(not liberal arts) yield such a high rate for employment right out of college for $100,000 analyst positions. You build the connections at these universities, its not necessarily about what you learn from Harvard or hopefully in my case Northwestern. Its about who you meet and how you use the resources provided to you. Business degrees are so common? Sure they are, but at prestigious colleges do you know how competitive it is to get a business degree? There is a reason Ross at Umich's acceptance rate is like 16% versus the regular schoolwide 33% and there is a reason NYU Stern is around 10% acceptance rate vs the regular 35% acceptance rate. Wharton too although I don't know the exact numbers for that. Even econ programs at prestigious universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Uchicago, and Northwestern is very competitive to get into the first place. You want to go to wall street? First thing they look at is where you went to undergrad if you are just going in as a young analyst. If you got a MBA it better be from somewhere just as if not more prestigious.

Charisma, good looks, charm. These are necessary for consulting not IB. 2 different parts of business that make big bank. You think everyone at Goldman are solid 10s?

Liberal Arts colleges are not necessarily better for doctors or any field that requires well roundedness. If that was the case then admissions would be much much more competitive.

D3 small liberal arts schools give better educations? No, they do not have more educated teachers most of the time. Who do you think are professors at any of the top universities I listed above? Leaders in the field, board members of big IBs and nobel prize winners. Lol are we talking about the same colleges here? Obviously top liberal arts colleges would give better education than non-liberal art schools with acceptance rates higher than 60%.

Think about it this way, a lot of people who had top positions at big IBs went to teach at top universities like the ones I listed. Big IBs also paid millions to various professors from the same universities to write up illegitimate reports like the one about Iceland's economy flourishing back in 2008 by that professor from Columbia(forgot his name). Yes this was corrupt but the point is these colleges were cream of the crop. The professors from there were world renowned and respected for their opinions. The students there were also cream of the crop and are more likely to succeed by far. If Einstein were still alive today and decided to teach at a university, if not Harvard it would 100% definitely be a top 15 university

Don't make it sound like liberal art schools are the cream of the crop. I'm not saying they are bad, but there is a reason there is overall less competition for application(compare the #1 liberal arts college WIlliams college to any top 15 university and you'll see the discrepancy). There is a reason their class size is much smaller too. It is perfect for some people but for the vast majority it obviously isn't.
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
I think you got the wrong guy. Hes not from Indiana...
Well that explains it then. He isn't 1 star level at all.

Ok enough of the college talk. Most of you don't know what you're talking about anyway.

Well considering I know admissions officers from two top 40 universities and the fact that I am applying and have already applied.....pretty sure I do know what I am talking about.

But yeah, I think I'm done arguing with people who clearly never had experience with any of this. Save this for college confidential.
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
Well that explains it then. He isn't 1 star level at all.



Well considering I know admissions officers from two top 40 universities and the fact that I am applying and have already applied.....pretty sure I do know what I am talking about.

But yeah, I think I'm done arguing with people who clearly never had experience with any of this. Save this for college confidential.
forbes ranks the top school pomona

which is what??....liberal arts d3 small school and number 2 is williams swarthmore is 7 and amherst is 9

jokes on you lol
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
Well that explains it then. He isn't 1 star level at all.



Well considering I know admissions officers from two top 40 universities and the fact that I am applying and have already applied.....pretty sure I do know what I am talking about.

But yeah, I think I'm done arguing with people who clearly never had experience with any of this. Save this for college confidential.
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/

list is about the same everywhere you look with a few differences

but prestige wise, people understand that small class sizes deliver a better education, otherwise schools would be filled with audotoriums and have less teachers on the pay roll

and lol you said ucla was more prestigious than amherst and williams
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
forbes ranks the top school pomona

which is what??....liberal arts d3 small school and number 2 is williams swarthmore is 7 and amherst is 9

jokes on you lol

Use us news ranking. Williams is #1. The fact that they are #2 on forbes doesn't take away from my point though.

Lehigh university and Carnegie Mellon.

jokes on you lol. What do you have to back up what you say?

http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/

list is about the same everywhere you look with a few differences

but prestige wise, people understand that small class sizes deliver a better education, otherwise schools would be filled with audotoriums and have less teachers on the pay roll

and lol you said ucla was more prestigious than amherst and williams

DId you not read what I said about top professors? Do you really think liberal arts professors are more capable or edcuated than those from Harvard?

Prestige wise, people understand the history of a name brand. Like I said, do you really think the world works this way? That what you learn in econ or calc 4 in college actually matters in the grand scheme of things? I can learn calc 4 at rutgers, williams, or harvard and it really doesn't matter. Now, what does matter is who I meet who will benefit me in the future. If I'm at a top 15 national university this becomes easy but a top 15 liberal arts college? Not as much.

I have a parent who works for JP morgan and does interviews. Amherst or williams? Might as well deny them right there if that is on their resume. UCLA? He probably has a good chance.
lol you say amherst and williams are more prestigious than UCLA are you actually kidding me. I'll use past seniors at my school for example. 3.4 GPA 2130 SAT with a somewhat good courseload. He was class president though. Got rejected by UCLA among other schools but accepted by Amherst. Now kids who did get accepted by UCLA at my school: 3.8 GPA and I know his sat was in the 2300 range. Very hard courseload and got accepted by UCLA. No way he would consider any liberal arts college. Another for example. don't know his exact stats but for sure it was around the 3.7-4.0 GPA range based on what he got on tests. SAT was in the 2200s. Accepted by UCLA, would never ever consider amherst or williams, didn't apply to either and would never attend even if he did get accepted.

From this point I'm done arguing with you, really useless wasting my time on people who have no knowledge on this and as a senior applying right now I don't feel like taking the random bs people like you give me about liberal arts colleges when I have seen first hand and second hand what results and pathway yields success.
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
First of all no, small liberal arts schools are not more prestigious than public unievrsity counterparts. Not many people would consider Amherst and Swarthmore more prestigious than say Berkeley, UCLA, Umich, and UVA.

Einstein were still alive today and decided to teach at a university, if not Harvard it would 100% definitely be a top 15 university

Don't make it sound like liberal art schools are the cream of the crop. I'm not saying they are bad, but there is a reason there is overall less competition for application(compare the #1 liberal arts college WIlliams college to any top 15 university and you'll see the discrepancy). There is a reason their class size is much smaller too. It is perfect for some people but for the vast majority it obviously isn't.

gonna break it down easy for you 25/50 schools on the forbes list have a class of under 5000 students. in the top 10 4 are small liberal arts, out of the top ten 1,2, 7, 9

if 50% of the schools on the list are small schools and there are only 50% big schools left with that big school mix being both public and private, we can assume that there are less public schools on the list than small liberal arts, making them lesser schools

kenyon has more premed students in ohio state med school than ohio state med school has pre med students in their own med school

top proffessors can teach anywhere they want, and if you look at many successful alumni, they can also come from small schools


if having an amherst degree gets you the boot, then i dont want to be on that sinking ship anyways...seems like the path of the us governments spending plan to me

we can use both lists and find a median. but long story short... liberal arts colleges are as competitive as their private big school counterparts and more so than their public counterparts

have you looked at the average act sat and gpa of an amherst swarthmore or colorado college freshman? much higher than wake forest and other schools
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
ucla incoming freshman stat

average act 28

25th percentile act 25

75th percentile act 31

average freshman gpa 3.3

Amherst incoming freshman stat

average act 31

25th percentile act 30

75th percentile act 34




basically the 75th percentile of applicants in ucla fit the standards of the 50th percentile applicants at amherst...

please tell me how ucla is better again
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
Well you heard it all guys. Getting a job on wall street is boarding a sinking ship. Who knew.
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
Well you heard it all guys. Getting a job on wall street is boarding a sinking ship. Who knew.
if any company or business rejected a amherst degree soley because it was amherst, then yes... its a sinking ship.

i dont know if im right, but wasnt that like the lehman brothers motto? wall street is a safe place where you wont lose your job or ruin your life ever...right?

more power to you if you make it in that business, but what college you go to matters, and if its looked down upon to go to one of the best schools in the country, then thats a shame.

im sure you should look at the names of alums from amherst before bashing it

merril lynch... founder charles merril is an alum

jp morgan partner dwight morrow

4 nobel prize winners

3 astronauts

and a president


but amherst isnt as good as any "top 15" schools, but a partner, who helped build the business your dad works for, went there
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
There is a reason Ross at Umich's acceptance rate is like 16% versus the regular schoolwide 33% and there is a reason NYU Stern is around 10% acceptance rate vs the regular 35% acceptance rate. Wharton too although I don't know the exact numbers for that. Even econ programs at prestigious universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Uchicago, and Northwestern is very competitive to get into the first place. You want to go to wall street? First thing they look at is where you went to undergrad if you are just going in as a young analyst. If you got a MBA it better be from somewhere just as if not more prestigious.

Charisma, good looks, charm. These are necessary for consulting not IB. 2 different parts of business that make big bank. You think everyone at Goldman are solid 10s?

Liberal Arts colleges are not necessarily better for doctors or any field that requires well roundedness. If that was the case then admissions would be much much more competitive.

D3 small liberal arts schools give better educations? No, they do not have more educated teachers most of the time. Who do you think are professors at any of the top universities I listed above? Leaders in the field, board members of big IBs and nobel prize winners. Lol are we talking about the same colleges here? Obviously top liberal arts colleges would give better education than non-liberal art schools with acceptance rates higher than 60%.
[/QUOTE]

admissions are extremely competitive at these small liberal arts, comparable acceptance rates between 9-18%


as far as well roundedness, med schools are emphasizing this now more than ever, liberal arts schools give you the ability to study in more classes and get minors that will help you. like i said kenyon has more students in ohio state med school than ohio state pre med does

university of chicago is a d3 small undergrad school with many liberal arts features. basically fits the bill as amherst and williams. 5000 undergrad students and 10000 post grad students. basically everything im talking about and in similar prestige when you compare it.
 

jcgatennismom

Hall of Fame
If this discussion is about a junior improving her ranking to play college, the discussion should focus on TRN rankings and/or stars or UTR rankings. NTPR is irrelevant. I know 3 stars who play club tennis. I know female players who did not even play high school tennis who played dubs on a D3 team for fun. The high school players who post these questions probably don't live in tennis strong areas or they would not even be asking. In tennis strong states, you have to have drilled tennis for 3 years in and out of season just to make the high school team. On my son's high school team, noone made varsity who had not attended drills at a tennis academy at least 3 years. The girls' team was not as strong, though some years the team would have two girls who would earn Ivy League or scholarships to top D1 schools. It is ironic to me that anyone would expect to get a scholarship in any college sport with only 3 years of practice. If someone just picked up a basketball at 15, would they expect to play D1 for a Power conference at 18?

Tennis is one of the toughest sports to learn as it requires hand eye coordination, good and fast footwork, quick hands, mental toughness, and endurance to play 3+ hours sometimes with just short breaks. There is an exponential increase in cost and time to go from a rec player or a singles player at a weak high school to a tournament player. When my son first started out, we probably only spent $500 a year and he probably only played a couple hours a week as he was playing other sports too. When he decided to focus on tennis in middle school, the costs eventually rose to 15K+ a year($2000 alone just on strings and stringing, $1500 just for entry fees) and at least 75 hours a month between drills and tournaments. That is the low end of costs-that is just for group training and travel; my son takes very few private lessons. Many 4 star players and higher spend 25-30K+ a year. Most of the kids in our area who just want to play high school tennis still probably spend $400+ a month for 6 hours training a week and a few local tournaments a year. A family may spend $300-$400 for hotel, entry fee, gas, etc for a single tournament only to have the tournament not finish due to rain. Also for players who have not played tournaments before, they may not realize they and their opponents call their own lines-there is only one ref for every 8 courts. I think tennis is the only sport where players judge themselves. A newbie to tournaments has to have the mental toughness not to get angry if their opponent is creative on line calls. A player may love high school or rec tennis but hate tournament tennis. The OP wont know until she plays a few. I assume college tennis has aspect of both-the team aspect of high school tennis and the highly competitive atmosphere of tournament tennis.

The OP needs to play tournaments probably at least 3-4 or at least 12 matches to get a rating on one of these systems. Then she can get an estimate of her abilities. There are 1 and 2 stars that play college tennis-probably D2 or D3 and probably receive only academic money. If the OP does well at several tournaments, she would probably be ranked a 1 star. However to move from 1 star to 4 star is an incredible leap. There are not enough hours in a day to do schoolwork and make up the 2500+ hours of training/matchplay she has already missed starting at 15.
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
The OP needs to play tournaments probably at least 3-4 or at least 12 matches to get a rating on one of these systems. Then she can get an estimate of her abilities. There are 1 and 2 stars that play college tennis-probably D2 or D3 and probably receive only academic money. If the OP does well at several tournaments, she would probably be ranked a 1 star. However to move from 1 star to 4 star is an incredible leap. There are not enough hours in a day to do schoolwork and make up the 2500+ hours of training/matchplay she has already missed starting at 15.


you make a good point here, all i can say for her is practice 30 hours a week and play 1-2 tournaments a month

that is roughly 5000 hours which will get you to be able to walk on and just practice at the school, or get you to be a solid d3 player

im a high 2 star, and ive put in 12 years of my life into tennis. my friend made it to top 150 tnr with 3 years and 2 years at an academy. he didnt have great grades but still had scholarship offers.

ive had scholarship offers from naia, but i want a really good academic school.

you can go to any d3 you want with a 3.7 gpa, 30 act or 2000 sat and 1 star or a 7 on utr. you may not play, but with grades like that the coach will want you on the team and wont have to push admissions much to get you there
 

Faker

Semi-Pro
if any company or business rejected a amherst degree soley because it was amherst, then yes... its a sinking ship.

i dont know if im right, but wasnt that like the lehman brothers motto? wall street is a safe place where you wont lose your job or ruin your life ever...right?

more power to you if you make it in that business, but what college you go to matters, and if its looked down upon to go to one of the best schools in the country, then thats a shame.

im sure you should look at the names of alums from amherst before bashing it

merril lynch... founder charles merril is an alum

jp morgan partner dwight morrow

4 nobel prize winners

3 astronauts

and a president


but amherst isnt as good as any "top 15" schools, but a partner, who helped build the business your dad works for, went there
I'm sure you should also look at the list of alumns from top 15 universities and then compare. Divide it by 3 or 4 to make up for their enrollment and there is still no comparison.

I know very well how prestigious some D3 school are. But we aren't comparing D3 to D1 to liberal arts. CMU and Uchicago are obviously very prestigious and I even said so many posts back if you read. Uchicago fits the bill 10x more than amherst because 1. its acceptance rate is much lower anyways so more competitive by far 2. Their research opportunities for students far surpasses those of Amherst 3. Professors there are are much much better and renowned. Ever heard of Enrico Fermi? Yeah he graduated and taught at Chicago. Noone gives a **** they have a small students population( okay you do but the point is they aren't liberal arts and don't have an emphasis on a "liberal arts college"). I never ever said that small student population is bad. Is Northwestern worse than Umich? Obviously not but student population is much smaller. I just said that liberal arts schools themselves are generally worse than national schools because of everything I mentioned above. Amherst would definitely not make top 20 on national school lists if liberal arts and nationals were combined.

Job security is bad on wall street? You are literally like the stereotypical main street blue collar worker. It is as secure as you want it to be. You can work your way up to 800k salary in about 15 years after undergrad. Pretty safe path. Or you could be ambitious and go for multimillions. Maybe you'll lose your job but the point of this for a lot of people is to retire early obviously.

You think the world is all green grass and sunshine? I think colleges are very unfair and so is applyin gfor jobs on wall street. Colleges favor blacks and native americans while discriminating against asians. They favor those who have legacy vs those who don't. Is this fair? **** no but its how the world works. When applying for jobs on wall street you either need a lot of experience or be from a good school. Like I said, even if Amherst is better than UCLA it still isn't a top 20 school. And even then, UCLA is favored because of the their vast network of alumni and research/internship opportunities compared to Amherst. You don't go to liberal arts for business anyways. You do it for a better community and more well rounded education which is good theoretically but in reality it isn't always the best path(medical fields included).
 

Ihatetennis

Hall of Fame
I'm sure you should also look at the list of alumns from top 15 universities and then compare. Divide it by 3 or 4 to make up for their enrollment and there is still no comparison.

I know very well how prestigious some D3 school are. But we aren't comparing D3 to D1 to liberal arts. CMU and Uchicago are obviously very prestigious and I even said so many posts back if you read. Uchicago fits the bill 10x more than amherst because 1. its acceptance rate is much lower anyways so more competitive by far 2. Their research opportunities for students far surpasses those of Amherst 3. Professors there are are much much better and renowned. Ever heard of Enrico Fermi? Yeah he graduated and taught at Chicago. Noone gives a **** they have a small students population( okay you do but the point is they aren't liberal arts and don't have an emphasis on a "liberal arts college"). I never ever said that small student population is bad. Is Northwestern worse than Umich? Obviously not but student population is much smaller. I just said that liberal arts schools themselves are generally worse than national schools because of everything I mentioned above. Amherst would definitely not make top 20 on national school lists if liberal arts and nationals were combined.

Job security is bad on wall street? You are literally like the stereotypical main street blue collar worker. It is as secure as you want it to be. You can work your way up to 800k salary in about 15 years after undergrad. Pretty safe path. Or you could be ambitious and go for multimillions. Maybe you'll lose your job but the point of this for a lot of people is to retire early obviously.

You think the world is all green grass and sunshine? I think colleges are very unfair and so is applyin gfor jobs on wall street. Colleges favor blacks and native americans while discriminating against asians. They favor those who have legacy vs those who don't. Is this fair? **** no but its how the world works. When applying for jobs on wall street you either need a lot of experience or be from a good school. Like I said, even if Amherst is better than UCLA it still isn't a top 20 school. And even then, UCLA is favored because of the their vast network of alumni and research/internship opportunities compared to Amherst. You don't go to liberal arts for business anyways. You do it for a better community and more well rounded education which is good theoretically but in reality it isn't always the best path(medical fields included).
i am going into a path of med school, thats what i know best.

compare pre med acceptance from small private liberal arts like ive mentioned and the acceptance rate is 90%+ acceptance into med school

the acceptance is far less in larger schools, as a whole when you compare similar admissions requirements.

basically medical prospects have a near perfect chance of getting into med school graduating from these smaller schools.
 

navigator

Hall of Fame
Apologies for furthering this threadjack...

First of all no, small liberal arts schools are not more prestigious than public unievrsity counterparts. Not many people would consider Amherst and Swarthmore more prestigious than say Berkeley, UCLA, Umich, and UVA.

They're not *more* prestigious but they are at least *as* prestigious. Assuming the HR department isn't run by toothless woodsmen, they're going to know that the Amhersts, Swarthmores, and Williams' of the world are just as selective as the UCLAs, Berkeleys and UMichs of the world.

You need NEED a good undergrad and a MBA from a top college to go into business(we are talking about wall st here with Goldman and JP Morgan

It's not *necessary* but it certainly helps a lot... if that's what you want to do; that is, work 100 hours per week for 6-8 years doing largely work that a monkey could do (although it hasn't been tried). Then you become a VP for a few years, then a Director, then eventually an MD... oh wait, statistically speaking, you probably got fired before most of that happened. And then even if you grab this "golden ring"... you're still just working all the time, at the beck and call of your "valued clients" (many of whom are complete d-bags), and navigating cut-throat internal politics ("Why was Chet's bonus bigger than mine!?"). Anyhow, some folks are happy with this life - I haven't met many of them, but I presume they exist.

You mentioned earlier that a disproportionate number of big company CEOs came from ivy league MBA programs, which is true, but... most people get the cause and effect backwards. Most of these folks were going to be big time CEOs regardless of where they went to school - they happened to punch their ticket at an ivy league MBA program on the way up; they self-selected this path. They didn't become CEOs *because* they went through the ivy league, it's the other way around. Graduating from an ivy league MBA program is very helpful for your first one or two jobs - then it's up to you. If you lay a few career turds, you'll find out just how valuable that network of cronies is that you spent all that time cultivating. I've met some brilliant folks from ivy league schools but I've also met plenty of unconscionable nitwits - anyone over the age of 30 on Wall Street or in consulting has had the same experience.

Just my view, but you might want to consider focusing on the learning and the knowledge itself, as opposed to the provenance thereof. Things will work themselves out or they won't - where you went to school probably won't matter much in 15 years. Just my two cents, of course.
 
Apologies for furthering this threadjack...



They're not *more* prestigious but they are at least *as* prestigious. Assuming the HR department isn't run by toothless woodsmen, they're going to know that the Amhersts, Swarthmores, and Williams' of the world are just as selective as the UCLAs, Berkeleys and UMichs of the world.



It's not *necessary* but it certainly helps a lot... if that's what you want to do; that is, work 100 hours per week for 6-8 years doing largely work that a monkey could do (although it hasn't been tried). Then you become a VP for a few years, then a Director, then eventually an MD... oh wait, statistically speaking, you probably got fired before most of that happened. And then even if you grab this "golden ring"... you're still just working all the time, at the beck and call of your "valued clients" (many of whom are complete d-bags), and navigating cut-throat internal politics ("Why was Chet's bonus bigger than mine!?"). Anyhow, some folks are happy with this life - I haven't met many of them, but I presume they exist.

You mentioned earlier that a disproportionate number of big company CEOs came from ivy league MBA programs, which is true, but... most people get the cause and effect backwards. Most of these folks were going to be big time CEOs regardless of where they went to school - they happened to punch their ticket at an ivy league MBA program on the way up; they self-selected this path. They didn't become CEOs *because* they went through the ivy league, it's the other way around. Graduating from an ivy league MBA program is very helpful for your first one or two jobs - then it's up to you. If you lay a few career turds, you'll find out just how valuable that network of cronies is that you spent all that time cultivating. I've met some brilliant folks from ivy league schools but I've also met plenty of unconscionable nitwits - anyone over the age of 30 on Wall Street or in consulting has had the same experience.

Just my view, but you might want to consider focusing on the learning and the knowledge itself, as opposed to the provenance thereof. Things will work themselves out or they won't - where you went to school probably won't matter much in 15 years. Just my two cents, of course.
thank-you-word-cloud-1024x791-350x200.jpg
 

Avles

Hall of Fame
if any company or business rejected a amherst degree soley because it was amherst, then yes... its a sinking ship.

i dont know if im right, but wasnt that like the lehman brothers motto? wall street is a safe place where you wont lose your job or ruin your life ever...right?

more power to you if you make it in that business, but what college you go to matters, and if its looked down upon to go to one of the best schools in the country, then thats a shame.

im sure you should look at the names of alums from amherst before bashing it

merril lynch... founder charles merril is an alum

jp morgan partner dwight morrow

4 nobel prize winners

3 astronauts

and a president


but amherst isnt as good as any "top 15" schools, but a partner, who helped build the business your dad works for, went there

The CEO of Morgan Stanley Asia also is an Amherst alum... if only she'd gone to UCLA, who knows how much she might have accomplished in business!
 

tennis_ocd

Hall of Fame
Apologies for furthering this threadjack...

They're not *more* prestigious but they are at least *as* prestigious. Assuming the HR department isn't run by toothless woodsmen, they're going to know that the Amhersts, Swarthmores, and Williams' of the world are just as selective as the UCLAs, Berkeleys and UMichs of the world.
Everyone has their own fit when choosing college but some of this stuff is clear from data the feds require colleges to provide....

If not run by toothless woodsmen they going to know that for a graduating HS student, Amherst, Swarthmore and Williams are significantly *more* selective (as measured by SAT scores of incoming students) than UCLA, UMich and even Berkley. Book it. They are all great colleges and will not hold anyone back if applying themselves.
 
Top