How long does it take to achieve a UTR 13, is it too late?

Well. One of the ten greatest players to ever play able to have success on the seniors tour after a year just totally seals it.

4.0 not that high of a level. OK. If the charts someone posted some time ago still hold, over 60% of players are 3.5 or lower. So already you're well into the top half. Plus, this guy dedicated his life to *another sport*. So you're saying Tennis really is an easy game?
Nope, I am saying a professional athlete who grew up playing tennis taking 1-2 years getting to the 40% bracket of the population at a 4.0 level is not that big a deal. At least not compared to hitting a last minute field goal to win for your NFL team.
 
Only in your bizarre world that you think Carnegie Mellon is on par with MIT for the same price. Even my 16 years old can figure that out. I'll take my daughter graduate from MIT with 2.0 GPA over Carnegie Mellon 4.0 anytime.
I think any employer will question a 2.0 GPA not matter what the school! It shows more to work ethic, responsibility and dedication than intelligence (as obiviously he got into MIT he must be smart assuming this isn't a legacy or sports candidate getting free admission).
 
Nope, I am saying a professional athlete who grew up playing tennis taking 1-2 years getting to the 40% bracket of the population at a 4.0 level is not that big a deal. At least not compared to hitting a last minute field goal to win for your NFL team.
The context is not "compared to another sport's high leverage moments." The context is "athletic ability: can it carry you a long way in tennis, despite the howls to the contrary?" People are saying you can't be a pro unless you start at 5, hit millions of balls, and absolutely dedicate your life to tennis. Being a great athlete will have no impact if you do not do those things.

It would seem your example puts a big dent in that theory.

And I notice no one has yet to address my Tiafoe question.

(note that it absolutely kills me that I am on the same side as the OP on this one, though.)
 
People are saying you can't be a pro unless you start at 5, hit millions of balls, and absolutely dedicate your life to tennis. Being a great athlete will have no impact if you do not do those things.

It would seem your example puts a big dent in that theory.

And I notice no one has yet to address my Tiafoe question.

(note that it absolutely kills me that I am on the same side as the OP on this one, though.)
I am not sure what your reference to Tiafoe is intended to illustrate. According to his bio on the ATP site he started playing at age 3. According to his Wikipedia page

"When Frances and his brother were 5 years old, their father arranged for them to begin training at the JTCC, bypassing their usual fees. At the age of 8, Misha Kouznetsov began coaching Frances at the center, taking interest in him after seeing his work ethic and interest in the sport."

It is difficult to separate his athletic talent from his hard work but apparently he has an abundance of both and he started training at an early age. My guess he is top 50 because of the combination.
 
I think any employer will question a 2.0 GPA not matter what the school! It shows more to work ethic, responsibility and dedication than intelligence (as obiviously he got into MIT he must be smart assuming this isn't a legacy or sports candidate getting free admission).
Any good engineering schools will give out very few As, some Bs and a majority of C. They call that the Bell curve. I am sure quite a few people have 2.0 GPA in engineering. So are you saying that they should be unemployed? The GPA might be relevant to HR but it has no bearing on whom the company is going to hire

Other industries might work differently but in IT industry, it works something like this, from the past ten years that I am a part of: a. Screen the candidate over the phone, question him/her about the knowledge in the topic or specific skill that you want to hire the person for that job. It can be from Linux, Oracle, mySQL, Python, Java, dotNet, etc... b. if the candidate passes step a, you ask the candidate to come in for a face-to-face interview. There you go much deeper what you ask over the phone with trick questions to test how deep about the above the technologies the candidate knows.... c. Assume that the candidate passes both a and b with flying colors and have the ability to get along with people in the group, the last piece is a hand-on lab that you ask the candidate to do. The hand-on lab takes about an hour if the candidate is a smart one, 2 hours for a typical IT person and 3+ hours for not so good one. For the 3+ hours candidates, it means that they lack the technical hand-on for the job.

The least software programmers/engineers care about is grade. If you can code and produce, GPA is not important.
 
I think coding lends itself to being more widely learned because of the barrier to entry being very low and to the amount of "how to" information out there. Fields like nuclear plant design, brain surgery, and planetary cosmology aren't as accessible.

Engineering teaches one a certain way of thinking. So do all other disciplines. I agree that the engineering mindset lends itself to coding but I wouldn't limit myself to just engr.

"Piece of cake"? I guess it depends on what kind of cake you're talking about. I doubt everyone would agree with that conclusion, particularly people who tried to become programmers and failed. I guess you might call them morons but they probably have aptitude in other areas.
I never called people who tried to become programmers morons, LOL....

I've never met any bad programmers or software developers with engineering background. More than anything, it is the opposite. All of them seem to be "bad" engineers and decide to switch careers over to coders, including your truly here. I think it has to to with math. I don't know about anyone else but being a programmer, from my own experience, is so much easier than being an electrical engineer working for Intel or mechanical engineer working for Caterpilla.
 
I think any employer will question a 2.0 GPA not matter what the school! It shows more to work ethic, responsibility and dedication than intelligence (as obiviously he got into MIT he must be smart assuming this isn't a legacy or sports candidate getting free admission).
MIT does not consider legacy and does not give "free admission" to athletes. The athletes have to meet the same high academic standards as the rest of the student population since in order to graduate, every student must take three semesters of calculus, two semesters of calc-based physics, chemistry, biology, and various humanities classes.
 
MIT does not consider legacy and does not give "free admission" to athletes. The athletes have to meet the same high academic standards as the rest of the student population since in order to graduate, every student must take three semesters of calculus, two semesters of calc-based physics, chemistry, biology, and various humanities classes.
Are you saying that even students majoring in humanities or Literature @MIT, they still have to complete all of those courses that you described above? doesn't sound like it: http://catalog.mit.edu/degree-charts/humanities-course-21/
 
Any good engineering schools will give out very few As, some Bs and a majority of C. They call that the Bell curve. I am sure quite a few people have 2.0 GPA in engineering. So are you saying that they should be unemployed? The GPA might be relevant to HR but it has no bearing on whom the company is going to hire

Other industries might work differently but in IT industry, it works something like this, from the past ten years that I am a part of: a. Screen the candidate over the phone, question him/her about the knowledge in the topic or specific skill that you want to hire the person for that job. It can be from Linux, Oracle, mySQL, Python, Java, dotNet, etc... b. if the candidate passes step a, you ask the candidate to come in for a face-to-face interview. There you go much deeper what you ask over the phone with trick questions to test how deep about the above the technologies the candidate knows.... c. Assume that the candidate passes both a and b with flying colors and have the ability to get along with people in the group, the last piece is a hand-on lab that you ask the candidate to do. The hand-on lab takes about an hour if the candidate is a smart one, 2 hours for a typical IT person and 3+ hours for not so good one. For the 3+ hours candidates, it means that they lack the technical hand-on for the job.

The least software programmers/engineers care about is grade. If you can code and produce, GPA is not important.
SRI [nee Standford Research Institute] did a study and found that only about 15% of someone's success was technical in nature; the other 85% was a combination of self-management and inter-personal relationships.

Your screening process narrowly focuses on the 15% and seemingly ignores the 85%. If a candidate can't manage himself or work well with others, how good technically he is is secondary. His 85% will overwhelm his 15%. I avoid misanthropes: he might produce great results but will alienate his co-workers and be a headache for the manager.
 
SRI [nee Standford Research Institute] did a study and found that only about 15% of someone's success was technical in nature; the other 85% was a combination of self-management and inter-personal relationships.

Your screening process narrowly focuses on the 15% and seemingly ignores the 85%. If a candidate can't manage himself or work well with others, how good technically he is is secondary. His 85% will overwhelm his 15%. I avoid misanthropes: he might produce great results but will alienate his co-workers and be a headache for the manager.
I think you're right about it. We have a couple brilliant software programmers at the company but they are such a PITA to manage. That being said, those two guys bailed the department out multiple times when the company financial system went down and had to be brought back up immediately. That's why they are tolerated by the company. Something about brilliant people that also make them as__oles. I keep telling them, I don't have to like you and vice versa and we don't have to go out for drink after work, but there is a line that neither will not cross.

It is like the NFL. The NFL will tolerate players who are wife beaters, domestic violence, felony offenses, as long as they can produce great results on the field. Managers are the same way,. They will tolerate people who don't get along with anyone but produce great results at work until they can't do it anymore.

Btw, Steve Jobs was an absolutely brilliant person but also an a__hole.
 
It is like the NFL. The NFL will tolerate players who are wife beaters, domestic violence, felony offenses, as long as they can produce great results on the field. Managers are the same way,. They will tolerate people who don't get along with anyone but produce great results at work until they can't do it anymore.
Sadly, yes. At least the brilliant coders just **** of their co-workers.
 
I think you're right about it. We have a couple brilliant software programmers at the company but they are such a PITA to manage. That being said, those two guys bailed the department out multiple times when the company financial system went down and had to be brought back up immediately. That's why they are tolerated by the company. Something about brilliant people that also make them as__oles. I keep telling them, I don't have to like you and vice versa and we don't have to go out for drink after work, but there is a line that neither will not cross...
.
Maybe if nepotism didn't come into play so much in the real world you live in, you would have more than a couple of brilliant software programmers and could therefore fire the PITA programmers you have now rather than being forced to keep them on the payroll in order to bail you out in a crisis.
 
Last edited:
Any good engineering schools will give out very few As, some Bs and a majority of C. They call that the Bell curve. I am sure quite a few people have 2.0 GPA in engineering. So are you saying that they should be unemployed? The GPA might be relevant to HR but it has no bearing on whom the company is going to hire

Other industries might work differently but in IT industry, it works something like this, from the past ten years that I am a part of: a. Screen the candidate over the phone, question him/her about the knowledge in the topic or specific skill that you want to hire the person for that job. It can be from Linux, Oracle, mySQL, Python, Java, dotNet, etc... b. if the candidate passes step a, you ask the candidate to come in for a face-to-face interview. There you go much deeper what you ask over the phone with trick questions to test how deep about the above the technologies the candidate knows.... c. Assume that the candidate passes both a and b with flying colors and have the ability to get along with people in the group, the last piece is a hand-on lab that you ask the candidate to do. The hand-on lab takes about an hour if the candidate is a smart one, 2 hours for a typical IT person and 3+ hours for not so good one. For the 3+ hours candidates, it means that they lack the technical hand-on for the job.

The least software programmers/engineers care about is grade. If you can code and produce, GPA is not important.
I agree. If someone can code and produce, he really shouldn't be getting a 2.0 GPA should he? He has the ability to at least get a 3.0 gpa no? So hence my earlier argument that someone getting into MIT producing a 2.0 GPA is going to get questioned about his dedication, responsibility and work ethic. The employer might be suspicious that he is lazy and not committed.
 
Any good engineering schools will give out very few As, some Bs and a majority of C. They call that the Bell curve. I am sure quite a few people have 2.0 GPA in engineering. .
https://talk.collegeconfidential.co...te-technology/1651636-average-gpa-at-mit.html

It's pretty humorous to listen to your condescending explanation of the bell curve as you "educate" us on how the world works. As usual, you continue to prove how little you actually know. The average GPA for someone at MIT is 4.4 out of 5. (you can look up the word average if you don't know what it means)
 
https://talk.collegeconfidential.co...te-technology/1651636-average-gpa-at-mit.html

It's pretty humorous to listen to your condescending explanation of the bell curve as you "educate" us on how the world works. As usual, you continue to prove how little you actually know. The average GPA for someone at MIT is 4.4 out of 5. (you can look up the word average if you don't know what it means)
Yeah but he said "good engineering school" and MIT let Howard Wolowitz in.
 
A colleague of mine at work asked me this question today and I didn't know how to answer it so I am going to throw it out here for discussion.

He has an adopted son, African American kid, who is 12 years old. Both his birth father and mother were five star college athletes in football and swimming but the mother got pregnant in her sophomore year so she gave him up for adoption. This kid was adopted by my coworker as a baby. He is currently about 6 feet tall and weighed about 165. Doctor says that he will max out around 6 feet 3'. He has tremendous quick hand and feet and eye hand coordination is exceptional. He has been playing football since he was 9 years old. I saw him run a 40 yards dash a month ago in under 5 seconds. He goes to the same physical training facility as my kids four times a week. Even at 12 years old, I can see something very special about him. His body is built like a football receiver.

Because of the high risk of injury in football and concussion, his dad wants him to play tennis instead. The dad asked me if it is possible for a 12 years old raw athlete to achieve UTR 13 by the time he turns 15 or 16. The main goal is to get him out of football. His dad can afford tennis lesson for him twice a week.

You have to be very good to play college tennis and if this kid is starting at age 12 - it’s too late !!!
No way unless he has privates 3 times a week and has amazing talent
I knew 5.0 boys in juniors who could not even make a big ten team
Is it possible to get a UTR 13 or higher for someone to start tennis @12? I guess anything is possible but is it realistic?
 
Top