Multiplier 2.0 Needed to Level the Playing Field

[Titan32]

5 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, I said I didn’t see anything wrong with it.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  And the only reason anybody thought it was broke was because (in particular) Cathedral, Chatard, Roncalli, Luers and Dwenger had “too much” success.

So I’m guessing this whole Multiplier 2.0 discussion is coming around because the SF hasn’t done enough to quash their success.

There are all kinds of variables the IHSAA could, I guess, consider to hold back programs they don’t want winning.  But I would question why they would want to do that in the first place.

You want to beat Cathedral or Chatard?  Hit the weight room.  Hit the film room.  Put more effort and focus on your feeder program.  Institute better discipline.

But don’t gripe about them having advantages you don’t and can’t have and thus try to justify establishing rules which are obviously designed to make life harder on them just because they’ve been more successful than you have been.  That’s, among other things, a horrible life lesson for the kids we’re raising.

Another valuable life lesson might be to always be honest with oneself.    With all due respect your position on this is a convenient mix of chest thumping and sticking your head in the sand. 

There are certain criteria that programs which win a lot of games have in common.  These aren't necessarily mine but they are the ones typically mentioned here on the GID and they are in no particular order:  quality feeder program, quality strength and agility systems, quality staff, community support and admin support.  I don't recall the consensus here on GID including coaching salaries or fancy facilities.  Those might be nice to have but hopefully we can all agree they aren't necessary to win more games than you lose.

The football guy in me almost falls for the "try harder" argument every time I see it on here, every year, over and over and over, but at the end of the day it's just  machismo and conjecture.

Let's face it, about the only thing in common with the P/P model and public model as a means of education is that they both have books and teenagers in the building.  One is a free legal requirement, the other offers a commodity.  In fact, it is a crime in Indiana to not educate your child between the ages of 7 and 16. 

Every public school, no matter how "affluent" their geographic based demographic is, have a percentage "X" of the student population that is only there because they have to be and another group, only marginally more motivated than the "have to be there group", that just kind of does what is required to get by.  All of my public school teacher friends reading this know exactly what I am talking about.

In stark contrast, when what you offer is a commodity, the ability to purchase a seat next to a like minded academically motivated quality student athlete, as a parent you expect/demand results for that purchase.  It's a free market service in which one can purchase the taylored academic/athletic experience of your choice.  Some families make huge sacrifices to purchase this service, they do so because the value is tremendous (academically and athletically) and has the likelihood of producing life long results.

Let's just say hypothetically that we have two secondary "schools", one public and one private both participating in the sport of football, both with all of the above qualities that the GID has determined to be necessary in order be successful ...AND...we will even kick in your coaches salaries and facilities....all equal.  Heck, we can even say the public is in a "good neighborhood" (meaning low free and assisted lunch kids etc.).  In addition, both schools have the exact same enrollment.  

Now, you have to bet $10,000 on which team will win more games over a decade.  Where do you put your chips??

Everyone reading this knows which team will win more games given an equal schedule.  It will play out that the public school will have ONE once in a decade team in which its random human capital will exceed the predicable human capital of the private school.  Said another way, I would pick the private school to win more games 9 of the 10 years, they will always have a higher number of quality athletes per capita.

To be clear I am not arguing for multiplier 2.0 or that success factor is perfect.  I am arguing that enrollment alone was really really broken.

It is simply not true that all things being equal privates are on the same playing field as publics.  It's simply not true that enrollment alone is an equitable way to "rate" these two vastly different educational models against each other for athletic competition.

 

 

 

[MHSTigerFan]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

Another valuable life lesson might be to always be honest with oneself.    With all due respect your position on this is a convenient mix of chest thumping and sticking your head in the sand. 

There are certain criteria that programs which win a lot of games have in common.  These aren't necessarily mine but they are the ones typically mentioned here on the GID and they are in no particular order:  quality feeder program, quality strength and agility systems, quality staff, community support and admin support.  I don't recall the consensus here on GID including coaching salaries or fancy facilities.  Those might be nice to have but hopefully we can all agree they aren't necessary to win more games than you lose.

The football guy in me almost falls for the "try harder" argument every time I see it on here, every year, over and over and over, but at the end of the day it's just  machismo and conjecture.

Let's face it, about the only thing in common with the P/P model and public model as a means of education is that they both have books and teenagers in the building.  One is a free legal requirement, the other offers a commodity.  In fact, it is a crime in Indiana to not educate your child between the ages of 7 and 16. 

Every public school, no matter how "affluent" their geographic based demographic is, have a percentage "X" of the student population that is only there because they have to be and another group, only marginally more motivated than the "have to be there group", that just kind of does what is required to get by.  All of my public school teacher friends reading this know exactly what I am talking about.

In stark contrast, when what you offer is a commodity, the ability to purchase a seat next to a like minded academically motivated quality student athlete, as a parent you expect/demand results for that purchase.  It's a free market service in which one can purchase the taylored academic/athletic experience of your choice.  Some families make huge sacrifices to purchase this service, they do so because the value is tremendous (academically and athletically) and has the likelihood of producing life long results.

Let's just say hypothetically that we have two secondary "schools", one public and one private both participating in the sport of football, both with all of the above qualities that the GID has determined to be necessary in order be successful ...AND...we will even kick in your coaches salaries and facilities....all equal.  Heck, we can even say the public is in a "good neighborhood" (meaning low free and assisted lunch kids etc.).  In addition, both schools have the exact same enrollment.  

Now, you have to bet $10,000 on which team will win more games over a decade.  Where do you put your chips??

Everyone reading this knows which team will win more games given an equal schedule.  It will play out that the public school will have ONE once in a decade team in which its random human capital will exceed the predicable human capital of the private school.  Said another way, I would pick the private school to win more games 9 of the 10 years, they will always have a higher number of quality athletes per capita.

To be clear I am not arguing for multiplier 2.0 or that success factor is perfect.  I am arguing that enrollment alone was really really broken.

It is simply not true that all things being equal privates are on the same playing field as publics.  It's simply not true that enrollment alone is an equitable way to "rate" these two vastly different educational models against each other for athletic competition.

 

 

 

You say that you’re arguing that using enrollment was broken.  But I don’t find much in the rest of your post to actually support that argument.

All the rest of it seems to just be saying that the “human capital” (just athletic, or otherwise?) at private schools is, on average, better than it is at public schools...because, unlike public schools, parents pay to send their kids to private schools (and, thus, expect and receive a better quality product academically and athletically than what the public schools provide).

As such, the private schools need to have some kind of governor put on their athletic programs so as to emulate something approaching a level competitive playing field with public schools.

Is that a fair restatement of what you’re saying?

[MHSTigerFan]

20 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Another valuable life lesson might be to always be honest with oneself.    With all due respect your position on this is a convenient mix of chest thumping and sticking your head in the sand. 

There are certain criteria that programs which win a lot of games have in common.  These aren't necessarily mine but they are the ones typically mentioned here on the GID and they are in no particular order:  quality feeder program, quality strength and agility systems, quality staff, community support and admin support.  I don't recall the consensus here on GID including coaching salaries or fancy facilities.  Those might be nice to have but hopefully we can all agree they aren't necessary to win more games than you lose.

The football guy in me almost falls for the "try harder" argument every time I see it on here, every year, over and over and over, but at the end of the day it's just horse shit machismo and conjecture.

Let's face it, about the only thing in common with the P/P model and public model as a means of education is that they both have books and teenagers in the building.  One is a free legal requirement, the other offers a commodity.  In fact, it is a crime in Indiana to not educate your child between the ages of 7 and 16. 

Every public school, no matter how "affluent" their geographic based demographic is, have a percentage "X" of the student population that is only there because they have to be and another group, only marginally more motivated than the "have to be there group", that just kind of does what is required to get by.  All of my public school teacher friends reading this know exactly what I am talking about.

In stark contrast, when what you offer is a commodity, the ability to purchase a seat next to a like minded academically motivated quality student athlete, as a parent you expect/demand results for that purchase.  It's a free market service in which one can purchase the taylored academic/athletic experience of your choice.  Some families make huge sacrifices to purchase this service, they do so because the value is tremendous (academically and athletically) and has the likelihood of producing life long results.

Let's just say hypothetically that we have two secondary "schools", one public and one private both participating in the sport of football, both with all of the above qualities that the GID has determined to be necessary in order be successful ...AND...we will even kick in your coaches salaries and facilities....all equal.  Heck, we can even say the public is in a "good neighborhood" (meaning low free and assisted lunch kids etc.).  In addition, both schools have the exact same enrollment.  

Now, you have to bet $10,000 on which team will win more games over a decade.  Where do you put your chips??

Everyone reading this knows which team will win more games given an equal schedule.  It will play out that the public school will have ONE once in a decade team in which its random human capital will exceed the predicable human capital of the private school.  Said another way, I would pick the private school to win more games 9 of the 10 years, they will always have a higher number of quality athletes per capita.

To be clear I am not arguing for multiplier 2.0 or that success factor is perfect.  I am arguing that enrollment alone was really really broken.

It is simply not true that all things being equal privates are on the same playing field as publics.  It's simply not true that enrollment alone is an equitable way to "rate" these two vastly different educational models against each other for athletic competition.

 

 

 

By the way, I didn’t say the lesson we’re teaching our kids with the “if you can’t beat ‘em, restrain ‘em” approach was a valuable one.  I said it was a terrible one.  And so it is.

Real life doesn’t work this way.  You realize that, right?  So why would we want to organize our high school athletics in a way that is wholly unrepresentative of life in a competitive society and economy?

Edited November 16, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[Titan32]

2 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

You say that you’re arguing that using enrollment was broken.  But I don’t find much in the rest of your post to actually support that argument.

All the rest of it seems to just be saying that the “human capital” (just athletic, or otherwise?) at private schools is, on average, better than it is at public schools...because, unlike public schools, parents pay to send their kids to private schools (and, thus, expect and receive a better quality product academically and athletically than what the public schools provide).

As such, the private schools need to have some kind of governor put on their athletic programs so as to emulate something approaching a level competitive playing field with private schools.

Is that a fair restatement of what you’re saying?

Close...but at the end of the day there are more quality humans per capita at the private.  How could anyone argue otherwise?  How many kids are at Memorial are there just to take up space in comparison to an equally sized (per enrollment) public?  I think the argument can easily be made that Castle and Memorial have a vary similar number of quality student athletes walking the halls.

[Titan32]

2 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Close...but at the end of the day there are more quality humans per capita at the private.  How could anyone argue otherwise?  How many kids are at Memorial are there just to take up space in comparison to an equally sized (per enrollment) public?  I think the argument can easily be made that Castle and Memorial have a vary similar number of quality student athletes walking the halls.

Did Memorial work harder to gain this advantage...or is it just a function of being able to buy the ability to get Johny on a team with the other quality success driven Soccer players?

Edited November 16, 2020 by Titan32

[Titan32]

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

By the way, I didn’t say the lesson we’re teaching our kids with the “if you can’t beat ‘em, restrain ‘em” approach was a valuable one.  I said it was a terrible one.  And so it is.

Real life doesn’t work this way.  You realize that, right?  So why would we want to organize our high school athletics in a way that is wholly unrepresentative of life in a competitive society and economy?

Actually life does work this way.  In my profession I was able to rise above my peers through hard work....but we all started on an equal playing field.  Enrollment alone does not do that...I'm shocked you don't see that.

[MHSTigerFan]

1 minute ago, Titan32 said:

I think the argument can easily be made that Castle and Memorial have a vary similar number of quality student athletes walking the halls.

Oh I beg to differ.  Come to our scrimmage sometime and watch our down-liners go against theirs.  The falloff we have is pretty much always a lot sharper than theirs.  And it shows.

And why?  Well, compare the number of kids in uniforms on either sideline.

Besides, I’m not arguing that different schools have different advantages and disadvantages.  Heck, one could make an argument that requiring tuition is, in and of itself, an obstacle to accessing great athletes whose families don’t have the money to send their kids to private schools.  I mean, I grew up on the east side of Evansville around the time that Calbert Cheaney, Chris Lowery, Kevin Hardy, and Walter McCarty were donning red and black.  You think we had athletes like that...because we were a private school?  I’d say it’s more accurate to say that we didn’t have them because we were.

In those cases, our East side rivals had advantages over us.  It never would’ve dawned on us to appeal to the IHSAA to do something, anything, to help us better compete with those elite athletes...or guys like Elkins at Bosse.

[MHSTigerFan]

8 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Actually life does work this way.  In my profession I was able to rise above my peers through hard work....but we all started on an equal playing field.  Enrollment alone does not do that...I'm shocked you don't see that.

No it doesn’t work that way at all.  If you and another guy are competing in, say, sales positions, your boss isn’t going to give you a lower quota because you come from a poor neighborhood or went to a public school and the other guy didn’t.  You can’t cite that as a reason you aren’t on a level playing field with that guy.

But you’re wanting to teach our kids that they should be able to.  It’s an awful lesson to teach them — that they and their classmates are (on average, of course) lesser “human capital” than kids whose parents could and did pay for their education.

Its demeaning, frankly.

[scarab527]

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

No it doesn’t work that way at all.  If you and another guy are competing in, say, sales positions, your boss isn’t going to give you a lower quota because you come from a poor neighborhood or went to a public school and the other guy didn’t.  You can’t cite that as a reason you aren’t on a level playing field with that guy.

But you’re wanting to teach our kids that they should be able to.  It’s an awful lesson to teach them — that they and their classmates are (on average, of course) lesser “human capital” than kids whose parents could and did pay for their education.

Its demeaning, frankly.

I mean, in terms of recruiting for companies, many companies specifically target prospective employees that went to private high schools, or at least public high schools in wealthy districts. So in this way, some companies clearly see a difference in the “human capital” of people depending on the school they went to. This is an indisputable fact. 

[Titan32]

4 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

No it doesn’t work that way at all.  If you and another guy are competing in, say, sales positions, your boss isn’t going to give you a lower quota because you come from a poor neighborhood or went to a public school and the other guy didn’t.  You can’t cite that as a reason you aren’t on a level playing field with that guy.

But you’re wanting to teach our kids that they should be able to.  It’s an awful lesson to teach them — that they and their classmates are (on average, of course) lesser “human capital” than kids whose parents could and did pay for their education.

Its demeaning, frankly.

What?  Now you are just getting silly.  No one sited economic status as an excuse for not being on a level playing field with in High School academics, sports or life.  If you knew my background you would be embarrassed.    Trying to suggest or change this argument into something at the individual level is ridiculous.  Any quality seed where grow almost any place is is planted.  You and I both know the nature of paying for a garden attracts MANY more quality seeds.  

[MHSTigerFan]

1 minute ago, scarab527 said:

I mean, in terms of recruiting for companies, many companies specifically target prospective employees that went to private high schools, or at least public high schools in wealthy districts. So in this way, some companies clearly see a difference in the “human capital” of people depending on the school they went to. This is an indisputable fact. 

Do you have any documented evidence of this indisputable fact?

I’m an employer with more than a couple employees.  And it’s never even occurred to me to target employees by their high school alma mater.

The thought is actually absurd.  “Sorry sir, we don’t hire Reitz graduates here.  If only you’d have gone to Mater Dei.”

[scarab527]

5 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Do you have any documented evidence of this indisputable fact?

I’m an employer with more than a couple employees.  And it’s never even occurred to me to target employees by their high school alma mater.

The thought is actually absurd.  “Sorry sir, we don’t hire Reitz graduates here.  If only you’d have gone to Mater Dei.”

Lol. Your anecdotal evidence is cute. If you don’t think companies recruit based on education history, I don’t know what to tell you. Why do you think kids go to Ivy League schools instead of Ivy Tech. Works the same way with high schools. To try to deny this is either painfully ignorant, or a rather pathetic attempt at trying to deny the obvious. 

[Titan32]

46 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Oh I beg to differ.  Come to our scrimmage sometime and watch our down-liners go against theirs.  The falloff we have is pretty much always a lot sharper than theirs.  And it shows.

And why?  Well, compare the number of kids in uniforms on either sideline.

Besides, I’m not arguing that different schools have different advantages and disadvantages.  Heck, one could make an argument that requiring tuition is, in and of itself, an obstacle to accessing great athletes whose families don’t have the money to send their kids to private schools.  I mean, I grew up on the east side of Evansville around the time that Calbert Cheaney, Chris Lowery, Kevin Hardy, and Walter McCarty were donning red and black.  You think we had athletes like that...because we were a private school?  I’d say it’s more accurate to say that we didn’t have them because we were.

In those cases, our East side rivals had advantages over us.  It never would’ve dawned on us to appeal to the IHSAA to do something, anything, to help us better compete with those elite athletes...or guys like Elkins at Bosse.

I didn't say the private would get the best athletes in the city...or the once in a decade Harrison athletes, but I did say the public's would have those guys once in a decade.

Amazing how Memorial and Castle battle for the overall conference titles in both boys and girls sports many years.  Has to be the hard working Catholic culture passed down genetically from the SWI Catholic immigrants at the turn of the century...or perhaps the meagerly paid superior coaches?

or ...could it possibly be more student athletes that actually participate in extra curricular activities per enrollment at Memorial that enable it to punch above it's enrollment figure?

 

[MHSTigerFan]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

I think the argument can easily be made that Castle and Memorial have a vary similar number of quality student athletes walking the halls.

Circling back to this, and the “once in a decade” remark, did you know that it wasn’t that long ago that it was a running joke in Memorial circles about how many consecutive losses we’d piled up against Reitz, Jasper, and Mater Dei?  I can’t remember the exact numbers.  But each one was in the range of double-figures.  Those strings of losses extended from the time Michael Lindauer was learning to write his name through his junior year.

And, speaking of Castle, our record against them in that stretch wasn’t much better.

So how does this real life history square with your once in a decade theory?  In these cases, we were the school fortunate to finally have a once-in-decade phenom after years of losses.

[MHSTigerFan]

1 hour ago, scarab527 said:

Lol. Your anecdotal evidence is cute. If you don’t think companies recruit based on education history, I don’t know what to tell you. Why do you think kids go to Ivy League schools instead of Ivy Tech. Works the same way with high schools. To try to deny this is either painfully ignorant, or a rather pathetic attempt at trying to deny the obvious. 

Well, first, my anecdotal evidence is better than your zero evidence.  You’re the one who made the unsupported assertion (and called it indisputable fact, to boot), not me.  I simply asked you to support it - which you didn’t (and probably couldn’t if you tried).

Second, comparing this to Ivy League vs Ivy Tech is absurd on its face.  I think the teachers at Memorial would find it humorous that you compared them to the faculty at Yale...and the teachers at North would be insulted that you comparatively  likened them in this stupid analogy to instructors at Ivy Tech.

[oldtimeqb]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

I didn't say the private would get the best athletes in the city...or the once in a decade Harrison athletes, but I did say the public's would have those guys once in a decade.

Amazing how Memorial and Castle battle for the overall conference titles in both boys and girls sports many years.  Has to be the hard working Catholic culture passed down genetically from the SWI Catholic immigrants at the turn of the century...or perhaps the meagerly paid superior coaches?

or ...could it possibly be more student athletes that actually participate in extra curricular activities per enrollment at Memorial that enable it to punch above it's enrollment figure?

 

You raise some interesting points to consider.  I wonder if it's more or just the same student athletes playing multiple sports? 

What I mean is that yes, there is no doubt Memorial and Castle compete annually for the all-sports trophies.  But if you look at the rosters of the sports at Memorial you will see many of the same names.  Lindauer, Combs, and Hart all are currently playing D-1 football, yet their senior years you saw them playing basketball and baseball/track.  Three sport athletes.  Glancing at Castle's roster from last year, I only see 2 of their 12 basketball players that also played football.   Memorial had 5 football players on the roster.  A quick glance at the Westside - Mater Dei shows 5 FB/BB players while Reitz's 2019 basketball roster shows only 1 football player. 

Maybe it's a function of school size? Maybe it's paid for expectations?  Maybe it's being surrounded by similar like-minded, driven students?  Interesting questions and it's probably some combination of the three.

And I personally resemble Weber's "Protestant Work Ethic." LOL 

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by oldtimeqb

[MHSTigerFan]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

I didn't say the private would get the best athletes in the city...or the once in a decade Harrison athletes, but I did say the public's would have those guys once in a decade.

Amazing how Memorial and Castle battle for the overall conference titles in both boys and girls sports many years.  Has to be the hard working Catholic culture passed down genetically from the SWI Catholic immigrants at the turn of the century...or perhaps the meagerly paid superior coaches?

or ...could it possibly be more student athletes that actually participate in extra curricular activities per enrollment at Memorial that enable it to punch above it's enrollment figure?

 

So how’d we so miss the boat on girls golf? North just won something like their 4th state team title in a row.  They’ve had a lot of success with boys over the years, too.  Jeff Overton played there...and he ended up on a Ryder Cup team.

I can’t explain any of that.  But it wouldn’t surprise me that a really good female golfer would choose to go to North...just as it doesn’t surprise me that most of the best wrestlers in the area find their way to Mater Dei and most of the best boys soccer players go to Memorial or Castle.

But I don’t think private/public has anything to do with it.  I think strong programs get stronger because they naturally attract more of the top kids coming up.

Central’s (arguably) best player this year transferred from Bosse.  And can you blame him?  Central’s had a winning program of late.  Bosse, God love ‘em, has struggled.

[scarab527]

3 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, first, my anecdotal evidence is better than your zero evidence.  You’re the one who made the unsupported assertion (and called it indisputable fact, to boot), not me.  I simply asked you to support it - which you didn’t (and probably couldn’t if you tried).

Second, comparing this to Ivy League vs Ivy Tech is absurd on its face.  I think the teachers at Memorial would find it humorous that you compared them to the faculty at Yale...and the teachers at North would be insulted that you comparatively  likened them in this stupid analogy to instructors at Ivy Tech.

Lol the point I was making clearly flew miles over your head. I wasn’t comparing the teachers at all and the fact you think I was is honestly hilarious. The comparison was how companies view the graduates of each in terms of their human capital. Educational history is clearly taken into account when companies are recruiting. High school education matters for college recruiting. And college matters for how much human capital companies view you as having. Go look up starting salaries out of college for Ivy leagues vs Public colleges if you really need evidence of this indisputable fact. Here’s an article from the official college admissions website about how sending your kids to private school increase their chances of getting into an elite college, which as just mentioned, increases their human capital in the job market. 

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/private-vs-public-hs/

So yes, I have plenty of evidence and could easily provide more, but I’m sure you still wouldn’t get my argument anyway. And you still only can have your own weak anecdotal evidence of whatever podunk company that you run. 

[MHSTigerFan]

3 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

Lol the point I was making clearly flew miles over your head. I wasn’t comparing the teachers at all and the fact you think I was is honestly hilarious. The comparison was how companies view the graduates of each in terms of their human capital. Educational history is clearly taken into account when companies are recruiting. High school education matters for college recruiting. And college matters for how much human capital companies view you as having. Go look up starting salaries out of college for Ivy leagues vs Public colleges if you really need evidence of this indisputable fact. Here’s an article from the official college admissions website about how sending your kids to private school increase their chances of getting into an elite college, which as just mentioned, increases their human capital in the job market. 

https://www.collegetransitions.com/blog/private-vs-public-hs/

So yes, I have plenty of evidence and could easily provide more, but I’m sure you still wouldn’t get my argument anyway. And you still only can have your own weak anecdotal evidence of whatever podunk company that you run. 

Wait, you say that employers target graduates of private high schools, presumably at the exclusion of graduates of public high schools, and then give me a link about college admissions?

You’re not very good at this.

[scarab527]

50 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Wait, you say that employers target graduates of private high schools, presumably at the exclusion of graduates of public high schools, and then give me a link about college admissions?

You’re not very good at this.

No, clearly you’re not very good at this. It seems you have a hard time following arguments. But if you want some anecdotal evidence, though, and more evidence than the scant amount you’ve asserted about what is likely your imaginary company, here in the Region, many of the Unions are filled with Andrean alumni. So much so, that in many of them, you can get your foot in the door just by being an alum yourself. I’ve heard similar stories about LCC and Eli Lilly. When I went to Andrean, local employers would literally come and recruit seniors every year to come work for them, and would always talk about how they preferred us to the public schools kids. These stories are really a microcosm of the superior job-networking you, in general, get at a private school compared to a public school, because of better-connected guidance counselors and more opportunities to harness these connections due to a smaller enrollment. Couple this with the fact that more and more jobs require a college degree, which a private high school education puts a person in a better position to obtain than their public school counterpart, and all the advantages a private school has over the average public school in terms of “human capital” are clear. The article I linked had all of this information, but I shouldn’t have expected you to read it anyway. But here’s another article that finds positive relationships between private high school education and career earnings, if I haven’t been clear enough for you. Hopefully you’ll actually read this one, but I doubt it. 

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10135.pdf

[Lysander]

Give me a few days before I feel like I can safely insert ANY comment or body part into this conversation.  Lots of stuff....kind of agree with some on both sides of this.  

Damn...guess I'm running for office......Hell, I did back in '84.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MHSTigerFan]

5 hours ago, scarab527 said:

But if you want some anecdotal evidence, though, and more evidence than the scant amount you’ve asserted about what is likely your imaginary company, here in the Region, many of the Unions are filled with Andrean alumni. So much so, that in many of them, you can get your foot in the door just by being an alum yourself. I’ve heard similar stories about LCC and Eli Lilly. When I went to Andrean, local employers would literally come and recruit seniors every year to come work for them, and would always talk about how they preferred us to the public schools kids. These stories are really a microcosm of the superior job-networking you, in general, get at a private school compared to a public school, because of better-connected guidance counselors and more opportunities to harness these connections due to a smaller enrollment. Couple this with the fact that more and more jobs require a college degree, which a private high school education puts a person in a better position to obtain than their public school counterpart, and all the advantages a private school has over the average public school in terms of “human capital” are clear. The article I linked had all of this information, but I shouldn’t have expected you to read it anyway. But here’s another article that finds positive relationships between private high school education and career earnings, if I haven’t been clear enough for you. Hopefully you’ll actually read this one, but I doubt it. 

http://ftp.iza.org/dp10135.pdf

First, my company is neither imaginary nor “podunk” - though, obviously, all things are relative.  But I really don’t care whether you believe that or not.  It’s of no consequence.

Second, if you assert simply that nepotism exists in various forms, that’s obviously true - but hardly indicative of employers as some kind of quantifiable rule giving favor to alums of private high schools.  You mention unions and in my experience skilled-trade unions are particularly ripe for nepotism....which typically involves legacy applicants irrespective of where they went to school.

Third, you whiffed again on your empirical evidence.  The study you linked had to do with a relationship between income and where somebody went to high school, not whether employers favor job applicants who went to private schools.  Interestingly, that study found a relational link for females but not so much for males.  It touches on various explanations, all of which seem logical but none of which being that employers leap down to the bottom of resumes to see where an applicant went to high school.

Are there any studies you came across actually showing what you claimed?  Because both of the ones you linked to show something else - and that’s a waste of both of our time.

[scarab527]

17 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

First, my company is neither imaginary nor “podunk” - though, obviously, all things are relative.  But I really don’t care whether you believe that or not.  It’s of no consequence.

Second, if you assert simply that nepotism exists in various forms, that’s obviously true - but hardly indicative of employers as some kind of quantifiable rule giving favor to alums of private high schools.  You mention unions and in my experience skilled-trade unions are particularly ripe for nepotism....which typically involves legacy applicants irrespective of where they went to school.

Third, you whiffed again on your empirical evidence.  The study you linked had to do with a relationship between income and where somebody went to high school, not whether employers favor job applicants who went to private schools.  Interestingly, that study found a relational link for females but not so much for males.  It touches on various explanations, all of which seem logical but none of which being that employers leap down to the bottom of resumes to see where an applicant went to high school.

Are there any studies you came across actually showing what you claimed?  Because both of the ones you linked to show something else - and that’s a waste of both of our time.

You don’t think nepotism happens at places other than unions? That’s funny. And is nepotism not just an overestimation of someone’s human capital, in this case based on where they went to school? You don’t think that happens at plenty other places? And the study found a 20% increase in female career earnings, that’s not significant? It also found a positive relationship among male earnings and private high school, just not as significant as females. Career earning power is a direct indication of how companies view you in terms of human capital. If you don’t think that counts as evidence, you’re the one wasting people’s time, but you’ve been doing this the whole time so it’s not surprising. The study also lists other studies which have shown positive relationships between career earnings and private high school. You haven’t understood my arguments this entire time which is funny. You keep saying my claim was that employers “leap down” to private high school graduates, which is obviously true in certain cases like I just mentioned and which you had no response. You’ve been arguing with everyone on this thread that PPs don’t have obvious advantages and honestly it’s looking very embarrassing and desperate on your part. Maybe when you pull your head out of the sand we can have a real conversation about this but I have a feeling that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Good day sir. 

[foxbat]

4 hours ago, Lysander said:

 

Damn...guess I'm running for office......Hell, I did back in '84.

 

Is that you Pat Paulsen? 🙂

 

[Titan32]

11 hours ago, Titan32 said:

Another valuable life lesson might be to always be honest with oneself.    With all due respect your position on this is a convenient mix of chest thumping and sticking your head in the sand. 

There are certain criteria that programs which win a lot of games have in common.  These aren't necessarily mine but they are the ones typically mentioned here on the GID and they are in no particular order:  quality feeder program, quality strength and agility systems, quality staff, community support and admin support.  I don't recall the consensus here on GID including coaching salaries or fancy facilities.  Those might be nice to have but hopefully we can all agree they aren't necessary to win more games than you lose.

The football guy in me almost falls for the "try harder" argument every time I see it on here, every year, over and over and over, but at the end of the day it's just  machismo and conjecture.

Let's face it, about the only thing in common with the P/P model and public model as a means of education is that they both have books and teenagers in the building.  One is a free legal requirement, the other offers a commodity.  In fact, it is a crime in Indiana to not educate your child between the ages of 7 and 16. 

Every public school, no matter how "affluent" their geographic based demographic is, have a percentage "X" of the student population that is only there because they have to be and another group, only marginally more motivated than the "have to be there group", that just kind of does what is required to get by.  All of my public school teacher friends reading this know exactly what I am talking about.

In stark contrast, when what you offer is a commodity, the ability to purchase a seat next to a like minded academically motivated quality student athlete, as a parent you expect/demand results for that purchase.  It's a free market service in which one can purchase the taylored academic/athletic experience of your choice.  Some families make huge sacrifices to purchase this service, they do so because the value is tremendous (academically and athletically) and has the likelihood of producing life long results.

Let's just say hypothetically that we have two secondary "schools", one public and one private both participating in the sport of football, both with all of the above qualities that the GID has determined to be necessary in order be successful ...AND...we will even kick in your coaches salaries and facilities....all equal.  Heck, we can even say the public is in a "good neighborhood" (meaning low free and assisted lunch kids etc.).  In addition, both schools have the exact same enrollment.  

Now, you have to bet $10,000 on which team will win more games over a decade.  Where do you put your chips??

Everyone reading this knows which team will win more games given an equal schedule.  It will play out that the public school will have ONE once in a decade team in which its random human capital will exceed the predicable human capital of the private school.  Said another way, I would pick the private school to win more games 9 of the 10 years, they will always have a higher number of quality athletes per capita.

To be clear I am not arguing for multiplier 2.0 or that success factor is perfect.  I am arguing that enrollment alone was really really broken.

It is simply not true that all things being equal privates are on the same playing field as publics.  It's simply not true that enrollment alone is an equitable way to "rate" these two vastly different educational models against each other for athletic competition.

 

 

 

No ever said where they would put their 10 grand in this highly hypothetical (or is it) scenario.