Dear God, total dismissal of the proposal because the person who put it together probably as a side project had a few errors? If it was implemented, everything would be combed over much more thoroughly and reviewed by so many stakeholders.
Without a doubt social economics has more to do with winning and losing than any other factor, and as you have pointed out with facts it still stands true BUT no one really cares about a real fair classification processes, each only wants what favors them the best
amazing how quickly this topic and the facts shutdown conversation and how quickly no one will discuss it Just look at this thread. Like I said they most do not want a fair system they just want a system that helps only the schools they care about
Interesting for sure. I'll try & crunch #s and see who'd fall where. Reduced/free % is on NE Dept of Ed site.
You are correct. I don't know that the numbers they consider are Free/Reduced lunch, but they do use some type of socio-economic factors.
LOL I am curious to what connection your are trying to make to that and high school sports in Nebraska
I have tried to search for this data in the past. There is some pretty involved research out there, but it is tough reading and doesn't really address your question directly.
I said it the first time I saw this slide presentation, and I will say it again.
Some great information but lol it just like free and reduce talk will kill this thread Nobody wants to actually look at facts
The most obvious of all. If poor kids aren't athletes, then maybe you can use an arbitrary milepost as a guide. If they can be athletic, a different metric is obviously called for.
you know its not if the are athletic You know its an issue. you know the facts have been around for awhile and in every state they show this, you know this but you will fight it because it may effect your school It will effect mine also but it is the fairest system used for classification
Disadvantaged kids have poorer nutrition, less opportunities that cost $, less paid lessons, have less $ to purchase equipment, etc.
If that is true, the number would HAVE to bear out at the level past High School as well. Prove to me that poor kids are less represented at the D1 level and then we'll talk. Using tired, old sterotypes to excuse awful culture and hideous coaching doesn't cut it, just because you say so. I would argue a LOT of factors affect those things far more than SIMPLY (in every sense of the word) using income status.
So...just poor, UNATHLETIC kids are at a disadvantage in sports? Poor ATHLETIC kids aren't? Got it.
I believe that research paper I posted above does prove that "poor kids" are less represented at the D1 Level.
Sure.. Take 2% of the HS athletes who move on to play D1 and use that data point, sounds reasonable.
I like the logic, but the Pell Grant data is a rough one to use (in my opinion). Volleyball, Baseball, Softball, Basketball (to a degree), Tennis, Bowling, Golf, Gymnastics ...... these are all "sports of the rich". These sports will really tug that Pell Grant number down.
It is really hard to find solid data on this. I am certain that it exists, but the detailed and segregated data is probably not something that Universities willingly share.
very well put. they wont stay on topic because they have no case, no matter what facts you show people some will never except it
To add to your post, I feel it's important to point out how difficult it is to interpret the data that is available. It's really confusing.
I would agree with that, the format could use a lot of work
