Multipliers Applied to Public Schools Currently?

[fiftyfifty]

What is your definition of "private school"?

 

I still say a "private school" is a school that receives no public tax dollars to operate.

 

Division I private schools choose not to give financial assistance.

Division II private schools choose to give financial assistance.

 

That's the reason Zion Christian Academy went DII this year.

At least that's what they told the Board of Directors.

It would allow them to offer "need based" financial aid.

Good for Zion, I am proud of them to elect to give financial aid where needed. Would it surprise you to know that in some states where the school is 100% Catholic still receives everything that a public school does, guess what it happens, just not in the south.

[mjgIII]

What is your definition of "private school"?

 

I still say a "private school" is a school that receives no public tax dollars to operate.

 

Division I private schools choose not to give financial assistance.

Division II private schools choose to give financial assistance.

 

That's the reason Zion Christian Academy went DII this year.

At least that's what they told the Board of Directors.

It would allow them to offer "need based" financial aid.

I believe DI private schools can give financial assistance, but the recipients are not allowed to participate in TSSAA sports. Much like the DII schools can give non need based financial aid, but those recipients are also not allowed to participate in TSSAA sports.

[fiftyfifty]

I believe DI private schools can give financial assistance, but the recipients are not allowed to participate in TSSAA sports. Much like the DII schools can give non need based financial aid, but those recipients are also not allowed to participate in TSSAA sports.

Funny, but beat to death. There is no such thing as non-need financial aid. You must be talking about an alumni going aginst the rules and paying for a kid to go to a school. Yes some schools lack integrity, both public and private.

Edited September 20, 2010 by stbulldog

[mjgIII]

Funny, but beat to death. There is no such thing as non-need financial aid. You must be talking about an alumni going aginst the rules and paying for a kid to go to a school. Yes some schools lack integrity, both public and private.

No, Baylor had a few kids this year receive merit based aid. I fact, they give out a couple of merit based aid packages per year. Only catch is that the recipients cannot participate in TSSAA sports. And I know of at least one DI school that gives out need based aid, but again, the recipients of the aid cannot participate in sports if they take it.

Edited September 20, 2010 by bkpres

[PHargis]

Certainly if you are going to mention there is a DI school doing that, you should mention the school without keeping anyone is suspense. Unless there is not one. Who is it? And what is the sport? Is it Wrestling? And sinced you post out of Chattanooga, is that where the school is?

Edited September 20, 2010 by PHargis

[fiftyfifty]

No, Baylor had a few kids this year receive merit based aid. I fact, they give out a couple of merit based aid packages per year. Only catch is that the recipients cannot participate in TSSAA sports. And I know of at least one DI school that gives out need based aid, but again, the recipients of the aid cannot participate in sports if they take it.

Still a dead horse. Yes any school Div I public or private cannot give need based financial aid or merit aid or any aid to a student unless no sports is part of the package. Any Div II school cannot give out non need financial aid to a student unless they don't play sports. Any Div II can give need based financial aid to a student and they can fully participate in all sports. I stated that there is no such thing as need based merit aid and thats true. That type of aid is purely voluntary on the part of the school and if it happens to be awarded to an athlete, they can't play sports. Some gift huh if you are an athlete. Why is it not need based, because if it was, the family would apply for need based financial aid so that their child's freedom would not be curtailed if the child wanted to play sports.

[fiftyfifty]

Certainly if you are going to mention there is a DI school doing that, you should mention the school without keeping anyone is suspense. Unless there is not one. Who is it? And what is the sport? Is it Wrestling? And sinced you post out of Chattanooga, is that where the school is?

Perhaps he chooses not to mention any names for dignity's sake. I not in suspence. The situation he mentions is absolutely correct if the school chooses. It obviously is a private school and they are free to give any aid of any kind to a non athlete. Whats the problem?

[PHargis]

No, Baylor had a few kids this year receive merit based aid. I fact, they give out a couple of merit based aid packages per year. Only catch is that the recipients cannot participate in TSSAA sports. And I know of at least one DI school that gives out need based aid, but again, the recipients of the aid cannot participate in sports if they take it.

I believe this has been posted on here before dealing with students in track who are great athletes but with academic aid cannot participate in TSSAA events. The rule is the rule but seems rather harsh. However, this has gotten way off the subject of Multipliers and I am opting out of the discussion. It seems every subject goes back to the same theme. Seems all students in private schools get aid of some type. Nothing wrong with that. Just two different educational systems, one for profit and one not.

[fiftyfifty]

I believe this has been posted on here before dealing with students in track who are great athletes but with academic aid cannot participate in TSSAA events. The rule is the rule but seems rather harsh. However, this has gotten way off the subject of Multipliers and I am opting out of the discussion. It seems every subject goes back to the same theme. Seems all students in private schools get aid of some type. Nothing wrong with that. Just two different educational systems, one for profit and one not.

No, all kids do not get aid in private schools. And Catholic schools who have the most private schools in this nation are not for profit. Its a shame anyone has to post this time after time especially in response to someone who knows the truth, but chooses to deny it for whatever reason.

[tradertwo]

No, all kids do not get aid in private schools. And Catholic schools who have the most private schools in this nation are not for profit. Its a shame anyone has to post this time after time especially in response to someone who knows the truth, but chooses to deny it for whatever reason.

OK, my two cents'worth.I believe that the multiplier was enacted to even the playing field,as the schools to which it was applied were deemed to have an unfair advantage with the abality to "recruit" the students that the administration felt would be assets,and/or having the abality to deny access or aid to others.I don't feel that bickering over small details serves to shed any light on the subject,or if it matters which(if any)religion is associated in any way with the administration.This is not a matter of which students recieve aid,or for that matter how much or for what it's to be applied,but for the potential to be offered to athleates as a recruiting aid.Simplicity is a lost art in our society,and people tend to put too much emphisis on minute details in the effort to disguise the spirit of the rule.I'll leave it to the lawyers and nitpickers to divulge the differences between DI and DII,and just state the obvious....if any type of assistance is offered to any student,by any person or entity with ties to the school,for any reason,the multiplier should be enacted...period.

Edited February 19, 2011 by tradertwo

[rollredroll]

OK, my two cents'worth.I believe that the multiplier was enacted to even the playing field,as the schools to which it was applied were deemed to have an unfair advantage with the abality to "recruit" the students that the administration felt would be assets,and/or having the abality to deny access or aid to others.I don't feel that bickering over small details serves to shed any light on the subject,or if it matters which(if any)religion is associated in any way with the administration.This is not a matter of which students recieve aid,or for that matter how much or for what it's to be applied,but for the potential to be offered to athleates as a recruiting aid.Simplicity is a lost art in our society,and people tend to put too much emphisis on minute details in the effort to disguise the spirit of the rule.I'll leave it to the lawyers and nitpickers to divulge the differences between DI and DII,and just state the obvious....if any type of assistance is offered to any student,by any person or entity with ties to the school,for any reason,the multiplier should be enacted...period.

 

If the multiplier exists to handicap schools with a perceived ability to recruit, then is there a need for Division II? Wouldn't placing the current DII schools in DI with a multiplier address the issue if it were an ability-to-recruit issue?

 

A quick internet search will show that the multiplier was applied to address the wide discrepancy in the extracurricular participation rates of private school students versus public school students. Prohibiting students who receive aid in DI from playing sports addresses the recruitment issue, not the multiplier.

Edited February 20, 2011 by rollredroll

[tradertwo]

If the multiplier exists to handicap schools with a perceived ability to recruit, then is there a need for Division II? Wouldn't placing the current DII schools in DI with a multiplier address the issue if it were an ability-to-recruit issue?

 

A quick internet search will show that the multiplier was applied to address the wide discrepancy in the extracurricular participation rates of private school students versus public school students. Prohibiting students who receive aid in DI from playing sports addresses the recruitment issue, not the multiplier.

I stated in my earlier post that I'd leave just this sort of hair splitting to the lawyers and the nitpickers,the minute differences between DII and DI do not intrest nor concern me.I think that the spirit of the rule was to differentiate between schools offering incintaves,and those who do not,and that the multiplier was formulated to equalize the chances of the latter against the former.I'll admit the fact freely that I don't understand(nor care to)all the differences between the two private divisions,but it's because it's of zero consequence to me and probably never will be.This thread is under the "public vs.private" topic,not the DI vs. DII,so I'll restrict my comments to the area of my own intrests.