Why do you WANT to stay together??

[VolunteerGeneral]

Posted by imasoftballer:

The thing that gets me is that most private school supports are quick to point out why they split away from public schools. Our teachers were not good enough, the rules were not good enough, the atmosphere was not good enough, the students were not good enough. Why then are our public school football teams good enough to play with and since you guys split away from the public education sysytem to begin with, why are you so dead-set against a sports split???

[Edited by imasoftballer on 10-3-02 1:50P]

 

 

 

Just a great example of your typical public school mentality of private schools.

 

 

VG

[ie3]

Posted by rollredroll:

Posted by ie3:

Posted by rollredroll:

Posted by imasoftballer:

The thing that gets me is that most private school supports are quick to point out why they split away from public schools. Our teachers were not good enough, the rules were not good enough, the atmosphere was not good enough, the students were not good enough. Why then are our public school football teams good enough to play with and since you guys split away from the public education sysytem to begin with, why are you so dead-set against a sports split???

[Edited by imasoftballer on 10-3-02 1:50P]

 

I am confused by this post. For one, I was under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that it was a few public schools (particularly one in Murfreesboro) which led the split charge.

 

Am I missing something here?

[Edited by rollredroll on 10-3-02 3:53P]

 

I think you have totally missed the point. It is crystal clear in this post: If the public schools are not good enough to go to school with, what makes them good enough to play ball with? A very valid question, and one that most public school supporters are asking. It all boils down to you (private schoolers) wanted away from us, now why don't you just leave us alone? Clear enough? :confused:

 

No, it's not clear enough. As I said, I was under the impression that it was a group of public schools (primarily one in Murfreesboro) that led the charge to split. According to imasoftballer, the privates are "so dead-set against a sports split". If that's the case, why would they have led the charge to split in the first place? What private school(s) are you saying led the charge to split?

 

This comment makes no sense either: "If the public schools are not good enough to go to school with, what makes them good enough to play ball with?" What in the world? If one is attending a private school, how can he/she attend a public school (and vice versa) at the same time??? Admittedly, I haven't read every single post on this site, but who on here (and where) said that public school students "were not good enough to go to school with"? Even if someone said it, what does that have to do with what kind of schools (public or private) a school chooses to play?

 

Maybe I can clarify for you. The original "split" referred to (I thought very clearly, but I will simplify), is the choice to leave (or never attend) a public school in the first place. Many private school supporters speak time and again, on this and every other board, about the superiority of their schools over the public schools. It is an oft repeated refrain. However, when it comes to sports, the refrain changes to one of "no advantages". I am truly frustrated by the circular nature of the arguments presented here. VG, there is not vindictive mentality here, only the desire to see a level playing field. We may not agree on what that level playing field is, but we all have that desire. To constantly belittle others as so many on here do, it only serves to solidify everyone in their individual viewpoints.

The question was asked what the separation of educational opportunities had to do with athletic opportunities. To put it bluntly: Many public school supporters are angered, frustrated, and downright insulted at the elitist attitude that some private school supporters adopt on this board. And the way that attitude carries over into the field of athletic endeavor on too many occasions. I don't pretend to know the answer to the problem, but at least I can recognize there is one. The main problem I see is that the majority of people in this argument measure athletic respect, athletic achievement, and competitiveness by the number of state championships a particular program has won. To be competitive you do not have to win a state championship. There are many teams in this state that consistently win the vast majority of thier games, are we to assume that just because they do not have the gold football they are not competitive? Whether or not a private school wins the championship is not the issue here. It is the fairness of the level of competition. If a school has the ability to draw high level achievers from the entire Metro area, IT IS NOT the equal of a team that draws from an entire county and only has 300 students of all types. There is no way to justify them playing together that makes any kind of sense.

 

By the way, this quote is precious "This comment makes no sense either: "If the public schools are not good enough to go to school with, what makes them good enough to play ball with?" What in the world? If one is attending a private school, how can he/she attend a public school (and vice versa) at the same time???" I do hope that was an attempt at levity, and not an attempt to desparage the feelings of the many of your peers. And that is the question asked in private on many occasions.

[rollredroll]

Posted by ie3:

 

Maybe I can clarify for you. The original "split" referred to (I thought very clearly, but I will simplify), is the choice to leave (or never attend) a public school in the first place. Many private school supporters speak time and again, on this and every other board, about the superiority of their schools over the public schools. It is an oft repeated refrain. However, when it comes to sports, the refrain changes to one of "no advantages". I am truly frustrated by the circular nature of the arguments presented here. VG, there is not vindictive mentality here, only the desire to see a level playing field. We may not agree on what that level playing field is, but we all have that desire. To constantly belittle others as so many on here do, it only serves to solidify everyone in their individual viewpoints.

The question was asked what the separation of educational opportunities had to do with athletic opportunities. To put it bluntly: Many public school supporters are angered, frustrated, and downright insulted at the elitist attitude that some private school supporters adopt on this board. And the way that attitude carries over into the field of athletic endeavor on too many occasions. I don't pretend to know the answer to the problem, but at least I can recognize there is one. The main problem I see is that the majority of people in this argument measure athletic respect, athletic achievement, and competitiveness by the number of state championships a particular program has won. To be competitive you do not have to win a state championship. There are many teams in this state that consistently win the vast majority of thier games, are we to assume that just because they do not have the gold football they are not competitive? Whether or not a private school wins the championship is not the issue here. It is the fairness of the level of competition. If a school has the ability to draw high level achievers from the entire Metro area, IT IS NOT the equal of a team that draws from an entire county and only has 300 students of all types. There is no way to justify them playing together that makes any kind of sense.

 

By the way, this quote is precious "This comment makes no sense either: "If the public schools are not good enough to go to school with, what makes them good enough to play ball with?" What in the world? If one is attending a private school, how can he/she attend a public school (and vice versa) at the same time???" I do hope that was an attempt at levity, and not an attempt to desparage the feelings of the many of your peers. And that is the question asked in private on many occasions.

 

My apologies if I didn't understand the context of the word "split". Use the word "split" on this board and one almost automatically thinks of the public/private (DI vs. DII) split. You can make your point without the sarcasm.

 

I still don't understand why you call your own quote (with my comments mixed in) "precious". Even in the context of the "split" to which you are referring, I don't understand why private school kids wouldn't want to play certain public school kids if that public school is a worthy opponent (or even if it's not). A student's, and/or his parents', choice to attend a private school is usually (not always, but usually) for academic/college placement purposes. When it comes to the athletic fields, that's all thrown out the window. As horrible as this sounds (and it's not a comment I condone, so don't call me out on this), in the spirit of the way you are referring to the word "split", a private school kid is shunning a public school more for academic purposes than for athletic purposes. When it comes to the playing fields, trust me, most (not all) private school kids do not see themselves at an advantage versus public school kids. Go watch a private school with high academic standards (MBA, MUS, McCallie, to name a few) play a big public school like D-B, Gallatin, Riverdale, etc. and tell me how much of an advantage that private school has. Look at the numbers on the sidelines. Look at the size of the kids on the sidelines. Sure, the private school may win some of those matchups, but it's not because of a boatload of recruited athletes - what you see in front of your eyes would bear that out.

 

As I have said time and time again (and if you want to talk about questions being unanswered..), while private schools do have the advantage of "no zones", throw in the academic, financial, and/or character standards that are considered in the private school acceptance process, and the pool from which to choose is not as large as you may think. My mother - a public school teacher for thirty years - taught some academically-challenged kids, some kids from low income families, some kids with run-ins with the law. Some of these kids were athletes. Most of those kids played for the schools they attended; most, if not all, of those same kids likely would not have made it at a private school (probably would not have made it into the school in the first place). I am not being an "elitist" by saying that; I'm just being a realist (not that I necessarily agree with the way it works).

 

So much is said of the fact that "private schools can take anyone". Oddly enough, in the context of my last statement, so can public schools - at an advantage over a private school.

[Edited by rollredroll on 10-4-02 12:02A]

 

[VolunteerGeneral]

rollredroll....thanks for bringing up the point about the myth that private schools have this unlimited population base to get kids from. For some reason, many involved in this debate want to look at Nashville`s private schools as if they are the only ones out there. There are 3 in Madison County which has a population of around 90,000 people. I`ll admit that they have a few students from the outlying rural counties, but the biggest majority of the kids are from Madison County. After you take away kids that could never afford to attend a private school, which in this county would be a good chunk of the population and then take away those who would never consider a private school, then take that number and didvide it between the 3 private schools and you find yourself with a very small segment of the populus that they can find potential students. I laugh when people want to say how private schools can get kids from all over the state. They are either in denial or just ignorant.

[imasoftballer]

They CAN get them from all over the state and outside the state if they choose to! Now, that is not to say that every private school does, but thay can if they choose to. If you are tring to say that they don't take kids from outside their own counties, then you are kidding yourself. The ting about the number game you play is... we are talking about usually larger metro areas, these private schools take kids that would otherwise be in 4a or 5a schools and bring them down to 1a or 2a because of their "so called" limitations of superior education and money!

 

Don't get me wrong, I think private schools serve a wonderful purpose. I went to a private college myself. I just wonder why the private colleges are not the powerhouses that private high schools are?

[TheEgoHasLanded]

It is very difficult for private colleges to do well in sports, mostly because of budgets...

 

Duke

Vanderbilt

Northwestern

 

and a few others have outstanding academics and it is hard to get 70-80 kids/athletes/scholars on a team that can play together...

[imasoftballer]

Why are the same things not so for private high schools?

[imasoftballer]

I'm not from Linden!

And by the way, we have a private school withing 35 miles of us. They are near rural areas also and they have a bigger impact on us than they do on some of those larger metro teams!!! It total wiped out our basketball team in one year. BTW, the private school made it to the state finals that year! Linden beat them that year!

[Edited by imasoftballer on 10-4-02 9:45A]

 

[imasoftballer]

One private schooler says "we are limited because we have such high academic standards" another says "private schools really help the middle of the road kids because of individuall attention." Who is getting in? The smartest kids or the middle of the road athelete? If they are taking the middle of the road kids, man, their student base just got a lot bigger! The money issue? Please! There are so many ways around that, it's unbelievable.

[Edited by imasoftballer on 10-4-02 9:55A]

[TheEgoHasLanded]

softballer...

 

private colleges give scholarships to athletes...private schools either don't give scholarships, or they give financial aide...thats the difference right there, private schools are some what limited on who they can get, as opposed to private colleges, who can technically can get anyone who is willing to work and is eligible.

 

I would not compare a private college to a private school...they are very different.

[imasoftballer]

Posted by TheEgoHasLanded:

softballer...

 

private colleges give scholarships to athletes...private schools either don't give scholarships, or they give financial aide...thats the difference right there, private schools are some what limited on who they can get, as opposed to private colleges, who can technically can get anyone who is willing to work and is eligible.

 

I would not compare a private college to a private school...they are very different.

 

I just wonder why the private high schools seem to have more success when the colleges have more advantages such as scholarships and whatnot.

 

Oh, and "technically", the private high schools can take anyone who is willing to work and is eligible.

[Edited by imasoftballer on 10-4-02 10:23A]

 

[imasoftballer]

Why do private school want to stay together? No one has said why yet. Could it be that they want to stay with us to prove their superiority??? I am one who says if a public school wants to schedule a private school during the regualr season, then byall means do so. But come playoff time the two should be separated.