Harvard 2022-23: What's Up?

[BadgerPete]

In my opinion, the thing about the history off it isn't the reaction to behaviors and attitudes from two decades ago, but the obstinate refusal for any reflection, adaptation, or adjustment as the general public understanding of toxicity in sport has changed. I can give some leeway to stories from the 1990s as a product of their times, but the fact that they have clearly endured without any evolution in style is mind-boggling and shows that there isn't likely to be any changes.

And other people have said it, but the thing that I just can't wrap my head around is that this is not a good hockey program right now. They've been in the bottom half of the ECAC four of the last six years. They haven't appeared in the ECAC Championship game since 2015. They have one NCAA appearance since then and were promptly dispatched by UMD. And there's no sign that this team is on the verge of improvement. Their highest scoring sophomore was Davidson Adams with a 13 point season, and their highest scoring returning first year is Sophie Ensley with just 2 points. (It was Jade Arnone with 8 when I posted this, but she portaled just hours later.) No returning first year scored a goal last year. It's always tough to evaluate incoming recruits, but in terms of the high-level players that can change programs, Harvard has 0 commits from the U18 Worlds Teams of the US and Canada. (Colgate has 4, Cornell has 4, Clarkson has 3, Princeton has 3.) There's just no sign that this program is on the verge of anything.

If this was someone with the recent track record of Johnson or Desrosiers with multiple titles and consistent NCAA tournaments, I wouldn't condone it but I'd at least understand it. if this was Nadine Muzzerall who had just built a juggernaut from almost nothing I'd be able to comprehend it. But this is a lot of negative press and potential long-lasting damage to a program for what is currently maybe the 7th best team in the ECAC. I get the rich history, but in the geologic ages of sport we are talking distant history. I just fail to see how the cost-benefit sheet balances at all here.

 

[thirdtime's . . .]

She would say often "mind over matter". She would take pride in pushing players beyond what they believe they are capable of. She would demand a "team first" focus. She would use approaches that really got inside players' heads. Captains would indeed promote compliance. She would make examples of players who failed to comply. A typical team might have a fourth line that rarely played and a third line whose playing time was quite variable. ..........................

Now when players struggled in this system, and struggled with their mental health, did Coach Stone go too far in berating them and hurting them? I think the answer is a clear yes. I have talked myself with her about one player who had struggled 20 years ago and left the team. I had hoped, at the very least, she would recognize that there was a risk that not taking care of the mental health of players who left the team: aside from being the obvious right thing to do, it could easily lead to the program blowing up.

Things did indeed blow up. You’re a reluctant witness for the prosecution.

“Mind over matter” can be perverse if someone gets inside your head and the matter at issue is your own body. “Team first” can similarly be perverse when it becomes a mantra, rather than the truism it is, even as a significant number of players aren’t really asked to contribute to the team (e.g., the habitual short bench). And let’s not forget what precipitated the lid blowing off this program: key team contributors by anybody’s definition felt so alienated that they left the program. So Stone’s “team" had no Daniels, no Macdonald and no Thompson (along with no Reed) — (7-21-3).

(Btw, no one seems to be tarring all Harvard hockey alums with Stone’s brush. I’m not getting that from the Athletic or the Globe, however sensation hungry they might otherwise be.)

P.S. For those Ivy Leaguers who don't normally follow the Transfer Portal thread, see what Trillium is reporting over there.

 

[Skate79]

So that is precisely where I see the failings in Harvard Hockey and Katey Stone, and the issues I mention are not trivial. But I also find it tremendously unfair and false to characterize Stone's system and Harvard hockey's culture as inherently abusive, and to characterize all Harvard Hockey alumni and Stone supporters as perpetuating a cycle of abuse. And yes, if you are pushing the accusation that the whole Harvard system has been abusive under Katey Stone, you are saying that all Harvard women's hockey alums are abusers. There is no between. You don't get to pick and choose the Harvard women's hockey alums that you like. You are then asserting that A.J. Mleczko, Jennifer Botterill, Angela Ruggiero, and Julie Chu are all abusers. You are also accusing me personally of having ignored and enabled a wide system of abuse. These implications do not ring true to me.

Dave, I don't think anyone is making this about the Harvard system or all Harvard women hockey alums. That would be grossly unfair and obviously inaccurate as has been borne out by the Harvard women alums who have spoken out about the abuse. What is being discussed is Coach Stone's obvious failings as a head coach and mentor to young women. She runs the program and so it stands to reason that the culture of the program is a direct outgrowth of her temperament, character and personality. It's that way with any program, for better or worse. The players that perpetuated the abuse, hazing and bullying were doing so to curry favor with Stone or perhaps they found the culture to be to their liking and did it once they realized that Stone would not punish them. Whatever the reason, it didn't stop and got worse over time to the point where the program is now considered in the lower tier of the ECAC. If nothing else, performance is a byproduct of a culture that is failing miserably.

 

[dave1381]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm curious to know what anyone thinks: if the media then, say, USCHO or The Crimson, had the handful of players who left the team 20 years ago on the record with their criticisms of Coach Stone, would they have resonated then? This would've encompassed some of the criticisms of body shaming, mind control, disregard for mental health, and pushing hard once medically cleared from injuries.

My view is it would've been a much taller order for those players. They would've been smaller in numbers compared to the wins and Frozen Fours. Even the mass of players coming forward today gets outright dismissed by some as whiners. It was easy to take down coaches back then who were accused of physical abuse, but any language and education on emotional abuse or toxicity was not as mainstream. And even if well-meaning, it's easier to dismiss a few players as isolated cases and not parts of a systemic problem. (A) "Yeah, I agree, Coach Stone went too far there, but I can understand the criticism because this player's actions put other extracurricular ambitions before a No. 1-ranked hockey team." (B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on." I confess (A) and (B) were my own thoughts at the time, and even to some extent today.

 

[ARM]

(B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on."

You, Skate79, and others in this thread can likely better speak to how much of a unique sacrifice this would be. One of the big selling points to these student athletes is walking out the door with a degree that says Harvard on it. Now these young ladies are being asked to choose: give up on the dream of earning a Harvard degree, or give up on the dream of playing D-I hockey. From the outside looking in, I don't know that the dilemma existed to the same extent in that era at any other program, considering both the name recognition of the degree and the competitiveness of the hockey team.

 

[Prowler]

(A) "Yeah, I agree, Coach Stone went too far there, but I can understand the criticism because this player's actions put other extracurricular ambitions before a No. 1-ranked hockey team." (B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on." I confess (A) and (B) were my own thoughts at the time, and even to some extent today.

I think any allegations of the like from 20 or more years ago pale in comparison to what is being reported on now. I don't say this to dismiss any of these old allegations, but more so to point to the seriousness of the recent ones.. None of the players in recent reporting are saying they were pushed to hard (when they were of able body) and as the Athletic podcast stated nobody is saying "Oh Coach Stone yells too much" and nobody was complaining about ice time or what line they were on. This report boils down, at least to me, to the outright abuse to some players. as in players struggling with mental health issues, (because of her) and being told to "Toughen up and don't be a burden to your team mates" or "Your a disgrace to the program and don't deserve to wear the jersey" for missing a practice they weren't allowed to participate in because of a head injury. Or being pressured to play through a serious hip injury that later required surgery to rectify. I could go on but we have all read the reporting, and some have intimate knowledge of the situation. I also want to reiterate what a few have said above, that I don't believe anyone is painting all HWH Alum with the same brush at all. This all boils down to one person and her toxic behavior's over decades behind the bench and has left a trail of suffering women in her wake. I feel sorry for the Alum of the past that maybe did have a positive experience on the team and were possibly blind to what was happening around them. I don't blame them in the slightest. they were a product of their environment and struggling in their own way to make it in that environment. I honestly believe that a lot of this is breaking news to them. There was maybe even a few stretches where this kind of treatment wasn't happening at all. Maybe when the team was on a high note and at the top of their game, but after witnessing the 21/22 season and the success they had right up until playoffs started, I kind of doubt it. It is obvious now that this abuse is, and has been happening and running rampant for over a decade now, and that is what she needs to answer for. Team First? She has no clue...

 

[tedlasso]

Much of the discourse here has been very thoughtful and well written. There are different opinions all with a basis in some reality.

What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of Harvard, always holding itself out as holier than thou with moral superiority, but then really never actually standing up and doing the right thing. We can argue back and forth the merits of what Katey did or didn't do, but at some point, if the team itself is the most unhappy and having the worst experience of over 50 NCAA D1 teams at your school, shouldn't that be enough? I believe it is well documented that Harvard Womens Hockey finished dead last in student satisfaction and experience. Why should individual players have to blow the whistle or complain if the entire team has told you their feelings. Harvard considers itself an educational institution that is student-centric. But that is simply a farce. Kids are going to your school with zero scholarship money and you are providing them with an awful experience. Hmmmmm. Isn't that enough?

Part of this falls on the AD. She needs to go. I have no idea why she was hired, but even throughout the pandemic, it was clear she was in over her head. No chance Harvard will replace her, but she is simply not up to the task.

This third-party investigation will move forward, and I am sure the school will ultimately issue communication with platitudes and form diction. It won't mean anything at all and it won't be sincere. The time for sincere has come and gone a long time ago. The school simply does not care about its athletes. Period.

The school is the farthest from sincere that I have seen in my experience. But Harvard is Harvard after all, and I don't think they really care. Someone on this thread at one point mentioned that some accountability goes to the student-athlete in seeking out the mental health resources that are available. I agree with the poster that wrote seeking help has its pitfalls. You can be ostracized in this environment just by asking for help.

But beyond the perceptions that go with seeking help, the reality of the situation at Harvard is that you can't get help even if you try! During the 2021-2022 school year, students were waiting 6-8 weeks to see a mental health professional on campus provided by the school. Two months!! If this is the best Harvard can do, that is pretty sad.

 

[Trillium]

Thanks for all your thoughts. I'm curious to know what anyone thinks: if the media then, say, USCHO or The Crimson, had the handful of players who left the team 20 years ago on the record with their criticisms of Coach Stone, would they have resonated then? This would've encompassed some of the criticisms of body shaming, mind control, disregard for mental health, and pushing hard once medically cleared from injuries.

My view is it would've been a much taller order for those players. They would've been smaller in numbers compared to the wins and Frozen Fours. Even the mass of players coming forward today gets outright dismissed by some as whiners. It was easy to take down coaches back then who were accused of physical abuse, but any language and education on emotional abuse or toxicity was not as mainstream. And even if well-meaning, it's easier to dismiss a few players as isolated cases and not parts of a systemic problem. (A) "Yeah, I agree, Coach Stone went too far there, but I can understand the criticism because this player's actions put other extracurricular ambitions before a No. 1-ranked hockey team." (B) "I understand Coach Stone has been very demanding both mentally and physically. If you know staying on the team is bad for your longer-term health, I agree you've made the smart decision leaving the team, and we should all carry on." I confess (A) and (B) were my own thoughts at the time, and even to some extent today.

Old-school coaching was clearly far more acceptable 20 years ago than it is today, and blind obedience to authority was also. Twenty years ago she was also basking in the halo of a recent National Championship, and top players were attracted to Harvard for both it's education and it's winning ways. When you're winning, a lot of other issues are overlooked.

This isn't at all about someone merely pushing players to be their best. I find it curious that these articles which reference (among other things) examples of players who were either cut or forced to play despite injuries and serious illnesses--which may have resulted permanent health consequences--were minimized in favour of offering opinions and discussion instead on whether hazing is bad and whether Stone even knew about it. I know of many more such examples from a decade ago of her belittling players, calling them lazy/selfish/worthless, not worthy of the jersey etc as a result of these assorted physical ailments inconveniently getting in the way of "team first" aka "Stone first". These more recent examples open a lot of wounds for those with similar experience years previously, and perhaps for many also guilt for not having done anything to stop the cycle of abuse for the next generation.

Similarly Stone leading a chant of "We hate Mac", which was mentioned as being an ongoing tactic across multiple years to others, among 7 of 30 of the athletes interviewed. This is sick and surely can no way be condoned by anyone, winning or not.

The obvious goal of "team first" should be team unity, and going through the wall for your teammates. It seems to be a forgotten underlying message in the articles that Stone is actually a textbook case in what not to do if you want team unity. While some may believe that athletes who felt like they were an unwitting participant in the Mental Health Hunger Games, or the Stanford Prison Experiment is an over the top characterization, when I read the articles, it completely resonated with and characterized our own experience years prior as well . This is not something to be minimized, it has created long-standing trauma for many, which still runs deep. How can anyone justify her tactics? Teammates unable to trust each other knowing that private information is being ferried to Stone about your off-ice habits, teammates inexplicably being among the favoured ones, or the scapegoats, with no information as to why or how to escape it. So inevitably, year after year, "the longer the season goes, the more the team just falls apart, because she pits us against each other". And the burn book from Mean Girls in real life?!? It would be scary if people condoned this just because the team was successful. However, the team has had a sub-.500 season 4 of the last 6, so clearly much is wrong. And now that the issues within the culture have been publicly exposed, recruiting can only become even more challenging.

I do find it very disturbing that there is a tendency among many to dismiss these stories as isolated cases, when players across three decades were interviewed, with similar examples. Or to try to blame it, as the administration and alumni reps did, on pampered over-privileged kids. While there is no doubt that over-privilege is a huge problem in society and sports, it does not explain why Harvard Women's Hockey came dead last in a survey of all Harvard athletic teams for satisfaction and team culture, or why attrition from the program is much higher than that of other D1 schools. In the last 5 years, an alarming 41% (so far!) of incoming players have already left the program. Attrition has also been higher than the norm for a couple of decades.

Someone mentioned a while back that players/alums from the favored set continue to come to Stone's defence because they are unwilling to face the fact that their status never actually stemmed from the meritocracy myth she propagated, and also don't want their own reputations tarnished for enabling the abuse. In general, people have a huge problem accepting information that undermines their own belief system.

While Dave doesn't think it's fair to find various alums at all culpable, I find it very hard to agree. What happened to Vanessa McCafferty, being ostracized merely for expressing a balanced viewpoint rather than continuing to mythologize Stone, is inexcusable and evidence of cultish behaviours. You can't just be a bystander to abuse, even if you were personally treated well. Someone has to step up to enact change. Because no one did, not only did their teammates facing life-altering trauma, but athletes decades later are continuing to experience what may be escalating abuse. So, in my books, I feel all alums are in some way accountable for allowing this fiasco to continue, with those coming out publicly in support of Stone to be especially worthy of scorn. It took great courage for those who spoke on the record for The Globe and The Athletic to come forward. They no longer have anything to gain personally from doing so, and are being villainized by some for speaking out.

 

[Still Eeyore]

What bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of Harvard, always holding itself out as holier than thou with moral superiority, but then really never actually standing up and doing the right thing.

Being Harvard means pretending that one isn't a part of the oligarchy.

 

[Skate79]

You, Skate79, and others in this thread can likely better speak to how much of a unique sacrifice this would be. One of the big selling points to these student athletes is walking out the door with a degree that says Harvard on it. Now these young ladies are being asked to choose: give up on the dream of earning a Harvard degree, or give up on the dream of playing D-I hockey. From the outside looking in, I don't know that the dilemma existed to the same extent in that era at any other program, considering both the name recognition of the degree and the competitiveness of the hockey team.

If I had to choose between my degree and giving up a sport that I love dearly, it would have been the hardest choice I would ever have had to make, bar none. Given the pressure from parents and family, the degree would have won out. Fortunately, I didn't have to make that choice which is why I feel bad for the young women who did have to make that choice, driven by abhorrent behavior from a coach who deemed loyalty to her and her program more important that an Ivy education.

In the end, the degree stays with you for life and creates a network of alumni who can be incredibly helpful as your career begins to blossom. I love hockey today as much as I did as a youngster playing on ponds or rinks. But I think I would love it much less if I had to endure the abuse some of these players have suffered during their time at Harvard. And like the degree, the effects of that abuse can last a lifetime if not properly treated and healed. The fallout doesn't go away when you graduate.

 

[Trillium]

If I could go back and make one different choice in my life, it would most definitely be not allowing my daughter to go to Harvard. I had strong reservations about Stone to begin with, but if I’d known a fraction of what has since become public knowledge hell would freeze over first. A toxic coach combined with a school that condones it—not a chance

 

[dave1381]

You, Skate79, and others in this thread can likely better speak to how much of a unique sacrifice this would be. One of the big selling points to these student athletes is walking out the door with a degree that says Harvard on it. Now these young ladies are being asked to choose: give up on the dream of earning a Harvard degree, or give up on the dream of playing D-I hockey. From the outside looking in, I don't know that the dilemma existed to the same extent in that era at any other program, considering both the name recognition of the degree and the competitiveness of the hockey team.

These points are true in general, though for the player I am referencing, hockey was not all-consuming for her, and she had already had the kind of D-I career most would wish for. So for her the decision to leave was easier.

I think any allegations of the like from 20 or more years ago pale in comparison to what is being reported on now.

While I wish that were true from the perspective of my own peace of mind about all this, the mental health concerns were still there for these two players I referenced who quit the team 20 years ago.

What is really different in the recent allegations is (1) the cumulative numbers of players affected, and (2) the extent to which players are calling out the broader culture enforced by team captains and the alumni and accustations of hazing. I take (1) very seriously and I still think (2) is largely nonsense.

I find it curious that these articles which reference (among other things) examples of players who were either cut or forced to play despite injuries and serious illnesses--which may have resulted permanent health consequences--were minimized in favour of offering opinions and discussion instead on whether hazing is bad and whether Stone even knew about it.

I agree 100% the articles were focused on the wrong issues. Part of this is these stories involve "hazing beat" reporters who may focus too much on hazing.

I do find it very disturbing that there is a tendency among many to dismiss these stories as isolated cases, when players across three decades were interviewed, with similar examples.

To be clear, I am no longer of that view, now that I've read The Globe and The Athletic articles and fully processed everything.

Of course, I did dismiss these as isolated cases 20 years ago. The player who left the team I spoke with in depth 20 years ago did think something was deeply systemically wrong here. I honestly disagreed. It's clear to me now that she was right. Too many people have been hurt now.

Now part of the reason I was dismissive of a systemic problem 20 years ago is the broader rot of Harvard Athletics and of college athletics in general. I knew many Harvard athletes 20 years ago who left teams and who felt their coaches were manipulative (in ways that may be termed "emotionally abusive" today but I sure didn't appreciate the concept back then). I knew other people my age with eating disorders. So it was easier to dismiss a couple players from Harvard who had problems, while the whole rest of the team seemed ecstatic with each other and with their success. Meanwhile, around the same time I was speaking with Northeastern players who were telling me they were physically abused by their coach. So in this context, it was easier for me to downplay systemic problems with Harvard Hockey. Of course, I still could've done more, even in this context.

Someone has to step up to enact change. Because no one did, not only did their teammates facing life-altering trauma, but athletes decades later are continuing to experience what may be escalating abuse. So, in my books, I feel all alums are in some way accountable for allowing this fiasco to continue, with those coming out publicly in support of Stone to be especially worthy of scorn. It took great courage for those who spoke on the record for The Globe and The Athletic to come forward. They no longer have anything to gain personally from doing so, and are being villainized by some for speaking out.

I agree that the players speaking out against Stone required courage. Understandably though, the players speaking out have tried to throw everything at this problem, regardless of the merits. The criticisms though are a mix of serious issues and others which are exaggerated. We can appreciate them but not stand by entirely while they tar the alumni as much as they want. So I can understand that the immediate reaction from alums would be that those speaking out were "petty and vindicative". There are elements of the criticism of Coach Stone that are quite serious, and I also find some of the complaints about the alumni and the broader team culture to be more vindicative. Still, I don't blame the victims for feeling vindictive in this situation! I see no other way this process was going to play out, sadly. What's most important is that the players who spoke out, their voices have been heard, and an investigation is happening.

 

[Trillium]

I agree that the players speaking out against Stone required courage. Understandably though, the players speaking out have tried to throw everything at this problem, regardless of the merits. The criticisms though are a mix of serious issues and others which are exaggerated.

I'm very curious what you think has been exaggerated? My own reaction to reading the articles was that none of it was exaggerated at all. My thought was that it had barely scratched the surface of the deep problems with so many examples noted that brought to my mind similar other examples over long periods of time. I was annoyed that there was so much focus on hazing, which was far down the list of issues, and believe that so much focus on that, unfortunately obscured so much of her most disturbing and pathological behaviours. There are many examples of her perpetual "Stone First" rather than "Team First" agenda that have not even been addressed yet.

Any one of these things, to which is added the long term decline in team performance, high program attrition, and appallingly poor student satisfaction surveys on culture should individually have been enough to get her fired. That Harvard's administration has continued to double down in support of her in the face of all these facts is damning of the level of rot within the institution. And unfortunately not at all surprising to me whatsoever.

 

[Cornholio]

Trillium - is the Harvard degree worth it to your D? It seems the players who chose an ivy path want the name on the degree and are willing to pass up scholarship money, fewer games and only 4 years (no matter what) of eligibility for that ivy degree. Did your D enjoy her ivy experience and the contacts she made at school, and whatever professional doors that open, or is that overblown? Just curious.

 

[Trillium]

Trillium - is the Harvard degree worth it to your D? It seems the players who chose an ivy path want the name on the degree and are willing to pass up scholarship money, fewer games and only 4 years (no matter what) of eligibility for that ivy degree. Did your D enjoy her ivy experience and the contacts she made at school, and whatever professional doors that open, or is that overblown? Just curious.

That's a complicated question to answer.

I do have more than one child with an Ivy League degree. If I look at how their career trajectories compare with the majority of their former classmates who chose non-Ivy schools, there is no question that their careers and long-term financial prospects were enhanced quite a bit by the opportunity. And yes, doors were opened with companies simply because of where they went to school. The network in our experience is overrated, it's mostly the name and prestige of the schools themselves that matters. I think the network matters far more for males because of the "old boys club".

In the case of my D who went to Harvard, if we had to do it over again--with her or her siblings--we would never again chose Harvard. The negative impact on her physical and emotional well-being and her self-confidence was life altering. That alone, despite the positives, is enough reason to not do it. Our experiences with the holier than thou administration were very poor also.

Unfortunately, one also has to look at the negative financial hit. She had multiple full-ride scholarship offers that she turned down, only to find we were instead paying huge dollars to be living in an emotional nightmare run by a malignant narcissist. Hardly a worthwhile ROI. Beyond that, suddenly (despite the fact that she was a proven 25+ goal scorer and a dominant impact player in club hockey prior to Harvard) finding herself riding the bench behind some players who wouldn't have even made her club team, because of Stone's insistence on playing 2-3 lines of her inexplicable favourites, was another hard pill to swallow. So, not only did we see her personality and happy-go-lucky nature affected (and I worried for years about potential suicide) , but incurring an unnecessarily big financial hit to boot for that "privilege", and the game she'd loved played with great success her whole life pre-Harvard, suddenly became one filled with pain, heartache and great disillusionment.

To directly answer the question, did she enjoy her Ivy experience at Harvard? I would say all things considered, no, overall. She made a few good friends, had some incredible professors, took some really great courses she could not have taken elsewhere, with tiny class sizes, that engaged her intellectually...but the horrific experience she endured with Stone sadly overshadowed everything else. As a result we have no fond memories of Harvard at all, and think of how dramatically different and infinitely better her experience (both hockey wise and more broadly) would have been had we opted for other choices (some also Ivy). At least she has now a Harvard degree to show for her agony. I would not ever advocate transferring to a far less prestigious school just to play hockey. Realistically, with rare exceptions their long-term hockey futures consist of playing men's beer league.

If you are asking whether you should choose an Ivy league school over a D1 scholarship opportunity, I would say it depends. There are abusive coaches in some D1 scholarships programs, and terrific coaches in other Ivy League schools (and lots of mediocre ones in between, in both). My advice would be to choose the school you would choose if you were not an athlete at all (with the caveat that the coach is not abusive) . And if you have an opportunity to go to an Ivy League school without an abusive coach, I'd absolutely highly recommend taking it. That means most, if not all, of them other than Harvard.

 

[Offsides Guy]

That's a complicated question to answer.

I do have more than one child with an Ivy League degree. If I look at how their career trajectories compare with the majority of their former classmates who chose non-Ivy schools, there is no question that their careers and long-term financial prospects were enhanced quite a bit by the opportunity. And yes, doors were opened with companies simply because of where they went to school. The network in our experience is overrated, it's mostly the name and prestige of the schools themselves that matters. I think the network matters far more for males because of the "old boys club".

In the case of my D who went to Harvard, if we had to do it over again--with her or her siblings--we would never again chose Harvard. The negative impact on her physical and emotional well-being and her self-confidence was life altering. That alone, despite the positives, is enough reason to not do it. Our experiences with the holier than thou administration were very poor also.

Unfortunately, one also has to look at the negative financial hit. She had multiple full-ride scholarship offers that she turned down, only to find we were instead paying huge dollars to be living in an emotional nightmare run by a malignant narcissist. Hardly a worthwhile payback. Beyond that, suddenly (despite the fact that she was a proven 25+ goal scorer and a dominant impact player in club hockey prior to Harvard) finding herself riding the bench behind some players who wouldn't have even made her club team, because of Stone's insistence on playing 2-3 lines of her favourites, is a hard pill to swallow. So, not only did we see her personality and happy-go-lucky nature affected (and I worried for years about potential suicide) , but we incurred an unnecessarily big financial hit to boot for that "privilege", and the game she'd loved played with great success her whole life pre-Harvard, suddenly became one filled with pain, heartache and great disillusionment.

To directly answer the question, did she enjoy her Ivy experience at Harvard? I would say all things considered, no, overall. She made a few good friends, had some incredible professors, took some really great courses she could not have taken elsewhere, with tiny class sizes, that engaged her intellectually...but the horrific experience she endured with Stone sadly overshadowed everything else. As a result we have no fond memories of Harvard at all, and think of how dramatically different and infinitely better her experience (both hockey wise and more broadly) would have been had we opted for other choices.

If you are asking whether you should choose an Ivy league school over a D1 scholarship opportunity, I would say it depends. There are abusive coaches in some D1 scholarships programs, and terrific coaches in other Ivy League schools (and lots of mediocre ones in between, in both). My advice would be to choose the school you would choose if you were not an athlete at all. And if you have an opportunity to go to an Ivy League school without an abusive coach, I'd absolutely recommend taking it. That means most, if not all, of them other than Harvard.

Best advice my daughter got was, unless she was dead set on a major that would benefit from an Ivy degree (ex, finance), take the full scholarship somewhere else and try for the Ivies when wanting a post-graduate degree. This advice was based on this person seeing too many women hockey players go Ivy League only to end up getting liberal arts degrees and end up with jobs they could’ve gotten with any public school degree and with no Ivy debt.

 

[Trillium]

Best advice my daughter got was, unless she was dead set on a major that would benefit from an Ivy degree (ex, finance), take the full scholarship somewhere else and try for the Ivies when wanting a post-graduate degree. This advice was based on this person seeing too many women hockey players go Ivy League only to end up getting liberal arts degrees and end up with jobs they could’ve gotten with any public school degree and with no Ivy debt.

I've heard this from others, and personally disagree. A big flaw in this logic is that getting into an Ivy League post-grad degree program isn't actually all that easy, at least without an exceptional GPA, or perhaps an Ivy undergrad. I've been told over the years by many parents who went the scholarship route, and later felt they had made the wrong choice when they saw how things turned out among their classmates who went Ivy instead.

From a true education standpoint, I would argue that a liberal arts education is the best one you can get. It's not only much more well-rounded, but it allows you to explore a broader depth of subjects which, as was the case with my kids, is far more likely to lead to discovering a field/passion which they would otherwise never have been exposed to. The true value of education goes far beyond merely getting a job. But sure, if you really want to be a firefighter or a public school teacher (and I know Ivy graduates who did both), an Ivy degree will not enhance your job prospects.

If I think of the Ivy classmates of my own kids, the vast majority are now Doctors, Lawyers, Investment Bankers, Business Executives, Management Consultants, etc. Hardly the profile of most schools.

 

[Cornholio]

Trillium - thanks for your insight and for being very open about your family's experience. I hope you D has done well post-Harvard. And I do agree - if a top recruit has more interest in liberal arts or wants the finance/politics/doctor/lawyer/banking/consulting path, an ivy degree (and really one of the top 3 of Harvard/Yale/Princeton) has a huge advantage. But if they are more STEM or really just playing hockey and will do something in hockey afterwards (coaching or whatever), then the scholarship might be better. I don't know how many true STEM focused top recruits there are (we debated on the RPI thread) but an ivy would not bring as much value especially compared with the cost than say over any flagship state school (any of the Big 10 schools) or at a place like RPI/BC/BU/Northeastern.

 

[dave1381]

As the discussion turns to careers, it reminds me that Alia Crum '05, who rarely made the regular playing rotation at Harvard, is now a well-cited Stanford associate professor in psychology. The research topics she is most well-known for include "how to make stress productive", and the placebo effect of exercise, and they explicitly draw from her experience as a player at Harvard.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insight...enefits-stress
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/better-believe-it
https://www.shawnachor.com/project/b...in-your-favor/

In the Spring 2003 semester, I was in the same section as her and Kalen Ingram for the Harvard core Literature & Arts class, "Fairy Tales and the Culture of Childhood." Shawn Anchor was our TA then, and he has since become one of the most well-known researchers in positive psychology, and he later co-authored with Alia. The last time I saw her was in Fall 2005, when we ran into each other at the Harvard registrar office to collect transcripts for PhD applications. So happy she's had such an awesome academic career!

 

[dave1381]

I was annoyed that there was so much focus on hazing, which was far down the list of issues, and believe that so much focus on that, unfortunately obscured so much of her most disturbing and pathological behaviours.

We're in agreement on this point. I don't care to discuss unimportant topics any further. The main focus of the investigation I hope would be on what really matters here: the negative longer-term mental health outcomes for what appears to be a number of her players, and to what extent she and the Harvard administration are responsible for failing them.