Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

[giwan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I see what you are saying and I agree that most of the high end players do spend a lot of money on training during the offseason. For a select few other high end players and the rest High School hockey is very affordable. Believe it or not there are some high end players that don't do much offseason hockey specific training. They prefer to cross train by playing other sports. high end player and her parents, the high school season is more of a fun break from the expense and the intense training which occurs during the offseason. For the girl that just wants to play High School hockey and has no ambition to play college hockey its a fantastic deal. Yes Minnesota produces about 30 D1 players a year but the argument is that our D1 players could be better with more quality development that is offered by a Tier I system. The question is whether Minnesota can open up the floodgates to Tier I hockey without harming High School hockey. Right now Minnesota has numbers and the proponents of community based hockey say that a change to a Tier I system might or might not increase quality but it will definitely hurt the numbers as the expense will go up and players will drop out when they either can't afford the Tier I team or are disillusioned with the quality of the community based system without its stars. I don't know the answer to this question. Personally I like having SSM and the Tbreds as alternatives for parents and players that want a different experience. I would like to see a few more Tbred type teams but I don't know about completely opening up Minnesota to a Tier I system. I'm sure that there are D1 players out there that would not have played hockey if it weren't for the affordability of our system.

Based on a MI model that has Tier I and Tier II hockey it would be a grave error to build on the Tier I system. It will destroy girls hockey except for those that can afford it and mostly in the metro areas. MI has a few HS teams VERY few. Everyone believes the Tier I teams are head and shoulders better and I can tell you it is not but it is difficult to change that perception. Tier I teams practice as much as some Tier II teams both on and off the ice. Tier I teams grab players as far as CA and FL for MI teams. No guarantee MN girls will develop better or not be knocked out by someone out of state. In MI the Tier II teams are dying off and those are in essence what's HS girls play. They are now left with little or no option, a rec league, maybe a boys team.

In the WI model they are trying hard to grow the HS girls game. CO-OPing teams still needing to drive reasonably far in some situations, with only some Tier I teams in the metro areas, that many can argue are not as good as you would expect a Tier I team to be.

Development is about purposeful practice, NOT elite league games. Do you need to be tested in a game? Sure but you learn very little, maybe some strategy and some pressure situations which are important but not as important as skating, passing and shooting. If you are not familiar with the 10,000 hour rule I suggest doing some reading. More purposeful practice is what matters, not some so called elite team.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Based on a MI model that has Tier I and Tier II hockey it would be a grave error to build on the Tier I system. It will destroy girls hockey except for those that can afford it and mostly in the metro areas. MI has a few HS teams VERY few. Everyone believes the Tier I teams are head and shoulders better and I can tell you it is not but it is difficult to change that perception. Tier I teams practice as much as some Tier II teams both on and off the ice. Tier I teams grab players as far as CA and FL for MI teams. No guarantee MN girls will develop better or not be knocked out by someone out of state. In MI the Tier II teams are dying off and those are in essence what's HS girls play. They are now left with little or no option, a rec league, maybe a boys team.

In the WI model they are trying hard to grow the HS girls game. CO-OPing teams still needing to drive reasonably far in some situations, with only some Tier I teams in the metro areas, that many can argue are not as good as you would expect a Tier I team to be.

Development is about purposeful practice, NOT elite league games. Do you need to be tested in a game? Sure but you learn very little, maybe some strategy and some pressure situations which are important but not as important as skating, passing and shooting. If you are not familiar with the 10,000 hour rule I suggest doing some reading. More purposeful practice is what matters, not some so called elite team.

So what do you think about the MA model where there are really three levels of play - Public High School (not very good), Private/Prep School (good), and club/AAA/Tier 1 (very good). Almost all girls play high school or prep school during the season and then club/AAA/tier 1 or tier 2 as a supplement.

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

An un-necessarily harsh start, but the follow-on info is interesting. I found the list, but I don't have the time to correlate NAHA to names - I'll take your word for it. But a couple of points:

- College GPA performance (which is what all academic teams are primarily based on) can be manipulated by taking summer courses, a weak courseload, the overall quality of the college student body, etc. Let's face it - Hockey East largely consists of big state schools (Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire) and big private schools (Boston U, Northeastern). These schools, by virtue of their mission and size, are just generally average to slightly above average academically. A 3.5 here is just not the same as a 3.5 at Princeton, Colgate, or even Middlebury. Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments. BC is an exception.

- Because of the above, I was focusing on academics directed at college entrance, not performance in college. The truer measure of academic performance in high school is college placement (that's not my opinion, but that of 1000's of college counselors). I could attach the list of NAHA graduates/colleges over the last 5 years, but 1-3 of 10-15 every year go to elite academic schools - that is lower than the Assabet/prep school approach - look it up on the Assabet website. The NAHA approach doesn't place kids in as academically challenging schools as the Assabet/club style approach - the numbers are what they are. So NAHA is weaker academically by that measure .... not necessarily weak, but weaker.

I think you should be careful with generalizations. There are many different factors involved in colleges chosen. You seem to dismiss the "big state schools" as somehow being inferior to the "elite schools". How do you measure that? There are countless articles discussing this topic with different conclusons depending on the view point (http://www.openeducation.net/2008/12/28/higher-education-state-universities-rival-ivy-league/). Some high caliber kids choose the "big state schools" due to finances or a coach they like or the atmosphere of a school. I see many admissions of less than stellar students to the elites based on legacies or "slightly above average" academics but athletic prowess too (see http://www.cappex.com/colleges/Harvard-University-166027 scroll down to the admitted stats and click on accepted and accepted won't attend stats). Is a 3.5 GPA Honors student in biology or engineering from the "big state school" somehow diminished and not as tough as an sociology degree at an "elite school". I personally know kids that were far superior students (high GPA, superior SAT/ACT, AP scholars, National Merit Scholars, etc) going to the Hockey East. I also know of kids that had slightly above average academics but were judged to be better hockey players that were recruted to an elite school (i.e. they wouldn't have been admitted based on their academics alone). There are too many factors to make general judgments so please don't be such a snob.

 

[canadahockey26]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

An un-necessarily harsh start, but the follow-on info is interesting. I found the list, but I don't have the time to correlate NAHA to names - I'll take your word for it. But a couple of points:

- College GPA performance (which is what all academic teams are primarily based on) can be manipulated by taking summer courses, a weak courseload, the overall quality of the college student body, etc. Let's face it - Hockey East largely consists of big state schools (Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire) and big private schools (Boston U, Northeastern). These schools, by virtue of their mission and size, are just generally average to slightly above average academically. A 3.5 here is just not the same as a 3.5 at Princeton, Colgate, or even Middlebury. Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments. BC is an exception.

- Because of the above, I was focusing on academics directed at college entrance, not performance in college. The truer measure of academic performance in high school is college placement (that's not my opinion, but that of 1000's of college counselors). I could attach the list of NAHA graduates/colleges over the last 5 years, but 1-3 of 10-15 every year go to elite academic schools - that is lower than the Assabet/prep school approach - look it up on the Assabet website. The NAHA approach doesn't place kids in as academically challenging schools as the Assabet/club style approach - the numbers are what they are. So NAHA is weaker academically by that measure .... not necessarily weak, but weaker.

My daughter went to school with a girl going to Princeton. She plays hockey, and is expected to play for Princeton. My daughter had about 5% higher grades than this girl going to Princeton, but my D is more of a D3 calibre player than a D1. My D came out of her HS with the 2nd highest average in a grad class of around 300. She is now at a "just above average" school academically. Her GPA in her first year was a 3.7. How dare you diminish the accomplishments of students just because they don't go to an ivy. She is an elite student, studies hard, and hopes to pursue a grad degree. So **** you. Most athletes at the Ivys wouldn't get in if it weren't for athletics. I'd also take her 3.7 GPA at an "average" school over a girl in an Ivy with a 2.7 GPA. I don't know if you have ever been to college but getting a 3.5 at any school is a challenge and is commendable.

I hope you have some idea how incredibly offensive this post is. Also when applying to grad school they ask for your GPA and test scores. If you meet the minimum GPA (say it's a 3.5) at a non-ivy school they will consider you. If you don't meet the minimum GPA to get in(say you have a 3.0), even if you're going to an Ivy, that won't mean ****.

 

[brookyone]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

I know this is the Women's Forum but this was an open letter to Minnesota Hockey from Jack Connolly - any hockey fan would love reading his balanced perspective. It most applies to the Girls Youth approach and Minnesota Girls HS Teams also but also to girls playing outside of MN.

http://www.minnesotahockey.org/news_article/show/148975?referrer_id=80470By Jack Connolly
.May 7, 2012:


Dear Minnesota Hockey:

With Thanks,


Jack Connolly

Well, It was a nice little thread to begin with.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

My daughter went to school with a girl going to Princeton. She plays hockey, and is expected to play for Princeton. My daughter had about 5% higher grades than this girl going to Princeton, but my D is more of a D3 calibre player than a D1. My D came out of her HS with the 2nd highest average in a grad class of around 300. She is now at a "just above average" school academically. Her GPA in her first year was a 3.7. How dare you diminish the accomplishments of students just because they don't go to an ivy. She is an elite student, studies hard, and hopes to pursue a grad degree. So **** you. Most athletes at the Ivys wouldn't get in if it weren't for athletics. I'd also take her 3.7 GPA at an "average" school over a girl in an Ivy with a 2.7 GPA. I don't know if you have ever been to college but getting a 3.5 at any school is a challenge and is commendable.

I hope you have some idea how incredibly offensive this post is. Also when applying to grad school they ask for your GPA and test scores. If you meet the minimum GPA (say it's a 3.5) at a non-ivy school they will consider you. If you don't meet the minimum GPA to get in(say you have a 3.0), even if you're going to an Ivy, that won't mean ****.

You need to calm down. I am not diminishing your daughter's accomplishments in any way. She appears to have been a strong student in high school and a strong student at whatever college she is at. She is impressive and the fact that she doesn't go to an Ivy school doesn't make her less so. I attended college (and a couple of grad schools as well) and I fully recognize that a 3.5 is tough to get anywhere. I also recruited for several companies from a wide variety of colleges for elite engineering programs. You are correct - we were interested in a student with a GPA above 3.75 from almost any college.

My original comments were focused on a comparison of Assabet/MA club style hockey and NAHA and relative strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches. The comment I originally made (and that 123Hockey responded to) was that NAHA was a weaker (not weak) academic approach than the prep school/Assabet approach in the sense that the college matriculation results at Assabet were more heavily weighted toward elite schools. Elite would normally be defined by acceptance percentages (you can verify that with college counselors everywhere). This doesn't mean that an elite school is for everyone, that other schools aren't good, that students can't be successful at other schools, or that students who are successful at non-elite schools are diminished by the fact that it is not elite.

You seem to have an axe to grind here about Ivy schools (and specifically Princeton) for some reason and I can't help with that.

 

[SlewFoot]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

You need to calm down. I am not diminishing your daughter's accomplishments in any way. She appears to have been a strong student in high school and a strong student at whatever college she is at. She is impressive and the fact that she doesn't go to an Ivy school doesn't make her less so. I attended college (and a couple of grad schools as well) and I fully recognize that a 3.5 is tough to get anywhere. I also recruited for several companies from a wide variety of colleges for elite engineering programs. You are correct - we were interested in a student with a GPA above 3.75 from almost any college.

My original comments were focused on a comparison of Assabet/MA club style hockey and NAHA and relative strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches. The comment I originally made (and that 123Hockey responded to) was that NAHA was a weaker (not weak) academic approach than the prep school/Assabet approach in the sense that the college matriculation results at Assabet were more heavily weighted toward elite schools. Elite would normally be defined by acceptance percentages (you can verify that with college counselors everywhere). This doesn't mean that an elite school is for everyone, that other schools aren't good, that students can't be successful at other schools, or that students who are successful at non-elite schools are diminished by the fact that it is not elite.

You seem to have an axe to grind here about Ivy schools (and specifically Princeton) for some reason and I can't help with that.

For one you stated that a 3.5 at a State school is not as good as a 3.5 at an elite school which in my opinion is making a generalization based on snobbery. Second there is the great game of manipulation of acceptance percentages that is going on at schools. College counselors know it is a big factor in the ratings game and it is played to accordingly. There have been many articles on this factor (e.g. http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB991083160294634500,00.html). I also think your post was offensive to the hard working kids that happen to go somewhere other than a so called "elite school" and I didn't think his or her post was "an axe to grind".

 

[giwan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

So what do you think about the MA model where there are really three levels of play - Public High School (not very good), Private/Prep School (good), and club/AAA/Tier 1 (very good). Almost all girls play high school or prep school during the season and then club/AAA/tier 1 or tier 2 as a supplement.

I do not know. All I can tell you about are the teams I have seen, parents telling me their experiences and teams played against. Why do you divide them as you do? Cost? Time? Distance?

 

[canadahockey26]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

You need to calm down. I am not diminishing your daughter's accomplishments in any way. She appears to have been a strong student in high school and a strong student at whatever college she is at. She is impressive and the fact that she doesn't go to an Ivy school doesn't make her less so. I attended college (and a couple of grad schools as well) and I fully recognize that a 3.5 is tough to get anywhere. I also recruited for several companies from a wide variety of colleges for elite engineering programs. You are correct - we were interested in a student with a GPA above 3.75 from almost any college.

My original comments were focused on a comparison of Assabet/MA club style hockey and NAHA and relative strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches. The comment I originally made (and that 123Hockey responded to) was that NAHA was a weaker (not weak) academic approach than the prep school/Assabet approach in the sense that the college matriculation results at Assabet were more heavily weighted toward elite schools. Elite would normally be defined by acceptance percentages (you can verify that with college counselors everywhere). This doesn't mean that an elite school is for everyone, that other schools aren't good, that students can't be successful at other schools, or that students who are successful at non-elite schools are diminished by the fact that it is not elite.

You seem to have an axe to grind here about Ivy schools (and specifically Princeton) for some reason and I can't help with that.

Nothing at all against Ivys, but your post insulted and diminished the girls at NAHA who have found academic success. You said that "These schools, by virtue of their mission and size, are just generally average to slightly above average academically. A 3.5 here is just not the same as a 3.5 at Princeton, Colgate, or even Middlebury. Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments."

You sound like an elitist. You are saying that students who achieve academic success, but because they don't go to the schools you listed aren't elite. Colgate isn't even considered an elite school. Also a 3.5 at a big state school is considered the same as a 3.5 at an Ivy. They don't make the academic honour roll standards lower just because a kid goes to an Ivy. I consider an elite student as someone who is in the top 10% in their respective school. Your definition implies that you have to go to "an elite" school to be an elite student.

I hope no NAHA girls, or girls that go to "average" schools read your post.

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Nothing at all against Ivys, but your post insulted and diminished the girls at NAHA who have found academic success. You said that "These schools, by virtue of their mission and size, are just generally average to slightly above average academically. A 3.5 here is just not the same as a 3.5 at Princeton, Colgate, or even Middlebury. Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments."

You sound like an elitist. You are saying that students who achieve academic success, but because they don't go to the schools you listed aren't elite. Colgate isn't even considered an elite school. Also a 3.5 at a big state school is considered the same as a 3.5 at an Ivy. They don't make the academic honour roll standards lower just because a kid goes to an Ivy. I consider an elite student as someone who is in the top 10% in their respective school. Your definition implies that you have to go to "an elite" school to be an elite student.

I hope no NAHA girls, or girls that go to "average" schools read your post.

Apologies - Bad phrasing here when I wrote "Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments." I didn't mean the students aren't elite but that the schools aren't elite (from an admissions perspective). My bad - didn't mean it to read like that.

Like it or not - some schools are academically better than others - if you don't agree with that then you are just not being realistic. Call them elite, call them selective, call them Fred, call them whatever you like. A 3.5 at Princeton is a better accomplishment than a 3.5 at Cal State-Fullerton - every employer and grad school in the free world will tell you the same thing. Why else do Harvard, MIT, and (yes) Princeton graduates on average make higher wages, get higher grad school acceptance percentages, or do better in most other meaningful statistics? Their GPAs don't follow a differnet curve then other schools, so the school must be better. If I'm an elitist because I believe this then so be it - it seems to me to be simply a matter of facts.

These schools tend to be those that have the lowest admission rates (and yes there is certainly some gamesmanship with admissions percentages) - kids want to go to the place that wil lset them up to be most successful, which is also a measure of selectivity/elitism/fred/etc.. NAHA kids go to these schools at a lesser percentage than Assabet/prep school kids. This is the limited sample set I was referring to. There are excellent students who go to average schools and average students who go excellent schools - all combinations exist for many reasons.

 

[canadahockey26]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Apologies - Bad phrasing here when I wrote "Doesn't mean that the kids are bad students or the schools are bad - but they aren't elite which is what I was focused on in my comments." I didn't mean the students aren't elite but that the schools aren't elite (from an admissions perspective). My bad - didn't mean it to read like that.

Like it or not - some schools are academically better than others - if you don't agree with that then you are just not being realistic. Call them elite, call them selective, call them Fred, call them whatever you like. A 3.5 at Princeton is a better accomplishment than a 3.5 at Cal State-Fullerton - every employer and grad school in the free world will tell you the same thing. Why else do Harvard, MIT, and (yes) Princeton graduates on average make higher wages, get higher grad school acceptance percentages, or do better in most other meaningful statistics? Their GPAs don't follow a differnet curve then other schools, so the school must be better. If I'm an elitist because I believe this then so be it - it seems to me to be simply a matter of facts.

These schools tend to be those that have the lowest admission rates (and yes there is certainly some gamesmanship with admissions percentages) - kids want to go to the place that wil lset them up to be most successful, which is also a measure of selectivity/elitism/fred/etc.. NAHA kids go to these schools at a lesser percentage than Assabet/prep school kids. This is the limited sample set I was referring to. There are excellent students who go to average schools and average students who go excellent schools - all combinations exist for many reasons.

Well I think that a 3.5 at an average school does mean the same as a 3.5 at an Ivy, I may be wrong but from my understanding there are just more 3.5 students at ivys. Using your logic going to an Ivy means sacrificing your GPA. Also the reason Ivy has better job placement/grad school placement is based on the connections. It is an old boys club for the rich and the elite. When you go to an Ivy you go for the name. The education may not be any better than a private liberal arts school or a large public funded school. There are lecturers at the Ivys who couldn't give a **** about the students and are just there for their research. They don't pick professors based on their teaching abilities, they pick the ones who can bring fame to the school. I would say going to an Ivy is a better name, but not necessarily a better education.

Also if a kid from say Penn State has GPA of 3.5 and and LSAT score of 170, that kid will be more likely to get into Harvard Law than a kid from Princeton with a GPA of 3.4 and an LSAT of 160. With all things being equal, that is the only time the school will take the Ivy kid over the non-Ivy kid.

If going to an Ivy does indeed mean that a great student will get a lower GPA, than the better option would be to stick the kid in a school where they will succeed. I'd take a 3.5 GPA student at an average school over a 2.5 student at an Ivy league school any day, and admissions departments see this too.

 

[Hux]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

kids want to go to the place that will set them up to be most successful, which is also a measure of selectivity/elitism/fred/etc..

A few yes, the majority no. The parents drive the bus on this.

NAHA kids go to these schools at a lesser percentage than Assabet/prep school kids. .

And that would be because NAHA kids are across the board better hockey players than 95% of those coming out of Preps and get offered scholarships to top hockey programs. Why pay to go to an IVY when you can get four years for free? Yeah, yeah, the education blah blah blah. You have five years to play four years of hockey. Take the money, play high end hockey, then use that hockey knowledge to land yourself a scholarship to an IVY as a Grad Assistant coach. Two degrees....zero debt!

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

A few yes, the majority no. The parents drive the bus on this.

And that would be because NAHA kids are across the board better hockey players than 95% of those coming out of Preps and get offered scholarships to top hockey programs. Why pay to go to an IVY when you can get four years for free? Yeah, yeah, the education blah blah blah. You have five years to play four years of hockey. Take the money, play high end hockey, then use that hockey knowledge to land yourself a scholarship to an IVY as a Grad Assistant coach. Two degrees....zero debt!

The NAHA kids are certainly very talented players and are generally very much in demand and most go on to Division 1 schools. Certainly scholarship vs. non-scholarship is a big factor in every kid's decision if they have the scholarship option. However, the Assabet U19 players are the top 1-5% of prep players generally and similarly demanded and get just as many scholarship offers as the NAHA kids (remember, I was comparing NAHA, Assabet, and Team Pittsburgh approaches before this spun off into oblivion). Assabet regularly beats NAHA White when they play, but the games are always close and the level of players comparable. The Assabet kids tend towards the more selective schools, the NAHA kids not as much. It is what it is.

As for the rest of the commentary, there is clearly a group of folks that think all Division 1 hockey schools are comparable academically. I ran into this philosophy when my daughter was looking at prep schools. The coach at one promised that he would provide a near-guaranteed path to a Division 1 hockey program and had the pedigree to back up the claim (assuming the kid put in the effort and didn't get severely injured). The coach was quite clear that the goal was Division 1 hockey and every school was the same to him as Harvard. For those that believe that, more power to you.

 

[DedicatedFan]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

It is a disgrace that the girls' game is on a tape delay [again], which means it is played AFTER the Wild game late at night. Seeing this year after year makes me believe that whoever sponsors this event doesn't give a rat's a@@ about girls' hockey, but is only including a girls' game (on tape delay) to say that they are covering the girls' side as well. ... and why aren't they including a Gopher Women's hockey game -- after all, they are only the NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/06/26/games-set-for-hockey-day-minnesota-2013/


"...The Minnesota Wild and FOX Sports North have announced the lineup of games for Hockey Day Minnesota 2013.

Three outdoor high school games will be played on Pokegama Lake in Grand Rapids, Minn., as the Eagan boys hockey team takes on Hibbing. The Benilde-St. Margaret’s boys hockey team will battle Grand Rapids, and on the girls side, Grand Rapids will play Hibbing (on a tape delay).

At Mariucci Arena, the Golden Gophers host North Dakota and at the Xcel Energy Center, the Pittsburg Penguins battle the Wild.

Hockey Day Minnesota 2013 on FOX Sports North will be the seventh annual celebration of hockey from peewees to pros. ..."

 

[brookyone]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

... and why aren't they including a Gopher Women's hockey game -- after all, they are only the NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!

That would be a good idea. On that day I believe Minnesota is at Mankato...so an all Minnesota aspect there. If they can go to Grand Rapids they could go to Mankato right? Not that I'd ever even imagine FSN devoting the staff necessary for that. Better yet, have a couple Minnesota based WCHA women's hockey teams play a game in Grand Rapids on Hockey Day.

 

[AggiesHockey]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Perhaps they're not aware that Minnesota has D1 women's hockey.

 

[CrazyDave]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Perhaps they're not aware that Minnesota has D1 women's hockey.

All of FSN's knowledge about D-I women's hockey seems to have disappeared when they let Frank Mazacco go. But as far as the Gophers are concerned, I think Big Ten Network has the broadcasting rights.

 

[Jonesy]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

... If going to an Ivy does indeed mean that a great student will get a lower GPA, than the better option would be to stick the kid in a school where they will succeed. I'd take a 3.5 GPA student at an average school over a 2.5 student at an Ivy league school any day, and admissions departments see this too.

I am not sure if all Ivys are the same but certainly Princeton will tell you if you ask that you will get a lower GPA. They say that no matter how good your work may be only x% of students can get an A in a course. They go on to say that they do all they can to make sure that all the places students go for advanced degrees take into account the fact that a particular mark from Princeton is equivalent to a higher one from elsewhere. Unfortunately they are not entirely successful in this undertaking. There are still places you can apply where there is an absolute cut off based on marks with almost no adjustment for the 'elite' or otherwise status of the school you got your undergraduate degree from.

 

[Call It]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Another example of Minny's hockey approach working... 17 out of 40 girls selected to the 1995/96 All-Star Game are from Minnesota. In the 1996 All- Star game 12 out of 30 were from the State of Hockey, Minnesota! Pretty awesome percentage. Was anyone in St. Cloud this year?

 

[HockeyEast33]

Re: Minnesota Hockey Approach & Perspective

Another example of Minny's hockey approach working... 17 out of 40 girls selected to the 1995/96 All-Star Game are from Minnesota. In the 1996 All- Star game 12 out of 30 were from the State of Hockey, Minnesota! Pretty awesome percentage. Was anyone in St. Cloud this year?

The question here is whether the Minnesota girls are better or the selection committee is more partial to Minnesota girls because they are personally biased and the camp is held in Minnesota. It's interesting to note that when the camp moved to Minnesota that the percentage of Minnesota girls selected went up significantly. This was demonstrated on another thread at some point but I can't find it now (maybe deleted). I think there is a clear bias towards MN girls at USA Hockey (and clear bias against New England/Mass girls), but that is my personal opinion.