Kid question..

[bpwallace49]

They play all sports currently. Whatever happens to be in season (soccer, football, basketball, baseball, even some golf).

 

As far as a comparison of schools, that would certainly be factor, but the "small school" is only a concept at this point - not an actual school. There are plenty of nearby communities we could consider, but nothing specific to compare the big school to.

 

For the sake of my initial question, I was considering academics to be equal.

 

If all academics are equal, a follow up question is are all those sports that your kids play even offered at the smaller school?

 

If yes again . . then I would go with the larger school. Increased competition is a great motivator, and if your kids are involved socially already, then why upset the apple cart? My parents moved to an area that was a smaller school, but much better academics. If I had a "do over" it would be to find a bigger school with the same great academics. Playing sports at a small school meant less exposure to college scouts, and in many cases, playing WAY out of position due to a lack of players. (example . . played center and defensive end in high school, played outside linebacker/ fullback in college).

 

Now . . if the decision is to live on a lake versus school athletics, then YES, move to the lake house!!

[rajncajn]

I'll add this: all parents want to think their kids are special; however, the vast majority of kids are pretty mediocre.

 

 

 

Edited to better reflect what I meant to say.

That didn't make it sound any better.

 

All children are inherently special. What we are and do as adults to mold and teach them and what they ultimately chose for themselves when given the opportunity is what decides if they will become mediocre or not. So basically if your students turn out to be losers it's your own fault for not teaching them & inspiring them to be better.

 

[keggerz]

[ribbing] You could send your kids to the big school and just wish that the starter in front of them gets hurt [/ribbing]

[wiegie]

That didn't make it sound any better.

 

All children are inherently special. What we are and do as adults to mold and teach them and what they ultimately chose for themselves when given the opportunity is what decides if they will become mediocre or not. So basically if your students turn out to be losers it's your own fault for not teaching them & inspiring them to be better.

 

meh, half of all kids are below the median

Edited August 16, 2011 by wiegie

[Big John]

meh, half of all kids are below the median

Not in Lake Wobegon.

[Cunning Runt]

[ribbing] You could send your kids to the big school and just wish that the starter in front of them gets hurt [/ribbing]

 

That was actually pretty good. Well played.

[rajncajn]

meh, half of all kids are below the median

Well, of course they are... Just not mine.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Does your wife include in her judgement that b/c she teaches there at the same high school (i think that is what I read) that she would be more aware of what is going on in their classrooms b/c she knows the other teachers? That could be a big plus.

[Cunning Runt]

Does your wife include in her judgement that b/c she teaches there at the same high school (i think that is what I read) that she would be more aware of what is going on in their classrooms b/c she knows the other teachers? That could be a big plus.

 

She does teach at the big school in question.

 

My wife might view it as a plus, but personally, I view that as a negative - from a kid's perspective anyway.

 

I know I would not want to be a teenage kid attending school where my mom taught.

 

Talk about being under a microscope. Any little thing you do gets discussed in the teacher's lounge.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Cunning Runt

[rajncajn]

She does teach at the big school in question.

 

My wife might view it as a plus, but personally, I view that as a negative - from a kid's perspective anyway.

 

I know I would not want to be a teenage kid attending school where my mom taught.

 

Talk about being under a microscope. Any little thing you do gets discussed in the teacher's lounge.

Actually, I went to school where my step mom taught and it was never an issue. A lot of the kids didn't even realize she was my step mom. It's all a matter of your wife keeping her boundaries.

 

ETA: And believe me, I was no angel in HS...

Edited August 16, 2011 by rajncajn

[Cunning Runt]

.......it's all a matter of your wife keeping her boundaries.

 

My wife inherited this trait from her parents that seems to necessitate her wanting to know what's going with everybody.

[Azazello1313]

meh, half of all kids are below the median

 

certainly, but their parents probably don't give two chits where they go to school.

[twiley]

Since you've already kind of made up your mind - I'd approach this with a different angle. Do some research on the smaller schools to see if their academics are better than the larger school. If so, present those stats to the wife - forget the sports angle - women, well most women, don't give a rats ass about sports. If you can show her that the classrooms have a better teacher to student ratio or that the school has won numerous academic awards then I think you have a better platform to stand on than your current one.

[rajncajn]

My wife inherited this trait from her parents that seems to necessitate her wanting to know what's going with everybody.

If that's the case and if she's anything like mine, then you not only have an uphill battle convincing your wife, you better bring climbing gear... and oxygen... and a sherpa or two... preferably one that's also a pretty good lawyer.

Edited August 16, 2011 by rajncajn

[SEC=UGA]

I went to a big school, no inner city kids, great sports teams, and had a blast.

 

Just thought I'd share that.

[Crazysight]

When your kids are at the point where they are applying for college, which school is the college going to be more impressed by, academically speaking? Considering where I live I went to a relatively large high school with decent sports teams, however I would have been much better served going to one of the smaller private schools in the area, despite the fact that the stupid hokey local newspaper never blabbed on and on about their silly high school level sports teams. And really that's the way it should be in the first place, because that's all they are: silly high school-level sports teams, and should be treated as no more than that. No valedictorian at the high school I went to could have ever made it into a Harvard or Yale, the best they could ever hope for would be Brown or Dartmouth.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Crazysight

[Riffraff]

If there are underlying safety concerns, I understand wanting to play the shelter game. No explaination needed.

 

If it were academicly influenced, I'd choose the school that offers the better education. If the same quality, then which has a wider range of opportunities? However, I fully understand using the thought process of college: Do you really want to be in an auditorium of a 1,000 students and get a better name on the top of the diploma? Or would you prefer to go to a smaller college and get actual face time with the instructors?

 

As for sports, all I can say is that I played my absolute best when I had higher quality teammates and competition. Some sports I started, others I played the bench. Playing against low end competition may be good for the ego, but makes you a pretty low-end player yourself. An example I have seen directly is in tennis. Played against state ranked guys in Georgia and Alabama, both top 50 guys in the state. They would make the JV squad or Varsity bench in California. They may be good in their hometown, but they got slaughtered when they met real world competition. Same thing happens regularly when the small school BMOC meets the real world or goes to college. Queue up the "Glory Days" song by the Boss.

[Square]

As for sports, all I can say is that I played my absolute best when I had higher quality teammates and competition. Some sports I started, others I played the bench. Playing against low end competition may be good for the ego, but makes you a pretty low-end player yourself. An example I have seen directly is in tennis. Played against state ranked guys in Georgia and Alabama, both top 50 guys in the state. They would make the JV squad or Varsity bench in California. They may be good in their hometown, but they got slaughtered when they met real world competition. Same thing happens regularly when the small school BMOC meets the real world or goes to college. Queue up the "Glory Days" song by the Boss.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you might be looking at this differently. I believe CR wants his kids to go to a smaller school so they have the opportunity to play multiple sports and get lots of playing time. I don't think there was anything about really going "next level" with them.

 

I don't know to what degree it'd factor in my own decisions but I believe some of the best things I learned as a kid were in competitive athletic situations (things like working hard, being a leader, and teamwork). Many of the character building opportunities that teammates and team sports afford could be "learned" among lesser competition. True, it reduces the chance that CR's kid goes pro but I don't think that was really the point. Maybe I'm off base here but that's how I see it. If I could choose between my kid being a multi sport athlete or just being able to play JV at one sport, I'd probably rather have them be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. I'm not planning on them earning a living with their athletic skills but I do see some of the things you learn in athletics being more transcendent than some of the classwork that is done in HS.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Square

[Azazello1313]

I believe CR wants his kids to go to a smaller school so they have the opportunity to play multiple sports and get lots of playing time.

 

but I don't think even that argument holds water. a bigger school has more sports to choose from, and more teams in those sports (JV and freshman teams, for example). to me that translates into a lot more opportunity for any kid to find their athletic niche.

[ABearWithFurniture]

You could always buy them some guitars and teach them how to rock...

 

Then they won't need school or sports...

[Cunning Runt]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think you might be looking at this differently. I believe CR wants his kids to go to a smaller school so they have the opportunity to play multiple sports and get lots of playing time. I don't think there was anything about really going "next level" with them.

 

I don't know to what degree it'd factor in my own decisions but I believe some of the best things I learned as a kid were in competitive athletic situations (things like working hard, being a leader, and teamwork). Many of the character building opportunities that teammates and team sports afford could be "learned" among lesser competition. True, it reduces the chance that CR's kid goes pro but I don't think that was really the point. Maybe I'm off base here but that's how I see it. If I could choose between my kid being a multi sport athlete or just being able to play JV at one sport, I'd probably rather have them be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. I'm not planning on them earning a living with their athletic skills but I do see some of the things you learn in athletics being more transcendent than some of the classwork that is done in HS.

 

Pretty much.

[Cunning Runt]

You could always buy them some guitars and teach them how to rock...

 

Then they won't need school or sports...

 

My 7yr old got a guitar for Christmas and has been taking lessons ever since.

[Square]

but I don't think even that argument holds water. a bigger school has more sports to choose from

All the schools in the metro area I grew up in (whether large are small) had the same main sports. What are these side sports you are referring to?

 

Here is a list of the sports available for the 2nd largest schools in the metro area I grew up in (probably 600 - 800 students)

 

Boys & Girls golf

Boys & Girls tennis

Boys & Girls Cross country

Volleyball

Football

Wrestling

Boys & Girls basketball

Boys & Girls Soccer

Baseball

Softball

Boys & Girls Track and field

Boys & Girls swimming

 

I can't think of another sport that a regular kid would be interested in that isn't available.

[Azazello1313]

All the schools in the metro area I grew up in (whether large are small) had the same main sports. What are these side sports you are referring to?

 

Here is a list of the sports available for the 2nd largest schools in the metro area I grew up in (probably 600 - 800 students)

 

Boys & Girls golf

Boys & Girls tennis

Boys & Girls Cross country

Volleyball

Football

Wrestling

Boys & Girls basketball

Boys & Girls Soccer

Baseball

Softball

Boys & Girls Track and field

Boys & Girls swimming

 

I can't think of another sport that a regular kid would be interested in that isn't available.

 

you've got me a little confused, because my point was that a smaller school might not have as many sports (or as many teams) as a larger school, and to rebut you give me a list of sports from the second largest school? I don't get it.

 

as far as that particular list, it's fairly exhaustive, the only ones I don't see offhand that I know many high schools offer are lacrosse, hockey, field hockey, diving, and gymnastics. there are probably a few others. now, smaller schools probably don't offer any of those. they often also don't have golf, volleyball (at least for boys), swimming. many have cut other sports as well. my school was medium-to-large and didn't have teams in many of those sports. and the smaller schools in the region offered even fewer of them, while the big schools had more of them. and again, some of the larger schools would field several teams in some sports. I remember playing our school playing like the 3rd tennis team from one of the "big" schools and getting smoked.

[Square]

you've got me a little confused, because my point was that a smaller school might not have as many sports (or as many teams) as a larger school, and to rebut you give me a list of sports from the second largest school? I don't get it. .

That is the second largest school district list of sports (not 2nd largest school). So I said, "the 2nd largest schools" which meant all the class B schools. So the largest Class B school is less than 800 people. The largest Class A school has 2500 students (mine had about 1700). So they would compete with far less than half of the people for sports (probably less inner city kids) than they would at the larger schools and would have the option for any one of those sports. True it doesn't have "every" sport but some of the ones you mention as additional sports have the option of club teams in many areas (and I've only seen lacrosse, hockey, field hockey, and gymnastics as club teams) .

 

So if education is the same and my kid was athletic enough to get some time at one sport in a large school it's possible they could compete in at least 2 or 3 sports at a smaller school and possibly have a more well rounded experience along with staying busy year round. So if you believe some of the reports that student-athletes are less likely to use cigarettes, alcohol, Josh Gordon, and are more likely to eat healthier, I don't see it as a terrible idea to consider placing your kids in a smaller school (not a tiny school).