PoleVaultPower.com

Help me understand. Why is it, that some kids can get scholarships by jumping 13'6", while other kids jumping 15'10" may end up walking on?

Just depends on what a school needs, what will score in their conference, nationally, etc. There are a zillion small colleges on the east coast, especially the northeast, and the quality of the local pole vaulters is generally fairly poor, especially the further north you go.

But also remember that newspaper reports about kids "signing" are often inflated as to how much they are getting, and DIII schools don't offer athletic scholarships, so a kid may be getting an academic scholarship.

Here is Washington there are the following schools that have pole vault:
3 DI schools + 1 that kind of does
3 DII schools
3 DIII schools
1 NAIA school that kind of does
1 Junior College that kind of does

(Kind of does = no pits or poles but if you can get access to those things you can vault for them)

Not many opportunities! I know Oklahoma is similarly limited.

pvdad81 wrote:Help me understand. Why is it, that some kids can get scholarships by jumping 13'6", while other kids jumping 15'10" may end up walking on?

Jerry I have asked alot of kids about their scholorship. Mostly 14.0 to 16.0 jumpers. They get very little and most walk on. Some only get books. Alot of kids sign but get no money. We are hindered in Oklahoma this year. ORU signed two and the other D-1 schools do not vault. The private schools cost in the upper $20,000.00 per year and will give very little money. The out of state D-1 schools are very high because of the out of state tuition. We are in a bad situation in Oklahoma. I wished I had an answer. I would say only the top five or six vaulters in the country were offered serious money. I have talked to most of them. I only know of two high school vaulters that received full scholorships this year and they are ranked 1 and 2 in the country. I know of several 16.00 to 16.06 kids that received 50% and less.

Jonathan is in a tough spot right now. His mom wants him to live at home and commute to OU and walk on. I want him to take a offer of tuition, books and fees at a DII school in Texas. The DII school said his scholarship would become a full ride when he jumps 16'6". Thats only 8" away. OU might give him 1/2 scholarship if he jumps 17'. After our conversation today, it looks like he wants to turn down the scholarship and walk on.

I jumped 17'+ every year of college and only recie ed books but there are many d2 or naia schools that will offer good money. OU may not be the best situation coach smith is real undecisive and no telling what may happen there good luck

I agree with you Jeremy. If you see or talk to Jonathan this summer, tell him your concerns. He looks up to you. BTW he jumped 15'10" on your pole.

IMHO, it's a bit short sighted choose a lower tier university just because they throw you some money. It may save you money for 4 years but but it will definitely hamper your earning potential over the next 30 years. Sure, with hard work, you can get rich and be successful, yadda yadda yadda but if, as a parent, you have the opportunity to not just open the door for your kid but push them through, why not do it? Personally, I think there's no choice between attending OU over a TX DII. OU will provide a better academic environment, being an athlete at OU will open up far more networking opportunities for internships, jobs, etc...all of which make it much easier to get ahead later in life.


http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/college-salary-graduates-lead-cz_kb_0730topcolleges.html

Or go some were out of state, and get a license and live there for a certain amount of months, then you can get in-state tuition.

IMHO, it's a bit short sighted choose a lower tier university just because they throw you some money. It may save you money for 4 years but but it will definitely hamper your earning potential over the next 30 years. Sure, with hard work, you can get rich and be successful, yadda yadda yadda but if, as a parent, you have the opportunity to not just open the door for your kid but push them through, why not do it? Personally, I think there's no choice between attending OU over a TX DII. OU will provide a better academic environment, being an athlete at OU will open up far more networking opportunities for internships, jobs, etc...all of which make it much easier to get ahead later in life.

That sounds great until this kid graduates and then spends the rest of his life paying back student loans. If he can get an education for free why not get it?

My other concern is his ability to compete. At the DII level he would be eaning points for his team right away. At OU he wont even get to go to some of the bigger meets unless he is jumping near 17'. That may take a couple of years. Going from a big dog in high school to a small fry in college is a hard adjustment for some kids. It was for me.

AVC Coach wrote:

IMHO, it's a bit short sighted choose a lower tier university just because they throw you some money. It may save you money for 4 years but but it will definitely hamper your earning potential over the next 30 years. Sure, with hard work, you can get rich and be successful, yadda yadda yadda but if, as a parent, you have the opportunity to not just open the door for your kid but push them through, why not do it? Personally, I think there's no choice between attending OU over a TX DII. OU will provide a better academic environment, being an athlete at OU will open up far more networking opportunities for internships, jobs, etc...all of which make it much easier to get ahead later in life.

That sounds great until this kid graduates and then spends the rest of his life paying back student loans. If he can get an education for free why not get it?

I totally agree. There is nothing wrong with going to a d2 or d3 or NAIA. If you jump high enough it does not matter other than Nationals they all compete against each other during the year anyway. I would not trust Martin Smith period. You could get burned ask the six kids he cut loose last year.

AVC Coach wrote:That sounds great until this kid graduates and then spends the rest of his life paying back student loans. If he can get an education for free why not get it?

I don't think student loans should be an issue. At the longest term for undergrads it's 10 years. You can pay it ahead of schedule and get done a lot earlier. I had like $16K in loans when I was done including grad school. I put my income tax return towards it and rounded up payments to next $100 each month. Knocked it out in 4 years. Every school has tons of academic scholarships that you do not need stellar grades to get, you just have to apply, if you really have a financial need there's plenty of grant money available, etc. (Maybe I'm a bit biased on this point since I've been 100% on my own since I was 17 and have never taken $1 from my parents since then and paid for college, living expenses, and car myself through a meager athletic scholarship, academic scholarships, loans, and working.)

I do think it is shortsighted when it comes to your initial entry point in the marketplace for many professions and this difference in initial income can have significant impacts on the long term. If you're planning on being a teacher or go into public service it doesn't matter since those pay scales are pretty rigid but it does matter in many fields. For example, a common practice at large engineering firms is to select interviewees and pay entry level salaries based on the school they attended since none will usually have more than an internship under their belt. These are real numbers for a mid sized (400 employees) firm I worked for a few years ago:

From memory this was their chart for selecting new civil engineering graduates and the initial salary they were offered if selected for a position...
School GPA to get an interview Initial salary offer
Rice, UT, TAMU 3.00 $55K
TxTech Bay SMU UH 3.25 $50K
Other 3.50 $45K

Grads of the schools they deemed "top tier" had a lower bar for getting an interview, were offered more money, and in practice given better projects to work on since they were expected to have a better skill set coming out of school. Because of this better experience on better projects, they built a better professional resume. Guess which graduates were more qualified for Project Manager positions while the rest toiled as Project Engineers at a lower salary after 7-8 years? PMs got a bump of 15% in pay with the new title while project engineers stayed on the same scale they were at previously. Over the first 10 years of employment the difference in income is over $100K mainly because the more highly regarded schools opened the door wider. Of course, other factors come into play, but once again, if you can remove hurdles why not do so?