Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Katie

  1. Dake is a great wrestler, but he won't beat JB this year. I think it's amazing that Dake beat Shabanau. That's a solid won for sure. But his win over Tsargush was odd. Tsargush took Dake down relatively easily before seemingly giving away the match at the end. I don't read too much into it. Then he loses to a tough Aliyev and then to the Russian Gadzhiev. I don't think Dake has reached a level where he would be in medal contention, and if he met Tsargush at worlds it would be a whole different ballgame. Additionally, Dake is coming off an injury, so I just don't see him beating JB. Personally, I think JB and Tsargush are a notch above everyone else.
  2. I like it when Stan posts. And I'm glad he reads these boards.
  3. If that was too complicated for you, I can't help you.
  4. Technically you're right. But as a practical matter I think I'm right. To assume that a substantial portion of the bottom 25% of college grads would be in the bottom half of high school grads without a diploma seems far-fetched to me. But at the end of the day, there's no evidence that graduating from college guarantees a higher income. People act like there is. And as a factual matter 25% of college grads earn less than the top half of high school grads.
  5. Quitting can be a great thing. Not everyone finds the career path or job they are best suited for right off the bat. It often takes trial and error to really come into your own. Every second you're doing something you suck at and hate is a second you could be doing something you'd be amazing at. So sticking to what you tried first is not always a good idea.
  6. What you're saying seems odd to me. First, I am simply talking about college grads versus high school grads. IMO it's a pretty reasonable distinction. If you want to parse the levels of education further and link me to studies showing me how they people in those camps do, go ahead. Second, as for the kids who Thiel paid to stay away from college. Some of them were straight out of high school, and some of them went to college for a bit first. So what? The Thiel stories are only a few examples of kids for whom college was not the best investment. Whether they figured that out at age 17 or 20 is irrelevant. Third, I am making simple, common sense observations based on the available data. When I say a college degree is often only a sign of potential, I am taking about potential job performance. Here's why I say that. Many college degrees are not terminal, and most are not narrowly tailored to a specific job. So if you are hiring for a specific job and you see someone fresh out of college, you don't know if the person has a knack for the job you're hiring for, or even much interest. Degrees in engineering and the like would be the exceptions.
  7. I know it can be tough when numbers come up, so let me just repeat my same point with a hypothetical. Assume 100 kids enroll in college. Only 59 of those kids will get a degree. And of those 59, only 75% of them will earn more than the top half of high school grads. 75% of 59 is about 44. So that means if 100 kids enroll in college, only 44 will actually financially benefit from it. So that's what we're looking at. College is not a good financial investment for 56 out of 100 kids who enroll. Now, there other reasons to go to college. Perhaps you really like reading novels and writing papers. Perhaps it makes you feel really good to do that. Fine. But if we focus only on the financial side of things, based on the way things actually work out, college is not a good investment for the majority of kids who enroll. So all I'm saying is that kids should really think about why they want to go to college, and what they want to get out of it.
  8. The reality is only 59% of students complete college within six years. And of the 59% who get through, 25% make less than the top half of high school grads. So if you do the math, college only makes financial sense for 44.3% of students who initially enroll in college. And then within that 44.3%, the incomes vary based on course of study. For example, kids with engineering degrees will earn more than kids with degrees in recreation and fitness. IMO college is not a good bet for everyone.
  9. That seems like a good use of time. Then maybe tomorrow we can figure out how many pounds "thick" is.
  10. Although this sample is not representative, billionaire investor Peter Thiel pays high school kids to not go to college, and the results have been good: http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-fellowship-mixed-results-2015-2>. These kids are very talented, and had they gone to college, they still would have done great things. But the difference is we would erroneously think college was the reason for their success. It was not. The kids had it all along. If you need a specific skill, then education is a must. If not, you might want to reconsider what kind of an investment college really is.
  11. The article I linked provided a better overall picture of the study, and provided a link the data showing that 25% of college grads make less than half of high school grads. Here's the link you appear to have missed: http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/college-may-not-pay-off-for-everyone.html#.VUA5ASFViko
  12. (guy who doesn't understand what vast means)
  13. Going to Cornell doesn't make you rich or elite. It's no different than a degree from UC Berkeley or UVA. And I've seen many unimpressive grads from all three schools. Unless you go into something like engineering, a college degree is merely a sign of potential. What matters is where you get an advanced degree, and how well you do there. You'd be amazed at how limited your options are if you have a degree in History of Art from Cornell.
  14. That's inaccurate. New York Fed researchers recently found that the lowest-earning 25% of college grads earn less than about on half of high school grads. http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/09/college-may-not-pay-off-for-everyone.html#.VUA5ASFViko>. The high school grads also had an extra four years to make money and no college debt.
  15. It's always easy to spot someone who has given up on their dreams. They are the ones criticizing people who still have them,
  16. MMA does a lot for college wrestling. 1) As you noted, it keeps youth and high school participation levels up. This has a few benefits for college wrestling: a. This casts a wider net for talent, and it ultimately feeds into the Olympic system. When wrestlers succeed at the Olympics, it gets some attention. (JB for example has 124,000 twitter followers.) Having Olympic stars is huge for any sport. It's something sports like rowing, cross country, and lacrosse don't have. b. In 2014 wrestling was the sixth most popular boy's sport. That's a pretty decent ranking, and as long as that ranking stays, it will be tough to cut a college wrestling program in favor of a less popular sport. c. High school wrestlers sometimes watch college wrestling -- if not live then on ESPN. d. More high school wrestlers means higher-quality college wrestlers. And a high-quality product is good for college wrestling. 2) Lots of fighters go into MMA after high school or after only a few years in college. So as long as MMA is making billions of dollars, there will be an incentive for MMA promotions to present wrestling in a positive light. At any rate, many of those fighters promote wrestling on their own simply because they love it. The upside is this: If wrestling has an improved image, it is less likely that college programs will be cut it. 3) College stars going on to become MMA stars absolutely can affect administrators' judgment of the value of a wrestling program. Having MMA fans around the world discussing the guys who came out of Oklahoma State and ASU and Missouri and so on is huge. That's the sort of exposure you can't get from some other sports. Administrators are not fans of most of the sports their schools sponsor, so the question is always, Is this sport worth the cost? MMA definitely helps wrestling bring more to the table.
  17. Up until Vietnam, Americans by and large were fully confident that the US was always on the right side of history, and that it could achieve what it wanted to achieve militarily. On top of that, Vietnam went worse than any other US military campaign ever. So it was both surprising to see the US unable to impose its will in Vietnam, and surprising that so many Americans thought the government was wrong to go in there in the first place. The hippie movement was the first time there was a mass, popular movement to upend dominant values. There had always been iconoclasts at the fringes, but never before had it been all middle class's children. For the generation that had survived the great depression and WWII, seeing scenes from Woodstock would have been incredibly shocking. The race issues today are not anything like what they were in the 60s. There were actual bombings, and police forces would actually go out and beat people. The Nation of Islam was teaching black nationalism, and some people really feared that the country could be formally split along racial lines. Civil Rights leaders were assassinated. Today you see a slow drip of isolated incidents, followed by protests. It's not great now, but a lot different than it used to be. There is nothing like the USSR today. Russia still has a nuclear arsenal, but our over all capabilities are far greater. And no other potential enemy would dream of directly confronting us. People are used to criticizing the president. But before Nixon, the office of the president held a special veneration. People assumed the president cared about the country, cared about them, and would try to do the right thing. To see the president outed as having antisocial tendencies was a huge shock to a lot of people. When people realized the president was not their friend, it prompted a lot of questions about what the presidency was, and what the country was. When I look at all these things together, and realize a lot of these phenomena were happening for the first time, I conclude that the late 60s and early 70s were an especially anxiety-producing period in the country's history. So I think someone like Dan Gable would have done a lot to make Americans feel better.
  18. Gable's greatness comes from who he was and when he appeared. In 1972 he won Olympic gold. At the time, Vietnam was burning, the hippie movement was in full force, race riots were spiking, the USSR was a huge threat, and for the first time ever people began seeing their president (Nixon) as a predator and a thug. The country was a crossroads. What was America and what will it become? Americans had lost the sense of security that followed WWII. The country seemed to be splitting apart, and the failure of our grand national experiment seemed to be a possibility. Then here comes this hard-working young man from Iowa. White. Clean cut. Conservative. Midwestern. He goes to Munich (without the kind of financial backing the Soviet athletes had) and dominates. It made Americans feel that they could still compete. Gable was our best wrestler in 1972. Whether he was our best wrestler ever is irrelevant. He was the right person at the right place, and for that reason he will always be a legend.
  19. Wrestling will never be mainstream. But as long as wrestlers keep doing well in MMA, wrestling will be okay. The best things wrestling can do are: 1) Include women. Start having women compete at the same tournaments as men. The world championships and Olympics already do this. MMA puts on events with both male and female competitors. There is no reason the All-Star meet or the Midlands couldn't have women, either. 2) Action and scoring. Change the rules to make wrestling more appealing to watch. The push out rule should be reform number one, IMO. 3) Shorter season. Start the season in January, end it in March or early April. This would reduce the amount of lingering injuries guys deal with. And with fewer overall matches for NCAA seeding purposes, it makes each match count more. It would also give guys more time to train freestyle, Greco, or MMA in the offseason.
  20. I have no insight into why there is no NCAA push out rule yet, but it really needs to happen. It would increases scoring, reduce stoppages, and reward the wrestler who keeps the best position. It's also proven effective, and former NCAA wrestlers who now wrestle freestyle like it. I don't understand what the problem is.
  21. Good question. Do we know why he was trouble making weight? Hopefully it was just his weight cutting methods.
  22. Sure, I can see how using the same word (average) in two different contexts could be confusing. When I mentioned averages in my first paragraph, I was referring to the average earnings data for all liberal arts grads. That includes near geniuses, kids from wealthy families, kids with connections, kids with exceptional outside achievements (like a gold medal or proven entrepreneurial ability), and so on. When I mentioned the average person in my second paragraph, I excluded exceptional and connected kids. In this context average meant something like unexceptional and unconnected. I thought the context in which I placed the word average was clear enough, but I was wrong. Hopefully what I wrote makes sense now.
  23. If your experience is different than mine, that's fine. Keep doing what you're doing. All I can say is in my experience it is odd to refer to a person as "that," even though it happens in informal contexts and even in literature. BTW, who pays you to write?
  24. MMA heavyweight is really thin, yet's it's one of the more prestigious weight classes. Hopefully world-class wrestlers start moving into MMA. I think it would be good for both sports. It helps MMA because it means you increase interest in MMA around the world, and fans get to see better fights. It helps wrestling because it makes wrestling a proving ground for MMA, and it increases wrestling's exposure. As for the UFC's singing of Makhov in particular, I wonder if the UFC is now getting into the business of developing blue chippers (like Bellator has done for world-team-level wrestlers and for Pico); if this is just a sign of how thin their heavyweight division is; or if this is part of some sort of bigger strategy (along with the signing of CM Punk) to fend off antitrust lawsuits.
  • Create New...