The Spectator
Herbert Moran (7)
Joeys figures don't reflect the true cost of boarding as day boys also pay a fee that includes everything up to 8/9pm i.e. all meals. The bed is a bargain and modest by comparison.
School sporting scholarships/recruitment
- Thread starter observer
- Start date
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
It was intended, when I used it, to convey the notion of a team or year that came together by circumstance rather than design.
Too many bloody forensic accountants on these threads.
The figures used were never intended to be precise, but are indicative only. Many schools have significant "add ons" over and above those figures published and publicly available. So significant time and effort would be needed to actually compare apples with apples if you really wanted to make a cider.
My point remains that there is a lot of revenue at stake at the Schools, and there is fierce competition to get parents to commit to paying in excess of $100k to educate Johnny from Yr 7 to Yr12 at a Private School in Sydney.
Yes, some schools risk devaluing the Brand by indulging in practices that are economically justified, but morally questionable and wisely they chose not to follow that path.
Other schools, with a Brand that is not usually recognised with athletic success can enhance the value of their Brand through clever marketing practices, while they build an organic capability to develop their own product from a "better" year 7 cohort attracted to the school by the prospect of being associated with a successful Brand.
The figures used were never intended to be precise, but are indicative only. Many schools have significant "add ons" over and above those figures published and publicly available. So significant time and effort would be needed to actually compare apples with apples if you really wanted to make a cider.
My point remains that there is a lot of revenue at stake at the Schools, and there is fierce competition to get parents to commit to paying in excess of $100k to educate Johnny from Yr 7 to Yr12 at a Private School in Sydney.
Yes, some schools risk devaluing the Brand by indulging in practices that are economically justified, but morally questionable and wisely they chose not to follow that path.
Other schools, with a Brand that is not usually recognised with athletic success can enhance the value of their Brand through clever marketing practices, while they build an organic capability to develop their own product from a "better" year 7 cohort attracted to the school by the prospect of being associated with a successful Brand.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Your general point has plenty of merit.Too many bloody forensic accountants on these threads.
The figures used were never intended to be precise, but are indicative only. Many schools have significant "add ons" over and above those figures published and publicly available. So significant time and effort would be needed to actually compare apples with apples if you really wanted to make a cider.
My point remains that there is a lot of revenue at stake at the Schools, and there is fierce competition to get parents to commit to paying in excess of $100k to educate Johnny from Yr 7 to Yr12 at a Private School in Sydney.
Yes, some schools risk devaluing the Brand by indulging in practices that are economically justified, but morally questionable and wisely they chose not to follow that path.
Other schools, with a Brand that is not usually recognised with athletic success can enhance the value of their Brand through clever marketing practices, while they build an organic capability to develop their own product from a "better" year 7 cohort attracted to the school by the prospect of being associated with a successful Brand.
It's just that when you rely on figues to support an argument, they have to be accurate, otherwise it's gets down to an argument over mathematics.
Quick Hands, Channeling Adam Spencer?
The "flaw" in my semi argument is that it has yet to be proven that the "organic" brand enhancement will work, following a regime of importing talent to establish that the brand is no longer the "easy beats" that it once was.
There seems to be plenty of historical evidence to suggest that sustaining a quantum improvement in an athletic programme is an extremely difficult and challenging activity.
Not only do you need to attract full fee paying talented athletes to eliminate the need to offer inducements to talent developed elsewhere, but you need to continue to invest in decent coaches for the 13E's to the 1st XV, have access to decent ovals, competitions, gymnasiums, rehab programmes for the inevitable injuries, S&C coaches and programmes and....and... and...
It takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and time to achieve that.
All this while providing a balanced and liberal education in the arts and sciences that someone is prepared to spend more $100k on over 6 years.
The "flaw" in my semi argument is that it has yet to be proven that the "organic" brand enhancement will work, following a regime of importing talent to establish that the brand is no longer the "easy beats" that it once was.
There seems to be plenty of historical evidence to suggest that sustaining a quantum improvement in an athletic programme is an extremely difficult and challenging activity.
Not only do you need to attract full fee paying talented athletes to eliminate the need to offer inducements to talent developed elsewhere, but you need to continue to invest in decent coaches for the 13E's to the 1st XV, have access to decent ovals, competitions, gymnasiums, rehab programmes for the inevitable injuries, S&C coaches and programmes and....and... and...
It takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and time to achieve that.
All this while providing a balanced and liberal education in the arts and sciences that someone is prepared to spend more $100k on over 6 years.
Spieber
Bob Loudon (25)
TSC swimming teams look to be organic given results in last 10 years, which is surprising as it
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
No flaw in your argument at all, just your mathsQuick Hands, Channeling Adam Spencer?
The "flaw" in my semi argument is that it has yet to be proven that the "organic" brand enhancement will work, following a regime of importing talent to establish that the brand is no longer the "easy beats" that it once was.
There seems to be plenty of historical evidence to suggest that sustaining a quantum improvement in an athletic programme is an extremely difficult and challenging activity.
Not only do you need to attract full fee paying talented athletes to eliminate the need to offer inducements to talent developed elsewhere, but you need to continue to invest in decent coaches for the 13E's to the 1st XV, have access to decent ovals, competitions, gymnasiums, rehab programmes for the inevitable injuries, S&C coaches and programmes and..and. and.
It takes a lot of blood, sweat, tears and time to achieve that.
All this while providing a balanced and liberal education in the arts and sciences that someone is prepared to spend more $100k on over 6 years.
Jasdec
Ted Fahey (11)
"Organic growth is growth that comes from a company's existing businesses, as opposed to growth that comes from buying new businesses. It may be negative."
Thankyou Wikepedia ... the font of all knowledge.
If you substitute School and Student for company and business this fits quite well ........
The boarding component is more than an additional add on when your expenses for that same 6 years goes from $100k to $300 if you are paying full fare for scots or shore. It effects between 20 and 60% of the paying clientele in gps schools (depending on the school in attendance). If I was putting my hand in my pocket I'd rather see it going into the " well rounded education" and possibly a better ATAR rather than towards the bloke in the room next to my blokes room who is on a scholarship for sports. Unless he is one of those gifted few he will probably bring The cohorts academic average down.
Or could it be "vain glory"? Better them than me!
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Unfortunately there are some parents who live vicariously through their children, in the same way that a minority of old boys live vicariously through current students. Usually there is an inverse relationship between the achievements of the parents/old boys to the hoped for achievements of the child/current student. Quite sad really.
Spieber
Bob Loudon (25)
1. Fixed
2. People with sad boring lives (aka aspirational parents) - and they seem to be on the increase
As a rather gross generalisation, the fewer children the parents have, the more vicariously they live through their child/children.
I note this having watched the Southland vs Waikato game in the ITM cup, and one of the fellas in the Waikato team apparently has 14 siblings. Not a lot of vicariousness in that family!
I note this having watched the Southland vs Waikato game in the ITM cup, and one of the fellas in the Waikato team apparently has 14 siblings. Not a lot of vicariousness in that family!
Vegas
Chris McKivat (8)
I'm out !!
123 pages of pontificating and postulating, and still no sense to this nonsense of schools buying kids !
What is worse - the schools, blissful in their ignorance and naivety, continue chase each other to the bottom in a grubby, greedy sellout of the fundamental principles of their very being.
I have mentioned before that these scholarships "are to the GPS schooling system what myxomatosis was to rabbits " - maybe a bit dramatic, but the reality is much simpler than that.
Schools, and schooling, are about educating and preparing a boy for whatever life may lay before him, teaching him to learn, live, work and play.
Schools' raison d'être is the betterment of their students - boys (and their families ) choose a school that will best serve their objectives in this regard.
The disappointing fundamental motivation of these scholarship programmes is the complete opposite - schools selecting / poaching / grabbing or choosing kids for the betterment of the school !!
When and how did the Greater Public Schools get the simple premise of education so arse about ??
123 pages of pontificating and postulating, and still no sense to this nonsense of schools buying kids !
What is worse - the schools, blissful in their ignorance and naivety, continue chase each other to the bottom in a grubby, greedy sellout of the fundamental principles of their very being.
I have mentioned before that these scholarships "are to the GPS schooling system what myxomatosis was to rabbits " - maybe a bit dramatic, but the reality is much simpler than that.
Schools, and schooling, are about educating and preparing a boy for whatever life may lay before him, teaching him to learn, live, work and play.
Schools' raison d'être is the betterment of their students - boys (and their families ) choose a school that will best serve their objectives in this regard.
The disappointing fundamental motivation of these scholarship programmes is the complete opposite - schools selecting / poaching / grabbing or choosing kids for the betterment of the school !!
When and how did the Greater Public Schools get the simple premise of education so arse about ??
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
What's in it for the school?
Agree that there are big dollars churning around in private education.
However the private schools (or their church backers) have massive property and investment portfolios. Even Kevin Rudd couldn't send them broke! A dip into the investment portfolio and a change of management would save a school.
The schools employ a large number of staff and this is where the desire to chase students and fee revenue comes from. The more students, the more revenue, the more salary the staff can ask for. No different to working in the commercial world. Whatever brings the students in is what the staff and management of the school will back be it rugby, music, academic achievement, synchronise swimming, marbles, greco roman wrestling, etc.
Also part of this strategy would be similar to how airlines operate. Charge the maximum price you can that just fills the plane. You run the risk of a few vacant seats or slight over selling. With the GFC some schools have come up with a few vacant places. This makes it easier for individuals who wish to sponsor kids to get them in, no waiting list. The money is all the same colour be it from a parent of a kid enrolled at birth or a kid identified in early teens as a talented sportsman and taken under the wing of a booster.
I believe the funding of most kids tagged as scholarship holders comes from boosters whom whilst would be known to school are officially not associated with the school or old boys union.
Running the numbers a booster sponsoring a kid say for $25,000 per year requires an investment portfolio of $500,000 at 5% per annum (assuming tax free structure). In the hands of the booster this would taxed more or less at 50% so the real cost to them is only about $12,500. While serious money for most of us there are people out there for who are happy to incurring this cost.
Sport has the ability to separate many a successful businessman from their money. Edelstein - Sydney Swans, Clive Palmer - Soccer, Tinkler - Newcastle, Lowy - soccer etc.
Sporting scholarships is more about the individual booster than some school strategy that would be discussed at Council / Board meetings. Vacancies and a paying customers - no business or school refuses this.
Agree that there are big dollars churning around in private education.
However the private schools (or their church backers) have massive property and investment portfolios. Even Kevin Rudd couldn't send them broke! A dip into the investment portfolio and a change of management would save a school.
The schools employ a large number of staff and this is where the desire to chase students and fee revenue comes from. The more students, the more revenue, the more salary the staff can ask for. No different to working in the commercial world. Whatever brings the students in is what the staff and management of the school will back be it rugby, music, academic achievement, synchronise swimming, marbles, greco roman wrestling, etc.
Also part of this strategy would be similar to how airlines operate. Charge the maximum price you can that just fills the plane. You run the risk of a few vacant seats or slight over selling. With the GFC some schools have come up with a few vacant places. This makes it easier for individuals who wish to sponsor kids to get them in, no waiting list. The money is all the same colour be it from a parent of a kid enrolled at birth or a kid identified in early teens as a talented sportsman and taken under the wing of a booster.
I believe the funding of most kids tagged as scholarship holders comes from boosters whom whilst would be known to school are officially not associated with the school or old boys union.
Running the numbers a booster sponsoring a kid say for $25,000 per year requires an investment portfolio of $500,000 at 5% per annum (assuming tax free structure). In the hands of the booster this would taxed more or less at 50% so the real cost to them is only about $12,500. While serious money for most of us there are people out there for who are happy to incurring this cost.
Sport has the ability to separate many a successful businessman from their money. Edelstein - Sydney Swans, Clive Palmer - Soccer, Tinkler - Newcastle, Lowy - soccer etc.
Sporting scholarships is more about the individual booster than some school strategy that would be discussed at Council / Board meetings. Vacancies and a paying customers - no business or school refuses this.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Bullshit.
1. These kids are supposed to be subject to an interview process.It defies belief that that who is responsible for these fees,does not come up in this process.
2. There is no tax free structure for boosters in any country,otherwise I could be a booster for your kids,and you would be,for mine.
1. These kids are supposed to be subject to an interview process.It defies belief that that who is responsible for these fees,does not come up in this process.
2. There is no tax free structure for boosters in any country,otherwise I could be a booster for your kids,and you would be,for mine.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
Point 1 - you missed the the comment " whilst would be known to the school"
Point 2 - the more cash you have the more opportunities you have to minimise tax and fund a fight with the tax office. Granted you need a certain critical mass of dollars behind you to do this and willingness to, push the boundaries
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Point 1 when you apply for admission to a School you sign an extensive contract detailing your financial obligations.If some "invisible booster" was involved,would you sign a form agreeing to be liable for these fees? Especially if you are not in a position to pay them?
I know for a fact,there are no "boosters" involved regarding fees in some instances,the School legally waives fees subject to certain conditions.
Point 2. Ridiculous. Do you understand the tax act and the penalties involved?
Do you have any comprehension how fucking vindictive they are if they catch you out rorting the system ?
If it is an arguable case,the legals dwarf the amount in dispute.
If it is not arguable there is a risk of criminal proceedings.
People with heaps of cash do not look at ways at making themselves personally liable for multiples of any transactions they ener into.
I know for a fact,there are no "boosters" involved regarding fees in some instances,the School legally waives fees subject to certain conditions.
Point 2. Ridiculous. Do you understand the tax act and the penalties involved?
Do you have any comprehension how fucking vindictive they are if they catch you out rorting the system ?
If it is an arguable case,the legals dwarf the amount in dispute.
If it is not arguable there is a risk of criminal proceedings.
People with heaps of cash do not look at ways at making themselves personally liable for multiples of any transactions they ener into.