PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Ladies [#5]: All That Glitters Is Not Gold



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

jlai
10-22-2012, 05:01 AM
I know Flatt didn't place well at SA, but she improved her score by 30 points since St. Moritz a few weeks ago, and landed 5 triples in the long program-- all while dealing with college and injury. While I won't consider her world podium threat, I won't count her out at US nationals either. The gal is a fighter.

Cyn
10-22-2012, 05:05 AM
My sister's business is SAT Prep/College Application Prep, and it takes a lot more than a good GPA and high SAT scores to get into the Ivy League schools. Students now have to have several hours of community service under their belts, extracurricular activities that they excel at, and the like to even be considered. Being the son or daughter of an alumnus doesn't help as much as it used to.

These days it's harder to get into a lot of state schools than it was back in the '80s when I went to college. Back then, UGA's SAT requirements were insanely low - something like a total of 900 (verbal and math only, no written), with Tennessee being even lower. FSU was higher than both. I got into all three with flying colors, even winning scholarships. The one school I didn't get into was the University of Texas, which at the time, had extremely high out of state requirements that didn't take actual GPA into account but rather class rank. I went to the top public school in my state, and although I had a high GPA, it wasn't in the top 10% (the number of National Honor Society students in my graduating class was ridiculous, along with National Merit Scholar finalists). Another friend of mine, who went to a crap school, had a lower GPA but was ranked 9th in her graduating class. She got into UT Austin, and boy was I pissed.

pinky166
10-22-2012, 05:18 AM
Rachael got into Dartmouth, University of Denver, Duke, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA and Yale. She was accepted to all but Harvard, which put her on the waiting list. But I guess only dumb people get into those schools listed above :rolleyes:

I never said she was dumb just that Christina might be smarter. In any event, you're right, testing and college acceptances are really kind of arbitrary, I think you just have to realize that there are a lot of differences between Flatt and Gao and their situations, internal and external, that probably play a factor in why one excells doing college and skating while the other is not managing it as well. Flatt is obviously not dumb and I never said she was, that's ridiculous, they don't accept dumb people at Stanford, I just threw it out there that maybe Gao is even smarter. Wasn't trying to tear down Rachael in any way, I just really am not surprised to see her skating come to the point its at, she got to the level she was through training to an extent she can no longer maintain at college.

bek
10-22-2012, 05:27 AM
I never said she was dumb just that Christina might be smarter. In any event, you're right, testing and college acceptances are really kind of arbitrary, I think you just have to realize that there are a lot of differences between Flatt and Gao and their situations, internal and external, that probably play a factor in why one excells doing college and skating while the other is not managing it as well. Flatt is obviously not dumb and I never said she was, that's ridiculous, they don't accept dumb people at Stanford, I just threw it out there that maybe Gao is even smarter. Wasn't trying to tear down Rachael in any way, I just really am not surprised to see her skating come to the point its at, she got to the level she was through training to an extent she can no longer maintain at college.

But who cares about whose smarter? Its easy to have an opinion on whose a better skater because we all get to watch both of them skate? But the smarter thing is difficult seeing none of us get to read their papers, work with them academically. And most haven't really conversed with them. (And for the record both applied different years its not like the Harvard admissions team was looking at Rachael's and then looking at Christina's applications and saying we like her-we don't like her. :lol:) Different years, different comparisions. In general I think that people can maybe be smarter in some areas and less smarter than in other areas Both are clearly highly intelligent.

Jemestone
10-22-2012, 05:30 AM
Your post about Rachael was so uncalled for. And you didn't mean to tear her down?? Who are you fooling. :rolleyes: You're always tearing down skaters you don't like.

jlai
10-22-2012, 05:39 AM
A lot of folks I knew were admitted to UT Austin as foreign or out-of-state applicants, but they had no class rank, so public exam scores really helped there.

But back in the 80s and 90s, that school's admission favored in-state students. Still does.

Anyway, their top 10% admission is used as an "equalizer", allowing motivated students from poorer districts down South to get in, even though they may not be as academically prepared. But UT has been wanting a cap on that top 10% percent admissions. Interesting thing is that admitting students who are top 10% has not changed over the years. Has been that way for ages. It's just that students population changed and size of UT hasn't, so getting in seems harder.

Also, UT-Austin is now having to fight off a lawsuit re: admissions. That will be interesting.


These days it's harder to get into a lot of state schools than it was back in the '80s when I went to college. Back then, UGA's SAT requirements were insanely low - something like a total of 900 (verbal and math only, no written), with Tennessee being even lower. FSU was higher than both. I got into all three with flying colors, even winning scholarships. The one school I didn't get into was the University of Texas, which at the time, had extremely high out of state requirements that didn't take actual GPA into account but rather class rank. I went to the top public school in my state, and although I had a high GPA, it wasn't in the top 10% (the number of National Honor Society students in my graduating class was ridiculous, along with National Merit Scholar finalists). Another friend of mine, who went to a crap school, had a lower GPA but was ranked 9th in her graduating class. She got into UT Austin, and boy was I pissed.

Back on topic, I hope US ladies are back on track this year. Go Ashley, Christina and Rachael!

Vagabond
10-22-2012, 06:54 AM
I just threw it out there that maybe Gao is even smarter. Wasn't trying to tear down Rachael in any way

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. :shuffle:

judgejudy27
10-22-2012, 07:08 AM
I know Flatt didn't place well at SA, but she improved her score by 30 points since St. Moritz a few weeks ago, and landed 5 triples in the long program-- all while dealing with college and injury. While I won't consider her world podium threat, I won't count her out at US nationals either. The gal is a fighter.

I think she has a chance at a top 10 finish at Nationals. How high does she have to finish to get automatic entry into next years Nationals if she doesnt get a grand prix assignment (and I doubt she will) next season.

Jemestone
10-22-2012, 07:18 AM
^She has to finish 5th or better.

krenseby
10-22-2012, 07:21 AM
I know Flatt didn't place well at SA, but she improved her score by 30 points since St. Moritz a few weeks ago, and landed 5 triples in the long program-- all while dealing with college and injury. While I won't consider her world podium threat, I won't count her out at US nationals either. The gal is a fighter.

The question about Rachael Flatt is why her performance is so unbalanced.

What I mean is: how often do you see a skater so solid on their jumps, really nailing most of them.. and yet... they ignore all other aspects of their skating?

Rachael obviously trained her jumps and came prepared to land them. But, everything in between the jumps wasn't anywhere close on the same level.

It is very rare that skaters decide just to master the jumps and ignore everything else. Why did Rachael pursue this strategy?

brightphoton
10-22-2012, 08:26 AM
Rachael obviously trained her jumps and came prepared to land them. But, everything in between the jumps wasn't anywhere close on the same level.

It is very rare that skaters decide just to master the jumps and ignore everything else. Why did Rachael pursue this strategy?

If it weren't a common strategy then why is the term "jumping bean" so common? Anyway, you're right, transitions get a lot of points, but they're also difficult to do! It's probably easier to practice setting up for jumps and landing them than having to integrate it with other elements. It also helps that Rachael was attempting much easier jumps and jump combinations than the other girls.

Psychologically, it's also less embarrassing to skate a clean, simple program and get a low score rather than skate a messy program with pretty spins, spirals, and transitions and get the same low score.

Marco
10-22-2012, 11:26 AM
I have wondered if Ashley would be better off going for 3t-3t and 3f in the SP. Her 3lo is good but that's probably the jump she's most likely to 2ft, and 3f-3t might not happen consistently enough for it to be worth it, and the layout I mentioned above would have a higher BV than her current one when she does the 3-2 and we know she can rack up big GOEs on her flip! I don't doubt she could do a 3t-3t either.

Well she used to toe-axel quite horrendously - that could be why.

Marco
10-22-2012, 11:39 AM
Rachael is just not pleasant to watch. Sorry. Everything about her skating looks so labored, it's hard to believe she was a national champion and Olympian just two years ago. I get the feeling USFS was giving her one last chance with the SA assignment.

That's it for Flatt really. She and Sotnikova both popped a jump in the short. Look where they ended up. In the long program she landed as many if not more clean triples than others who placed above her and who didn't place 5th at Worlds. Getting thelowest PCS is embarrassing for a recent US champion. If 2011 was not evident enough, this should be clear evidence that she has been dumped by the judges.

I feel completely bad for Nagasu, especially if she ultimately only got to skate in one event. Her skating might have slipped at Nationals too but at least she kept it up internationally with a bronze at 2011 4CCs and medals at her GPs.


I know Flatt didn't place well at SA, but she improved her score by 30 points since St. Moritz a few weeks ago, and landed 5 triples in the long program-- all while dealing with college and injury. While I won't consider her world podium threat, I won't count her out at US nationals either. The gal is a fighter.

That's a very positive spin. Comparison is relative. She only got to improve her score by 30 points because her previous score was so low.

I was ready to count her out for Nationals after how she was treated last season. She and Czisny made the same mistake in the short program but their placement was very different. She redeemed herself in the long but then again placed behind others with worse performances. I don't think the Federation should have faith in someone who doesn't even put skating as their first priority.

chipso1
10-22-2012, 02:05 PM
Enough college talk: on a completely superficial note, I'm glad Wagner and Gao have ditched the over-the-boot tights look!! :cheer2:

olympic
10-22-2012, 02:41 PM
Enough college talk: on a completely superficial note, I'm glad Wagner and Gao have ditched the over-the-boot tights look!! :cheer2:

As has Flatt, FWIW.

This is my 1st post at the conclusion of SA. First of all, I don't know how to react. It's been so long since US ladiezz have outperformed when it counted. I am happily eating crow after watching Gao. I was writing her off because I considered that attending Harvard and competing was going to be way too much on her plate