Rachael defers Stanford, skates for another year? | Page 7 | Golden Skate

Rachael defers Stanford, skates for another year?

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Mao got 207 at Nationals for a DGed 3A in the SP. 1 3A and 2 2A in the LP.
At the Olympics, she got 203 or something for 3 3As. How do you say inflation in Japanese? Mao Asada. The US is by far the least inflated, true for its currency and true for figure skating.

Mao got a 204 (with a DG 3A in the short; and a DG 2T in the long), just one point more than her Olympics results (which has a DG flip and a popped triple toe in the LP).

It is seven points more than her Worlds score of 197. (But there were two 3A DG).

I have a feeling that if it was Mirai with a 18 point difference between her Nationals and Olympics score, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I think this is the right comparison of Rachael's scores and Mirai's.

U.S. Nationals: Rachael 200.11. Mirai (with 11.22 points given back for the three URs and the ! call) 199.12

Olympics: Rachael (with 7.98 points given back for URs) 190.47. MiraI 190.15.

200.11 versus 199.12 and 190.27 versus 190.15.

Remembering that National championships always inflate scores by about ten points, this looks like a dead heat to me, and nothing to be outraged about. Unless, of course, we want to be outraged at the tech specialists for calling all those downgrades in the first place.

As for whose performances we liked best, that is a separate issue. To me, Mirai can blow everyone out of the water on the performance side, but Rachael is right behind her and has those big jumps.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Mao got a 204 (with a DG 3A in the short; and a DG 2T in the long), just one point more than her Olympics results (which has a DG flip and a popped triple toe in the LP).

It is seven points more than her Worlds score of 197. (But there were two 3A DG).

I have a feeling that if it was Mirai with a 18 point difference between her Nationals and Olympics score, you wouldn't be singing the same tune.

But Mao only did 1 3A at nationals. and she took out some transition (spread eagle before the 2A comes to mind). Her score was inflated as was everyone else. That was the point.
I don't care for Mirai so whatever feeling you have is inconsequential.
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
And it feels more normal to see Mao with 200 scores. She has done it several times now at Natl and ISU events.

The US has one skater with marks that stick out like a polar bear in Panama. 200 at Natls but 180 or less at most ISU events. Talk infllation all you want but the 20 points I refer to make Japan look much more consistent. And Mao has many ways to score points besides her 3A because her skating is of the highest quality.

Only skaters with exceptional skills can get 200 points at ISU events.

Yeah, that might as well be Rachael.Who.Has.5.Different.Triples and consistently put 7 triples in LP and triple triple in both SP and LP.
When was the last time Mao had 6 ratified triples in a LP? Not in 2010, Not in 2009.
Only skaters with exceptional skills should get 200 points at ISU events. AGREE.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ Still, Mao Asada is a much better skater than any American lady at the present time. She skates at the world class level. Our ladies have a ways to go, I'm afraid.

Her high school, 10% in the top 10% of the class.

:agree: I love math.
 
Last edited:

princess9

On the Ice
Joined
May 1, 2010
MM, the top three US ladies are clearly world class. Mirai finished just off the podium after the 3 heavily favored skaters. She gave 2 fab skates at the biggest event there is. Age 16 and rather childlike in personality and maturity, she already a magical creature on the ice. Flatt per you was called wrong and should have been right behind Nagasu. Wagner could not get there sadly as we sent two. I bet she too would have kicked butt! Our top three are world class skaters. Mao is special, no doubt and I think the very best right now. What exactly do you consider world class? Mirai and Flatt out skated Miki Ando, the world champion with way more experience.:confused:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I guess I meant that none of the U.S. ladies is currently in a position seriously to contend for a World Championship. The last three years we have not placed high enough even to get three spots for Worlds. Or medal at the Grand Prix Final. Or win any international competitions.

We're gaining on it, though. Maybe next year.
 

PROKOFIEV

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
I guess I meant that none of the U.S. ladies is currently in a position seriously to contend for a World Championship. The last three years we have not placed high enough even to get three spots for Worlds. Or medal at the Grand Prix Final. Or win any international competitions.

We're gaining on it, though. Maybe next year.
Yes. Defnitely, next year!! They can do it and they:rock: will do it!:rock:
 

Bennett

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Yes it does. Which is ridiculous. They don't just take summer courses, they just run off to Santa Clara and take fall, winter, spring courses. So I said even some full time Stanford students couldn't handle the competition, Rachael definitely cannot with her skating schedule.
Thanks for your explanations. That seems like a waste of money and opportunity. They pay very expensive tuition to study at one of the best private institutions in the US. Why don't they use that opportunity to enhance their studies? Even if they get better credits at an easier school, eventually they face trouble for not mastering what they should have done earlier.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Thanks for your explanations. That seems like a waste of money and opportunity. They pay very expensive tuition to study at one of the best private institutions in the US. Why don't they use that opportunity to enhance their studies? Even if they get better credits at an easier school, eventually they face trouble for not mastering what they should have done earlier.

It is not quite so cut and dry - just as assuming every professor at Stanford is a superior scholar or teacher to every professor at Santa Clara. There are some professors who might prefer teaching at Santa Clara or even a junior college as opposed to Stanford for any variety of reasons.

Sometimes scheduling and class availablity plays a part in a student's choice to take courses at a different school. When I was a student I took my major with a teacher off campus because he had skills and presented opportunies that far surpassed what was available from any of the professors on campus.

Many times students need courses to fulfil the requirements of their major even if such courses will have little or no bearing on their future professional careers.
In certain cases is it so bad to work hardest on what will be more important to your future and maybe slack off a little on a course that although required may not be important in the future?

There are many possibilties and situations. Giving the benefit of the doubt here - students accepted at Stanford have a proven record of success in high school. If they choose to study off campus for whatever reason I don't necessarily see it as them throwing away opportunity or as a waste.
 
Last edited:

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Thanks for your explanations. That seems like a waste of money and opportunity. They pay very expensive tuition to study at one of the best private institutions in the US. Why don't they use that opportunity to enhance their studies? Even if they get better credits at an easier school, eventually they face trouble for not mastering what they should have done earlier.

I don't mean it like that. They only avoid certain classes and certain professors. Stanford is very generous with grades. I believe the average GPA is 3.5+. But med school admissions in the US is really brutal. 3.5 would not cut it, even from Stanford.
Plus, if you're taking intro chem or whatever, you wouldn't get much out of the best private institution in the world anyway. :). I only know a few who did it. It wasn't a wide spread phenomenon, just some pre-med kids who found a loop hole and made a run for it. Rachael is doing bio, pre-med, and thinking about med school. If she's doing women's studies or some random thing Alissa Czisny was doing, I wouldn't have brought it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

brownfox

On the Ice
Joined
May 5, 2010
MM, the top three US ladies are clearly world class. Mirai finished just off the podium after the 3 heavily favored skaters. She gave 2 fab skates at the biggest event there is. Age 16 and rather childlike in personality and maturity, she already a magical creature on the ice. Flatt per you was called wrong and should have been right behind Nagasu. Wagner could not get there sadly as we sent two. I bet she too would have kicked butt! Our top three are world class skaters. Mao is special, no doubt and I think the very best right now. What exactly do you consider world class? Mirai and Flatt out skated Miki Ando, the world champion with way more experience.:confused:

Um, no.
 

silverlake22

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Am I the only one here who actually thinks that Miki Ando is a very good skater? I see how Mirai on a good day is maybe a bit better but I find Miki superior to Rachael at this point....
 

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Am I the only one here who actually thinks that Miki Ando is a very good skater? I see how Mirai on a good day is maybe a bit better but I find Miki superior to Rachael at this point....

Miki has the potential to be a great skater, as we see in practice and in exhibitions. In practice she is landing double axel/triple toe, 3/3 combos, skates with speed and attack. In exhibitions she can very very expressive (requiem was fantastic) and somehow has much better extensions and posture. In competition she suffers from Caroline Zhang syndrome (self-conciseness, does not "sell" the choreography). Lately she waters down her programs, and without her big jumps, there is nothing which seperates her from the pack.
 

silverlake22

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Miki has the potential to be a great skater, as we see in practice and in exhibitions. In practice she is landing double axel/triple toe, 3/3 combos, skates with speed and attack. In exhibitions she can very very expressive (requiem was fantastic) and somehow has much better extensions and posture. In competition she suffers from Caroline Zhang syndrome (self-conciseness, does not "sell" the choreography). Lately she waters down her programs, and without her big jumps, there is nothing which seperates her from the pack.

I felt that at the Olympics, but I thought her LP at Worlds was actually quite good, she seemed more expressive and faster there than she did at the Olympics and all her jumps were nice - light and springy. Her exhibition pieces really are amazing though, but I thought her LP from the 08-09 season was great for her, especially at the Worlds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hcz-FHNMA8&feature=related that was one of her best performances ever IMO. I think she does better with more powerful music and I know she isn't THAT expressive but her artistic improvement since 2006 has been quite miraculous if you compare her skating from back then to now, she used to seriously be just about the jumps.
 

Bennett

Record Breaker
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
It is not quite so cut and dry - just as assuming every professor at Stanford is a superior scholar or teacher to every professor at Santa Clara. There are some professors who might prefer teaching at Santa Clara or even a junior college as opposed to Stanford for any variety of reasons.

Sometimes scheduling and class availablity plays a part in a student's choice to take courses at a different school. When I was a student I took my major with a teacher off campus because he had skills and presented opportunies that far surpassed what was available from any of the professors on campus.

Many times students need courses to fulfil the requirements of their major even if such courses will have little or no bearing on their future professional careers.
In certain cases is it so bad to work hardest on what will be more important to your future and maybe slack off a little on a course that although required may not be important in the future?

There are many possibilties and situations. Giving the benefit of the doubt here - students accepted at Stanford have a proven record of success in high school. If they choose to study off campus for whatever reason I don't necessarily see it as them throwing away opportunity or as a waste.

Yes, I totally agree it's wrong to assume that every professor at higher-rated school is a superior scholar or teacher to every professor at a lower-ranked school.

Here I would refrain from talking about Stanford or Santa Clara specifically because I did not attend either of them or have friends in them.

But some research universities put such a great emphasis on research productivity that teaching skills may not matter more than research competence in the selection process of the candidates of professors (they'd say both are equally important though) and that professors in research universities may not be pressured to invest as much effort in teaching as those in teaching colleges.

On the other hand, teachers may tailor the level of teaching to the level of understanding of their average students. Class discussions also may be more exciting at competitive schools.

Basically, I think it good that the university allows flexibility in exchanging credits across schools. It could create a loop hole that we discussed, but from a broader perspective, it creates more opportunities for the students to study in different places in the world and more autonomous selection as you mentioned. Sometimes, you may not be able to get the kind of learning opportunity in your university if you have to limit your choices specifically to your university.

Sorry I am getting off the topic. I wish Rachael good luck with her studies.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Despite the fact that continuing with college was Alissa's priority, it is indeed true that there's more of an "expiration date" on skating abilities than there is on college. Alissa was probably just stating that as a fact. You can be a thirty-year-old scholar, or even a forty-year-old one, but it's harder to be a top competitive skater with all your jumps at a later age, so if you have to choose one pursuit at a time, it makes sense to put skating first chronologically. Alissa chose to try both, but she seems to be a polite sort, and she might be reluctant to imply criticism of Rachael's choice. So her comment makes sense to me.

i'm not really worried about Rachael in terms of whether she'll return to academics. She seems to be interested in that side of things, and when I see how Paul Wylie and Michelle Kwan turned out, I know that a committed scholar will eventually get the degrees completed.
 

heyang

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I haven't read the whole thread.

As much as I do reaize that a competitive skaters career has a time limit, I also think that experiencing college to its fullest is a once in a l ifetime opportunity too. It's very different going into the dorms as an 18 yr old freshman vs a 22 yr old freshman. The mindset between the 2 ages is very different.

Couldn't Rachel not compete this year but still skate/train while having a full freshman college experience? Then after the end of freshman year, she could 'hold' college and return to competition.

I'd feel differently if the Olympics was within the next 2-3 yrs, but timing wise, she could have her freshman college experience with people of the same age and still get back into skating competitively. Unlike Michele Kwan, Rachel likely still wants a medal at World's and an Olympic medal to get her back into competitive mode. The 1 yr time off from competition might also help stave off injury, too. Very few skaters [who also want college] have this timing with the Olympic cycle.
 

chuckm

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 31, 2003
Country
United-States
Rachael has mentioned deferring for just ONE year. I don't see that much difference between an 18-year-old freshman and a 19-year-old one. Rachael will have her "full freshman college experience", just a year later than some other freshmen.
 
Top