Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Thanks to The Chosen, Lee Grant and Mole for commenting on my post.
From long experience I know that getting into an argument over controversial matters soon becomes unproductive, but I interpret your comments as quite legitimate criticism. I just want to comment on one of Lee Grant's paragraphs:
"What Uni is good at is having old boys who are trustees of a trust that helps out with fees and, significantly, to get the boys into courses when their UAI scores don't warrant it. And Uni will never have to worry about not being able to afford to have a full time 1st Grade coach as Gordon did."
It is a misconception that Uni is able "to get the boys into courses when their UAI scores don't warrant it." I can state with absolute certainty that that is not and has never been the case. Not ever. Not in one instance.
What may have been the basis for this furphy is the fact that the University of Sydney, like a number of other Australian universities, operates an Elite Athlete and Performers Scheme. This is open to not only sportsmen and women but also to performers such as musicians and dancers. It is designed to offset to some extent the adverse effect that the pursuit of excellence in their chosen discipline is likely to have had on their performance in the HSC. To be eligible the applicant must be certified to have been of elite standard and to have produced evidence of very significant demands on their time in training and competition. Successful applicants are given up to five additional points on their UAI (or ATAR from this year).
In the case of rugby players, the availability of the EAPS scheme is clearly advertised in the UAC Handbook and it is open to all irrespective of which club they are affiliated with. Applicants are evaluated on strictly stipulated criteria. Players signing with other clubs routinely make use of this system.
The University's administration and academics would never tolerate any preferment being given to its rugby club's players. It would do irreparable damage to the reputation of the institution.
With regard to the statement: "Uni will never have to worry about not being able to afford to have a full time 1st Grade coach as Gordon did," I would point out that Uni does not pay any of its players and the reimbursement of educational expenses given to those on scholarships is extremely modest. I suggest that it might be interesting to compare Gordon's expenditure this year on payments to coaches and players with Uni's expenditure on payments to coaches plus scholarships.
The real reason for my post was not to crow about Sydney Uni but rather to draw attention to the fact that players can be and are being developed to professional playing standard at the clubs. If we focus on getting the Premiership Clubs strong we shouldn't have too much difficulty having enough quality players to stock the franchises without buying in imports.
From long experience I know that getting into an argument over controversial matters soon becomes unproductive, but I interpret your comments as quite legitimate criticism. I just want to comment on one of Lee Grant's paragraphs:
"What Uni is good at is having old boys who are trustees of a trust that helps out with fees and, significantly, to get the boys into courses when their UAI scores don't warrant it. And Uni will never have to worry about not being able to afford to have a full time 1st Grade coach as Gordon did."
It is a misconception that Uni is able "to get the boys into courses when their UAI scores don't warrant it." I can state with absolute certainty that that is not and has never been the case. Not ever. Not in one instance.
What may have been the basis for this furphy is the fact that the University of Sydney, like a number of other Australian universities, operates an Elite Athlete and Performers Scheme. This is open to not only sportsmen and women but also to performers such as musicians and dancers. It is designed to offset to some extent the adverse effect that the pursuit of excellence in their chosen discipline is likely to have had on their performance in the HSC. To be eligible the applicant must be certified to have been of elite standard and to have produced evidence of very significant demands on their time in training and competition. Successful applicants are given up to five additional points on their UAI (or ATAR from this year).
In the case of rugby players, the availability of the EAPS scheme is clearly advertised in the UAC Handbook and it is open to all irrespective of which club they are affiliated with. Applicants are evaluated on strictly stipulated criteria. Players signing with other clubs routinely make use of this system.
The University's administration and academics would never tolerate any preferment being given to its rugby club's players. It would do irreparable damage to the reputation of the institution.
With regard to the statement: "Uni will never have to worry about not being able to afford to have a full time 1st Grade coach as Gordon did," I would point out that Uni does not pay any of its players and the reimbursement of educational expenses given to those on scholarships is extremely modest. I suggest that it might be interesting to compare Gordon's expenditure this year on payments to coaches and players with Uni's expenditure on payments to coaches plus scholarships.
The real reason for my post was not to crow about Sydney Uni but rather to draw attention to the fact that players can be and are being developed to professional playing standard at the clubs. If we focus on getting the Premiership Clubs strong we shouldn't have too much difficulty having enough quality players to stock the franchises without buying in imports.
