They made a complicated provision for ages 15-17. They could have made it simple by saying that a person cannot be a member until they are 18 or are a high school graduate, whichover comes first. If this was spelled out that simple, Pressel would have not been as upset. The reason Aree Song was easily accepted and Pressel was not without a fight, though both were 17, is because Aree graduated from high school first. Very few people saw that distinction.
If Pressel hadn't got the invite, she would still have been able to play 6 sponsors exemptions before her 18th birthday in May, then become a full-time pro.
So she wouldn't have missed out on many tournaments.
However, Pressel wanted to be a member from the start, so that the money she would earn would be included on the money list.
Given that she is only 31st on the money list with $101,000 made, maybe she shouldn't have bothered.
There is still a chance of her getting rookie of the year, although she is only in 4th position for that.
This is one case in which simplifying the rules would have meant fewer headaches for the LPGA. Make it simpler. Turn 18 or get high school diploma, whichever comes first to be a member.
This is one case in which simplifying the rules would have meant fewer headaches for the LPGA. Make it simpler. Turn 18 or get high school diploma, whichever comes first to be a member.
I think their rules are okay. I think they were correct to give Pressel the card, and if Wie wants membership, I think they should jump at the chance, high school diploma or not.
They could also give a card, with the condition that you have to keep your school grades at a certain level or your card would be withdrawn.
That would be fair, and ensure that youngsters education wasn't suffering due to lpga membership.
I think their rules are okay. I think they were correct to give Pressel the card, and if Wie wants membership, I think they should jump at the chance, high school diploma or not.
They could also give a card, with the condition that you have to keep your school grades at a certain level or your card would be withdrawn.
That would be fair, and ensure that youngsters education wasn't suffering due to lpga membership.
I still think making the rules complicated "to make themselves look sophisticated" was not wise. This is a case of simpler is better. If the LPGA had just stated 18 or high school degree, Morgan would not have had any issue. The real reason the LPGA accepted Aree Song without a stink was because she already earned her degree.
Actually, it is better the way they did it. There were letters from her school, stating that Pressel had made a commitment to school. She scored 790 on the math portion of the SAT, so she has a commitment to school.
As for the tour messing up her schooling, I would guess it's the other way around. Some weeks ago, she played a round on a Friday, barely making the cut. She stated that she would love to spend the evening practicing but had to take a test online that evening, so practice wasn't really possible.
Actually, it is better the way they did it. There were letters from her school, stating that Pressel had made a commitment to school. She scored 790 on the math portion of the SAT, so she has a commitment to school.
As for the tour messing up her schooling, I would guess it's the other way around. Some weeks ago, she played a round on a Friday, barely making the cut. She stated that she would love to spend the evening practicing but had to take a test online that evening, so practice wasn't really possible.
I bet now she might think again or try to graduate last Dec. if she had to do it over again.
To me, this just shows that the LPGA needs to make a simple rule (18 or high school degree).
I bet now she might think again or try to graduate last Dec. if she had to do it over again.
To me, this just shows that the LPGA needs to make a simple rule (18 or high school degree).
What about home schooling?
Some people can bring tutors on the road. What's wrong with that, provided they are doing the work?
I also don't agree with you in setting the rule steadfast. It is good for them to have some wriggle room, so that they can do what they want if something unexpected should happen.
This is one case in which simplifying the rules would have meant fewer headaches for the LPGA. Make it simpler. Turn 18 or get high school diploma, whichever comes first to be a member.
There are kids that manage to accelerate their learning, particularly if home school, and can get a diploma as early as 15 or 16. Don't think that is what the LPGA is trying to accomplish by setting the age limit to 18. Graduating at 17 is pretty easy if your birthdate falls at the correct time of the year, but is it correct for Q-school? Lots of variables to be considered.
There are kids that manage to accelerate their learning, particularly if home school, and can get a diploma as early as 15 or 16. Don't think that is what the LPGA is trying to accomplish by setting the age limit to 18. Graduating at 17 is pretty easy if your birthdate falls at the correct time of the year, but is it correct for Q-school? Lots of variables to be considered.
Why is age or schooling such a big deal? If a kid wants to qualify for the tour through Q school, let them. I think way too many people are focused on diploma mills these days. The reality is a HS diploma or College diploma is only worth what a person makes of it. A person can make a reasonable income without either. I see more and more kids with "college" degrees that can barely tie their own shoe. School is way over rated. By dumbing down standards just to push out diplomas, it has cheapend the entire process in the US.
The reality is a HS diploma or College diploma is only worth what a person makes of it. A person can make a reasonable income without either.
Though I tend to agree with you a bit, that's certainly not the message the LPGA wants to be sending out to it's younger fans. Further, these kids can play professional golf into their 40's. They don't need to be out on Tour at 17.
I didn't say do not bother with education at all. I just do not see the point of making it mandatory or the necessary thing to do. The fact of the matter is, I know several people personally who are millionaires and never saw the inside of a school beyond the sixth grade while I also have some ivy league colleagues who will never be financially independent from their parents.
The problem as I see it is the system is trying to make all square pegs round. What about vocational training? What about professional sports? What about overall entrepreneurial spirit?
Education can be a good thing, but it can not be looked at as the be all end all of society's problems. A person could go out and get a better job if they drank with the right people vs. putting in the time to get a good education with a big name school.
I know my opinion may seem radical to some, but it is something I truly believe. I make a decent living as a CPA and have an MBA, but I truly wished I would have done things differently. I do not know that I would of spent 6 additional years in school. I have one friend who is a landscaping salesman who makes as much as me and is outside most of the day. Who wouldn't want that?
Though I tend to agree with you a bit, that's certainly not the message the LPGA wants to be sending out to it's younger fans. Further, these kids can play professional golf into their 40's. They don't need to be out on Tour at 17.
I understand what you are saying, but I also feel that the current message being told to kids is a dis-service as well.
They are being told that going to college will solve everything. Tell that to all the kids out there with worthless degrees working at the gas and go. I am not one of these people to paint a Henny Penny scenario with all the sky is falling rhetoric, but I think there needs to be a reasonable and rational discussion on what types of education are offered and what can be the reasonable expectations of each.
I didn't say do not bother with education at all. I just do not see the point of making it mandatory or the necessary thing to do. The fact of the matter is, I know several people personally who are millionaires and never saw the inside of a school beyond the sixth grade while I also have some ivy league colleagues who will never be financially independent from their parents.
There is no amount of money that can be traded for a cultivated intellect, nor is money a measure of success.
Getting an education opens doors. Not getting one closes them.
There is no amount of money that can be traded for a cultivated intellect, nor is money a measure of success.
Getting an education opens doors. Not getting one closes them.
Money is not the true measure of success, but a bare minimum is necessary to pay the bills, etc.
I just think that in a lot of instances "education" is over rated.
To answer League's question, it could be a grass is always greener scenario. I will find out soon enough. I only plan on putting 7 - 8 more years in the office then I am going to golf all week
May 13th, 2006, 11:25 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
