Scholarships

[mdloves2run]

Hey, I was just wondering if any of you could give me an estimated height that a girl would have to clear to get a partial or full ride to a division 1 school. What about a division 2 or 3? Any estimate is fine because i have no idea! thanks.

[rainbowgirl28]

I would email the coaches at schools you are interested in and ask!

Here are some other threads that will help you.

http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... php?t=4934
http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... php?t=4556
http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... php?t=3621
http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... php?t=3324
http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111

[Vaulterchick88]

Division 1 schools will normally be 11 feet for a female to walk-on

[scubastevesgirly]

To get a full ride at a D III school, you could probably vault 8+ ft.....you just have to be really smart (i.e. no sports scholarships!!)

[VaultMarq26]

Division 1 schools will normally be 11 feet for a female to walk-on

Also remember about Title 9 in alot of D1 schools. My schools needed to balance out the number of girls and boys. Instead of cutting guys, they took on a bunch of girls that really had no business being on teh team, but a 9'6" vaulter was able to walk on. So also keep that in mind with some schools.

[TreyDECA]

Division 1 schools will normally be 11 feet for a female to walk-on

Also remember about Title 9 in alot of D1 schools. My schools needed to balance out the number of girls and boys. Instead of cutting guys, they took on a bunch of girls that really had no business being on teh team, but a 9'6" vaulter was able to walk on. So also keep that in mind with some schools.

there is title 9 in all D1 schools, and it's at the coach's discretion as to whether or not to take on vaulters... our girls have no vaulter's on scholarship, but our guys team has 5 on some kind of scholarship. title 9 has nothing to do with the number of girls on a team versus guys, it has to do with the available scholarships for them. next year, women's D1 track will get an increase in scholarships for 18.+ to 20.+ . that may be incorrect, but i've had numerous conversations with coaches about this and i know that it's obsurd that men only get 12.8 and women will get over 20. and to get back to the point, if the coach see's you and feels you have a lot of potential, you don't need a high mark out of high school to get money, i only vaulted 15'3 out of high school, but had a fast 100 and was tall... that translate into potential... haven't reached it yet!

[CHC04Vault]

Title IX= unfair and ubsurd period. I think Across the board there needs to be an equal amount of scholaships for every sport a school has. Whats even worse, is my school (prolly most schools) considors track and cross country the same sport, so pretty much it means less money period.

[VaultMarq26]

Division 1 schools will normally be 11 feet for a female to walk-on

Also remember about Title 9 in alot of D1 schools. My schools needed to balance out the number of girls and boys. Instead of cutting guys, they took on a bunch of girls that really had no business being on teh team, but a 9'6" vaulter was able to walk on. So also keep that in mind with some schools.

there is title 9 in all D1 schools, and it's at the coach's discretion as to whether or not to take on vaulters... our girls have no vaulter's on scholarship, but our guys team has 5 on some kind of scholarship. title 9 has nothing to do with the number of girls on a team versus guys, it has to do with the available scholarships for them. next year, women's D1 track will get an increase in scholarships for 18.+ to 20.+ . that may be incorrect, but i've had numerous conversations with coaches about this and i know that it's obsurd that men only get 12.8 and women will get over 20. and to get back to the point, if the coach see's you and feels you have a lot of potential, you don't need a high mark out of high school to get money, i only vaulted 15'3 out of high school, but had a fast 100 and was tall... that translate into potential... haven't reached it yet!

Then I will have to ask my coach why we have soo many female runners and jumpers that are on the roster, but never compete. They have always said it was for Title IV.....thanks for the info on it.

[SKOT]

Title IX= unfair and ubsurd period. I think Across the board there needs to be an equal amount of scholaships for every sport a school has. Whats even worse, is my school (prolly most schools) considors track and cross country the same sport, so pretty much it means less money period.

just a few things...

first, XC and track do share all their scholorships at all scholorship granting instutions.

second, title IX isnt absurd, its outdated. in the last 10/15 years it has hurt men's sports much more than it has helped women's sports. but, there was a time when it was first adopted where it was absolutely necessary (i believe it was put into law in 1972)

third, i dont feel that men should get the same number of scholorships in each sport. XC/track is the perfect example of why women's sports need more help than men's sports. because the number of female atheletes is smaller than male athelets, there is a higher demand for each athelete. because of this, you need more scholorships to entice a larger %age of the entire female athelete population. without this, women's sports would be less competative. any thoughts on this anyone?

[CHC04Vault]

I actaully believe there are more female athletes then male atheltes, i think Sport Illustrated did an atricle on this. Secondly, yes, there was a time when equality did not exsist and Title IX was needed, however, it is now hurting male athletes, this is even seen by the government, who last year looked into it, and refined it, but has not done anything drastic. Thirdly, Title IX has double standards. It states that if a school does not offer a woman's program, they are allowed to become part of the mens team. HOWEVER, a male is NOT allowed to particpate in a woman's team. Example, SDSU men volleyball was cut around 4 or 5 years ago, and they a wanted to play on the women's team, in which the school and the NCAA refused that. How is that fair??? The backlash from the inequality of the generations behind us is hurting the males, even some female athletes say it is unfair, because pretty much its become reverse discrimination. Don't get me wrong, i support women's sport 100%, i love watching my g/f and female friends compete, and i love watchin the women compete in the olympics. But, overall, i think Title IX is outdated, and needs to be tweaked (not dismissed) so that it is fair to every athlete who puts the blood, sweet, and tears has a fair shot to become the best athletes they can be.

[TreyDECA]

because of this, you need more scholorships to entice a larger %age of the entire female athelete population. without this, women's sports would be less competative. any thoughts on this anyone?

i think that the newly "flooded" market in women's scholarships has made women's track thin. the depth in vault for example, there are usually 4-6 bars between the 8th place and winner every year, while the men's side typically has 1-2. (except when the winner's on his game and jumps high) i think a decrease in the amount of women's scholarships would cause an increase in competition. just like the institutions we attend, if they want to increase competition within the school itself, they cut down on the number of incoming freshman... they try to decrease the number of students.

this is by no means the only option, but it was something that jumped in my head when you wrote this above statement.

[polevaultdad]

Coming from a Dad of a daughter....Title IX has changed the landscape and accomplished what it was designed to do...then administrations began to see how to get around it...then there was a backlash because many schools got caught funding guys sports with money from the big revenue generators. When revenues drop, instead of killing women's teams, they have to also look at men's teams.

If a school does not have a big revenue sport, it is tough for them to support teams. Also, if schools do have big revenue sports, specifically football, then they have 100+ men atheletes that they need to offset with women athletes. So there will be a disparity somewhere since the numbers of one sport's sport that supports a large number of atheletes. Softball, basketball volleyball are 15 maybe. So track and soccer are sports that get a benefit.

Here in SoCal the papers have done articles over the last year showing how schools still do not comply with TitleIX, even today. In one case a JC locally had a men's basketball team with new uniforms and vans to ride in, while the women had old uniforms and had to drive themselves to games.

Why can some schools have a men's football team, men's basketball team and blame it on Title IX when they have to eliminate men's track?
Or men's volleyball, or men's wrestling? Sounds like mismanagement or lack of vision.