Is there a different attitude towards prepping for sports versus intellect and why?

[Anonymous]

Many parents on this board abhor the notion of prepping for entrance tests and exams when applying to schools at any entrance level. When it comes to athletics and sports (skills of the body instead of the mind) parents prep their children with outside coaches/tutors, camps, drills and the like. Do these same parents exhibit the same abhorrence when prepping their children to make or enter various athletic teams, swim teams and traveling squads/clubs in soccer, lacrosse, gymnastics, tennis, football? Does prepping children in sport and athletic skills do children a disservice by setting them up for potential failure when they join the athletic team...and may not keep up with their peers? Are these parents and children unethical and cheating for prepping in order to make the team? Is this practise unfair to other competitors that just show up for the trial without prepping (camps, coaches, laps in the pool, push-ups and sit-ups)? Does prepping for sport improve athletic skills and performance? If so, is this a good thing? Does prepping for tests and exams improve intellectual/mental skills and performance? Is this a good thing? If not, why? Is the mind different from the body in response to preparation and repetitive tasks/training?

[Anonymous]

In both cases, the proof is in the product and if DC can't make the grade / team ... DC will get counseled out / cut from the team (sit the bench).

[Anonymous]

Should DC try to make the team/cut through advance preparation? ... or go with what is preordained?

[Anonymous]

Just as performers rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse some more before a production -- athletes and academics need to practice, practice, practice to make perfect. There is nothing wrong with this. Who would go into an interview w/o preparation? Only a fool. Only a fool would try-out for a team or take the SAT w/o practice.

[Anonymous]

Just as performers rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse some more before a production -- athletes and academics need to practice, practice, practice to make perfect. There is nothing wrong with this. Who would go into an interview w/o preparation? Only a fool. Only a fool would try-out for a team or take the SAT w/o practice.

Is it cheating and unethical for parents and their children in anticipation of admission entrance interviews to primary school to prepare assiduously (much like an athlete or musician). Preparation may include anticipating interview and exam/test questions that may or will arise. Mimicking the exam, interview, questions in the mind's eye (visualization). This information/prep is sometimes gleaned in advance from acquaintances, friends of the family, older siblings, "Google and Wiki-pedia-search" descriptions of exam content for the single-minded purpose of the best performance on game day to gain successful admission?

[Anonymous]

Right, only a fool would take a test without having seen the questions in advance and memorized the answers.

[Anonymous]

I have long felt that we expect that kids will spend many hours prepping and being coached for excellence in sports, but for academics this is seen as "cheating." In fact, my own dear sister in law (out of state), whose daughter spends 30 hours practicing gymnastics for championships ranted and raved over Christmas about kids who are tutored for the SAT -- claiming this is "unfair." Or people think it is perhaps normal that Tiger did nothing but golf as a kid in order to become a champ, but see it as "pushy" to coach kids for the much greater chance at creating wealth and stability through some academic success. I do think there is a double standard. We've long done what we think of as "support" for my child in areas that he is strong and and loves and wants to become better at. And in other countries/cultures this is the norm academically. People think we're weird, of course. Too much pressure is of course a possible price in either sports, but - again - the double standard is glaring.

[Anonymous]

Right, only a fool would take a test without having seen the questions in advance and memorized the answers.

This must make Tiger Woods, world class athletes of all ilks (swimming, cycling, racing) for memorizing and playing the course, preparing on the course or pitch even
before the actual game/test!

...you can't hide.

[Anonymous]

Right, only a fool would take a test without having seen the questions in advance and memorized the answers.

Does this make golfers, world class athletes of all ilks (swimming, cycling, racing) all fools for memorizing and playing the course, preparing on the particular course or pitch even
before the actual game/test?

[Anonymous]

When parents claim their super smart children that ace the test (e.g., personal best swim time, 8 goals for the winning lacrosse team) did not prepare for the exercise, or nonchalantly state they did not prep their children (amidst hysterically trying to decipher the best time to submit a school application, how many paragraphs of response is necessary, who... relatives, friends, teachers.. should write letters of reference, how to conduct a play date, how to select the right tester for their child, to formally hire a tutor or outside agent -- besides themselves -- to prepare their child, etc, etc); what does this mean?

[Anonymous]

I have long felt that we expect that kids will spend many hours prepping and being coached for excellence in sports, but for academics this is seen as "cheating." In fact, my own dear sister in law (out of state), whose daughter spends 30 hours practicing gymnastics for championships ranted and raved over Christmas about kids who are tutored for the SAT -- claiming this is "unfair." Or people think it is perhaps normal that Tiger did nothing but golf as a kid in order to become a champ, but see it as "pushy" to coach kids for the much greater chance at creating wealth and stability through some academic success. I do think there is a double standard. We've long done what we think of as "support" for my child in areas that he is strong and and loves and wants to become better at. And in other countries/cultures this is the norm academically. People think we're weird, of course. Too much pressure is of course a possible price in either sports, but - again - the double standard is glaring

In my Potomac neighborhood, it iseems the rule, rather than the exception for kids to be involved in at least 2 sports (with coahes, practice, repetition, etc) at any one time during the year -- devoting up to 1 to 2 hours/ day in these activities; however more than 20 minutes of homework/day (math, reading, languages,social studies, etc, etc) is considered torture and unconsionable for some. The double standard is certainly most amusing indeed.

[Anonymous]

prepping for entrance tests and exams

I think there's a difference between prepping for the SAT and WPPSI. The SAT you don't study the actual test you will be taking. From my understanding of WPPSI "prep", parents are providing practice for their children with the actual test. This type of prep renders the test invalid.

Of course, using a psychological test as an entrance exam is not exactly a terrific practice either IMO.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't the answer about what's appropriate depend on the situation/context? Most athletic contests (and many academic tests, like a final semester exam or the SAT) are meant to test a person's learned abilities, so preparation is expected. Other tests (such as a blood-oxygen test for athletes, or the WPPSI for kids) are meant to test innate capabilities, so "preparing" for those tests inappropriately skews the results in a way that undermines the testing process.

Note that I'm hand-waving the question of whether or not any of these tests are accurate measures. I know that point can be debated for months with no answer, so there's no point in debating it again here.

[Anonymous]

21:12 here again. Sounds like 21:11 and I are thinking alike.

[Anonymous]

What if you don't prep with the "actual" WPSSI exam (in the same way that Stanley Kaplan started out 30 + years ago with SAT) but since the content and domains of the exam are familiar to most who care to research; would thorough repetitious review and practise of the exam content constitute cheating and therefore immorality?

For example, if you were to study for the US History AP exam (or subject ACT), and you can access a list/index of the relevant content and subject matter (from google, Wiki-pedia, friends, other students, family, the College Board, books, etc, etc,), can you prepare for this test by thoroughly reviewing and practicing the items on this content list, without the "actual" exam and ace it --get 5 out of 5? Is such preparation (however superficial or deep) immoral and cheating?...or is degree of intensity of preparation the dividing line in the moral sands?

In the course of taking the AP US history exam (this is not unusual) you encountered 3 out of 5 thematic questions that were almost verbatim taken from books/materials you encountered in your advance preparation. Would this constitute cheating? Would you cancel your exam paper for fear of crossing the cheating line, admit to the College Board that in the course of preparation you had drafted answers to 3 mock questions that resembled (approximating) those on this particular exam? How would other candidates sitting for the exam feel if you revealed this fact to them? Are they justified in calling you immoral and a cheater...perhaps even reporting you to the College Board?

When parents state they do not prep for the WPPSI do they only mean that they do not have an "actual" copy of the WPSSI exercises for their DC review?