interesting study about specializing early vs not

[Anonymous]

My kids have semi-specialized so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I did find this study interesting. I wonder if this will change over time since the current system seems to reward specializing early a lot more than it used to.


https://www.wsj.com/science/elite-high-performance-adults-children-sports-study-ae8d6bed?mod=hp_featst_pos5

Kids who are stars in sports and music don’t usually grow up to be stars as adults, a new study found.

An examination of thousands of adults across fields including sports, music, academia and chess found that world-class performers—Olympic champions, renowned composers, Nobel laureates—often don’t excel early.

There was just a 10% overlap between high-performing kids and elite-level adults, researchers reported in a paper Thursday in the journal Science. Most young top performers didn’t remain top performers during peak-performance age, and most adult standouts weren’t standouts as kids.

---

There are a few possible explanations, he added. Pursuing a range of interests increases your chance of finding one that you enjoy and are good at. And being exposed to multiple activities as a child can make you a more adaptable learner when you’re older.

Overspecializing at a young age also increases the risks of burnout and overuse injuries, and is less sustainable in the long run, according to the researchers.

[Anonymous]

That is interesting, OP. It makes sense to me. I think often what happens with young "superstars" in a sport or other discipline is that they are a bit precocious in one or more aspects of the sport, meaning they are just ahead of their peers in certain areas. They have the ball-handling skills of a MS or HS student, or have an older child's ability to understand pace and note quality, or are unusually flexible or fast or strong for their age. But sometimes it's just that they developed in these areas faster than peers but are not actually virtuosic. Their peers catch up with them on those metrics and then, often surpass them.

I think one reason these kids don't often go on to be superstars later is because that early ease in the discipline makes them expect it to always come easy, and when it doesn't, they get bored or frustrated and don't persevere. Whereas kids who struggle more early on and have to fight to develop certain skills see how their diligence and practice paid off, and it encourages them to continue to do that, and that snowballs and leads to excellence.

[Anonymous]

I have remained involved in my childhood sport, figure skating, as a judge. I've seen several generations of skaters, now, including from the homeschool community, go on to become successful adults in various fields unrelated to skating. I think that the qualities required to train hard enough to compete at an elite level translates to other areas of life. You just have to find new passions after sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have remained involved in my childhood sport, figure skating, as a judge. I've seen several generations of skaters, now, including from the homeschool community, go on to become successful adults in various fields unrelated to skating. I think that the qualities required to train hard enough to compete at an elite level translates to other areas of life. You just have to find new passions after sport.

That wasn’t the question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids have semi-specialized so I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I did find this study interesting. I wonder if this will change over time since the current system seems to reward specializing early a lot more than it used to.


https://www.wsj.com/science/elite-high-performance-adults-children-sports-study-ae8d6bed?mod=hp_featst_pos5

Kids who are stars in sports and music don’t usually grow up to be stars as adults, a new study found.

An examination of thousands of adults across fields including sports, music, academia and chess found that world-class performers—Olympic champions, renowned composers, Nobel laureates—often don’t excel early.

There was just a 10% overlap between high-performing kids and elite-level adults, researchers reported in a paper Thursday in the journal Science. Most young top performers didn’t remain top performers during peak-performance age, and most adult standouts weren’t standouts as kids.

---

There are a few possible explanations, he added. Pursuing a range of interests increases your chance of finding one that you enjoy and are good at. And being exposed to multiple activities as a child can make you a more adaptable learner when you’re older.

Overspecializing at a young age also increases the risks of burnout and overuse injuries, and is less sustainable in the long run, according to the researchers.

That's why I don't get this push for mcos regional programs- why encourage a bunch of middle schoolers to choose a specialty so early

[Anonymous]

I have a gifted kid who loves novelty and the chase of catching up. His interests change every year and he has a very varied list of things that he is quite good at, but nothing he is amazing at, even though it seems clear that if he chose something and did it consistently he would be amazing.

I always wonder how this will play out as an adult. I am not worried just curious.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't access the article. Is there a gift link option?

My kid is not specialized. Also, she is a girl. I'm in my 40s, so I know that in reality, just as women can't have it all, girls can't do everything boys can do. In general. Particularly if they are women of color.

That is to say, even if she were specialized, the sky would not be the limit. Do I want her to have to go through the hardship (and possibly martyrdom) of breaking barriers? Not necessarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't access the article. Is there a gift link option?

My kid is not specialized. Also, she is a girl. I'm in my 40s, so I know that in reality, just as women can't have it all, girls can't do everything boys can do. In general. Particularly if they are women of color.

That is to say, even if she were specialized, the sky would not be the limit. Do I want her to have to go through the hardship (and possibly martyrdom) of breaking barriers? Not necessarily.

I hope your daughter succeeds despite having such a sad sack for a mother

[Anonymous]

^^ that is unnecessary. Knock it off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't access the article. Is there a gift link option?

My kid is not specialized. Also, she is a girl. I'm in my 40s, so I know that in reality, just as women can't have it all, girls can't do everything boys can do. In general. Particularly if they are women of color.

That is to say, even if she were specialized, the sky would not be the limit. Do I want her to have to go through the hardship (and possibly martyrdom) of breaking barriers? Not necessarily.

I hope your daughter succeeds despite having such a sad sack for a mother

+1 what a pathetic POS

[Anonymous]

Why do they have to be stars? Why can't they just do those things because they enjoy it. They don't have to the the BEST. You are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do they have to be stars? Why can't they just do those things because they enjoy it. They don't have to the the BEST. You are the problem.

Who are you talking to? No one here has said they have to be stars?

[Anonymous]

This years Heisman winning college quarterback Mendoza said he was the third string quarterback in high school.

[Anonymous]

My husband is a musician, graduated from a very prestigious school and has taught at the same school for a while. This is what he has to say with regards to music based on the experiences of his classmates and students.

1) There were very, very few surprises for those who actually worked closely with the kids. Some of them could be a bit on the lazy side, especially in middle school, so if you look at the “objective” measures, you might not think that’s a future star. Also, some of the kids/families were less “strategic” and didn’t aim to rake in all the possible awards. Again, doesn’t mean they weren’t great.

2) Some very talented kids do not become stars for reasons that have nothing to do with their achievements. There are high personal costs in music, and not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices. For example, of the women that he went to school with, most of those who got chairs in top orchestras are childless; touring is hard on families. And those who had family money to smooth over the rough early years when you make your name tended to do better.

[Anonymous]

This is a writeup of a Science article which did a meta-analysis of articles and data on this subject. They were careful in their study design to only include people who achieved a high level v/s those who were exceptional (i.e. Olympic athletes v/s national level athletes, Nobel prize winners v/s national academy level scientists, top 10 chess players v/s "mere" grandmasters/international masters) Again, only comparisons between people who remained in their chosen field and did well. And they found that there was very little overlap between early achievers who "maxxed out" v/s those who reached elite levels but later. The other takeaway was multidisciplinary interests and focus. So essentially they came out against the East German model of channeling kids (prodigies) into a narrow mould and hyperspecializing.