interesting study about specializing early vs not

[Anonymous]

I haven't been able to access the WSJ or Science article, but there was a book I browsed on this topic called "Range" that looked really interesting.

Personally, I think it's a mistake to specialize early since there are so many interesting things to explore in childhood and adolescence. Plus for sports and even some instruments, hours and hours of practice can be hard on the body.

My kids aren't specialized, but even if they begged to only do one thing they were passionate about, I think I'd still want them to be a little broad.

[Anonymous]

It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I also wonder in music what counts as success. being a professional? I know a few professional musicians and they all had varied focuses and interests (multiple instruments and genres, also did recording and producing, studio work and tours) and none of them were HS stars.

[Anonymous]

Child actor chiming in: or they may realize seeking a certain path is not what it’s cracked up to be. That was my case. Went a completely different path and felt a blessing to have had the opportunity to see pitfalls of that particular career path early (11) - and bridge to a more rewarding career for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Child actor chiming in: or they may realize seeking a certain path is not what it’s cracked up to be. That was my case. Went a completely different path and felt a blessing to have had the opportunity to see pitfalls of that particular career path early (11) - and bridge to a more rewarding career for me.

Give me a break

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes, it is inexplicable. It’s an educational trend from 20-40 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Colleges have moved from wanting well rounded kids to wanting pointy kids that they put together to make a well rounded class. That’s what the college counselors say at least. I think it’s dumb because you end up with a group of kids who are all siloed in their experiences. I also suspect it increases mental health stress for college classes. I’ve come to believe the college application process is pushing families towards trends that are a long term negative for society. The number and depth of extracurriculars they expect is ridiculous, and doesn’t leave time for developmentally appropriate things like dating. And then everyone complains that 20-somethings don’t date, the young men don’t know how to talk to or treat women and are resentful, people aren’t having enough kids, etc. There are a lot of reasons for it, but this college-driven push to have teens super scheduled in structured extracurricular endeavors in a big part of it, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

You weren’t a victim obviously. You were part of the system that routes children into specializing. And no, I don’t think that playing Division 1 is truly extraordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

You weren’t a victim obviously. You were part of the system that routes children into specializing. And no, I don’t think that playing Division 1 is truly extraordinary.

Ah, thanks, now I get it.

[Anonymous]

Tangentially made me wonder, what becomes of those spelling bee kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And no, I don’t think that playing Division 1 is truly extraordinary.

It seems like you’ve moved the goalposts a bit. Here’s a summary of the report.

Anonymous wrote: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.

If less than 1% of youth sports athletes make it to a D1 team and even fewer remain on a team all 4 years what are the outcomes you’re measuring against? It would appear to be different than the OP’s article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

Big deal d1 . This is talking the top Olympic athletes concert pianists chess grandmasters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because “specializing” is something adults do, not healthy kids. A kid who “specializes” is being pushed by their parents, not by their own talent and drive. Also a kid with truly extraordinary talent would be bored by being limited by adult-created categories.

I couldn’t access the article so I don’t know what they consider the levels are in each discipline that corresponds to success.

I will say that our child was identified as an exceptional athlete early by a grade school gym teacher. We thought he was nuts, but in a nice, harmless way. He ended up being correct in the end.

DC participated in basketball, lacrosse, soccer and track between 6 and 10. They also skated, but that was completely unstructured. At 11 they specialized in a single sport. They were always chosen to play up at every level, until they ran out of upper levels. They became a division one athlete. I don’t know if that would meet the definition of success.

The statement I quoted above confuses me. We didn’t push anything. We tried to slow things down. It disrupted our lives and initially was quite expensive. There are intense people in this world that are difficult to keep up with. That’s what makes them successful. No one would ever classify us as overbearing parents. We were more victims of circumstance that tried to accommodate our child the best we could.

Big deal d1 . This is talking the top Olympic athletes concert pianists chess grandmasters

Read the quoted part in 20:30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I believe it but there are exceptions, like gymnastics and figure skating, where girls need to get their triples/quads before puberty, and then the struggle is to hang on. There's no getting around early specialization in those sports, but their training is broader than it used to be.