Why would a school place athletics on an equal or even higher footing than academics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP: the sports threads always bring out a couple of virolent anti-Sidwell folks. It's a very consistent theme. No matter what you say, he will bash your school.

Kinda of proves my theory about character/sports/ parenting. My experience is that the most obnoxious parents are the loudest ones on the sidelines. They are always upset about the refs, the sportsmanship of the other players, need for their son/daughter to have more time or play a bigger role on the team.

For every obnoxious parent on the sidelines there at 10 that are not obnoxious.

There are also parents berating their kids for a 4.0 because only a 4.5 is acceptable.

[Anonymous]

The more championships the school wins, the more publicity it attracts, thereby attracting more students. Even non-athletic kids (or their parents) choose schools with many championships behind their name.

[Anonymous]

We were told outright in our GDS interview that if a sports team needed to fill a niche, they would overlook low SSAT scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree completely. In fact, I thinks schools such as Sidwell and GDS (two that particularly come to mind), which seem to disregard the importance of strong team sports and leadership ability, send less well adapted and capable students out into the world.

I don't think you're going to get much disagreement that "team players" are highly valued by employers, and also are very effective. Indeed, many people on this thread have sounded that same theme in various ways. And most people agree that athletics provides a common route for children to learn how to be a "team player" (although IMHO certainly not the only possible route).

But where your post goes into a ditch (IMHO), is when you try to equate "strong team sports" (which you seem to define as "winning") with effective and capable leadership. The play's the thing. Children don't learn those leadership lessons from winning -- they learn from participating. In my experience, children learn just as much (perhaps more) from participating fully on a team that does not win easily.

I don't think you can legitimately claim that Sidwell or GDS lacks vigorous athletic participation (as well as lots plenty of success in various sports from what I read). The only real criticism I've heard leveled at them is that neither has had many winning football seasons. While undoubtedly football is a marquee sport, I don't think there's any relation at all between the win-loss record of a school's football team and the quality of its grads. Indeed, if that were the case, employers would be passing on Ivy League grads and hiring only the students from places like Alabama and Tennessee.

[Anonymous]

Let me ask the question a different way. If you had to bet on the future professional success of two students, one that excelled in high school sports or one that excelled in academics, which would you pick?

Which student would you think more likely to peak in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me ask the question a different way. If you had to bet on the future professional success of two students, one that excelled in high school sports or one that excelled in academics, which would you pick?

Which student would you think more likely to peak in high school.

Here's the better question, or at least one that better captures what OP is really interested in.

If you had to bet on the future professional success of three students, one that excelled in high school sports or one that excelled in academics or one that excelled at both, which would you pick?

[Anonymous]

No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree completely. In fact, I thinks schools such as Sidwell and GDS (two that particularly come to mind), which seem to disregard the importance of strong team sports and leadership ability, send less well adapted and capable students out into the world.

I don't think you're going to get much disagreement that "team players" are highly valued by employers, and also are very effective. Indeed, many people on this thread have sounded that same theme in various ways. And most people agree that athletics provides a common route for children to learn how to be a "team player" (although IMHO certainly not the only possible route).

But where your post goes into a ditch (IMHO), is when you try to equate "strong team sports" (which you seem to define as "winning") with effective and capable leadership. The play's the thing. Children don't learn those leadership lessons from winning -- they learn from participating. In my experience, children learn just as much (perhaps more) from participating fully on a team that does not win easily.

I don't think you can legitimately claim that Sidwell or GDS lacks vigorous athletic participation (as well as lots plenty of success in various sports from what I read). The only real criticism I've heard leveled at them is that neither has had many winning football seasons. While undoubtedly football is a marquee sport, I don't think there's any relation at all between the win-loss record of a school's football team and the quality of its grads. Indeed, if that were the case, employers would be passing on Ivy League grads and hiring only the students from places like Alabama and Tennessee.

I think that might be a bad example - players from Alabama and Tennessee are employed by the NFL. I don't think any football player in Alabama or Tennessee is going to have a problem finding a company in Alabama or Tennessee to hire them once they are done playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.

I'd rather have a B student that has something else - it could be a sport or an instrument or anything actually than an A+ student that has nothing else in their life.


It's a balancing act. So yea a kid that plays a sport at a high level is going to practices 2, 3, 4 times a week and traveling on the weekends to play games might actually have a lower GPA than a kid that does not do all that. That would be okay with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.

Well, that's really setting up a straw man, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.


Well, that's really setting up a straw man, isn't it?

Np here.

No, it's really not setting up a straw man. There are plenty of private high school students who are either / or (and yes, a handful who are both, but we're setting them aside for this sub-topic).

I don't want to derail the thread by naming names or schools, but if I -- just one person -- personally know of several current high school athletes who are middling-to-C-minus students even WITH the help of $600 a month tutoring .... this cannot be a rare situation.

Or possibly we are quibbling about the definition of ^^^ "a success in the classroom." To me, than means ~ top 25% at a minimum. It does not mean "barely getting mostly Cs and a few low Bs with the help of a heavy lifting tutor." That is not a "success in the classroom" to me. That's a struggling, middling student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me ask the question a different way. If you had to bet on the future professional success of two students, one that excelled in high school sports or one that excelled in academics, which would you pick?

Which student would you think more likely to peak in high school.

Well that depends how you define profesional success. In my world (I am the MBA poster earlier) sports is probably a better predictor of success in business. Private equity guys don't need to be brain surgeons, they need to be crafty and be able to make tough decisions. They play to win, and sometimes play dirty. I know CEOs who are not brilliant, but they are smart and personable and good strategic thinkers because they have broad life experience.

Now if you are looking for a cure for cancer, or a neorosurgeon, then you want your academic star.

When I think of high school sports stars I am not thinking NFL level, I am thinking college athletes who were able to use sports to move up a notch or two in the kinds of colleges they can go to and will come out with a real degree, not one in sports management. I think that's a more accurate reflection of the kinds of kids going to DC independent schools. It's not really an all or nothing kind of question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.


Well, that's really setting up a straw man, isn't it?

Np here.

No, it's really not setting up a straw man. There are plenty of private high school students who are either / or (and yes, a handful who are both, but we're setting them aside for this sub-topic).

I don't want to derail the thread by naming names or schools, but if I -- just one person -- personally know of several current high school athletes who are middling-to-C-minus students even WITH the help of $600 a month tutoring .... this cannot be a rare situation.

Or possibly we are quibbling about the definition of ^^^ "a success in the classroom." To me, than means ~ top 25% at a minimum. It does not mean "barely getting mostly Cs and a few low Bs with the help of a heavy lifting tutor." That is not a "success in the classroom" to me. That's a struggling, middling student.

NP here. Yes, it is a straw man. The athletes getting Cs are NOT getting recruited by the most selective colleges, and that's really what we're talking about here. These C-average athletes may be getting recruited to play somewhere, but knowing this forum, most of you would probably shrug at the colleges or say, "never heard of it." On the other hand, I know of 4 athletic athletic recruits from the DMV area to DC's top ivy: two came from area public magnets and I know that 2 are NMSSFs (I just don't know about the SATs of the other two, but one of them is one of the two magnet kids I mentioned, so there's that). At the end of the day, it is the athletes who also excel academically who do best in exmissions, and then go off to be investment bankers or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me ask the question a different way. If you had to bet on the future professional success of two students, one that excelled in high school sports or one that excelled in academics, which would you pick?

Which student would you think more likely to peak in high school.

No offense, but that question is ridiculously broad. Success depend on many things, including blind luck and YOUR definition of success. I have fought this fight in the College forum. Full disclosure….I have 2 kids in college. One is an athlete (honor roll student in HS) and the other is a non-athletic artist on academic scholarship. Both went to a local private high school that is known for its athletic success and its arts program.

I know many people in my professional life who are academically brilliant on paper but cannot effectively manage people or projects, don’t see the big picture strategically and do not function well on a team. I also know of some brilliant academics who have mastered these skills.

I know of some brilliant athletes who have travelled the world because of their sport, can talk to anyone, and can rally people to the team’s cause.

How in the world can anyone predict that a kid peaked in high school or how successful that kid is going to be? Too many things can come into play.

I have seen both sides of this argument and, in my experience, the people who criticize the “emphasis” on athletics tend to have children who are non-athletes and do not see firsthand the positive impact they can have on a particular student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.

I'd rather have a B student that has something else - it could be a sport or an instrument or anything actually than an A+ student that has nothing else in their life.


It's a balancing act. So yea a kid that plays a sport at a high level is going to practices 2, 3, 4 times a week and traveling on the weekends to play games might actually have a lower GPA than a kid that does not do all that. That would be okay with me.

+1. And if I were silly enough to try and predict which student would be more "successful," the athlete in your scenario would get my vote.