Niche sports and rich-kid affirmative action: The Atlantic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What really stands out is that some poor kid from the inner city who fills out his college applications doesn't actually know that he's not competing with Fred. He's competing with Fred's mom who has an MA, and Fred's Dad, and a nanny who does research, and a coach who works for the family and a college admissions consultant and the pilot of the private plane, and some kind of sports strategist, a couple of regular tutors as well as the tutor who 'helped' write the essay. Also, a couple of psychologists, and the staff of the pricey summer camp, etc.

What stands out to me in all these stories is that this is a kid who is being produced by a team. It's not really fair that individuals have to compete with conglomerates.

My son has participated in three of these sports. Two of them are free or very low cost to inner city students where I live- rowing and squash.

Well, that makes all the difference.
Does the free or low cost rowing and squash come with world class coaches who move into the guest house? How about oppo research dossiers on opponents so the live in coach can devise strategies targeted to each opponent? How about the sports psychologist, and the national international tournament and showcase play to ensure the kid taking advantage of the free programs gets much needed time with recruiting coaches at top flight universities? Did you even READ the article?

They got free tutoring and free SAT/ACT tutoring. Many got scholarships. Isn't that the end result? Boom!

You obviously didn’t read the article. The lack of results shown by these programs was discussed. How can a kid whoNtslking about plays with a group once a week compete with a kid with a private court at their home and a former world-ranked professional live-in coach?

I did read the article. The rowers earned college scholarships because they rowed 3 seasons a year plus did cross-training in the winter. They rowed 5 days a week. It was an intense program. It worked out well for them.

Not sure what rowers you’re talking about. This is from the article:

And yet, according to figures compiled by the Squash and Education Alliance, an umbrella group for these programs, each year only approximately 50 of their students play on college varsity teams. Although several graduates of squash-access programs have reached the pinnacle of the sport—Reyna Pacheco of Access Youth Academy in San Diego became a top-100 world pro; the Bronx player Jessenia Pacheco (no relation) was a two-time All-American at Cornell—no player from an SEA program is currently represented among the top 30 juniors at any age level. Bryan Patterson, the director of CitySquash in the Bronx, says the odds are stacked against his athletes. “My kids have the talent, but they don’t have the means,” he told me. “These wealthy kids are getting a minimum of an hour and a half, five days a week. That’s verging on a pro schedule. We can only do things in groups. We don’t have the ability to do things one-on-one.” In other words, the same squash luminaries who underwrite squash-access programs have installed training regimens for their own children that make it difficult for regular kids to crack the system. There may be no better allegory for our era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, the point of the article is that niche sports angle isn’t working anymore. Because in a new global applicant pool there is always a beast somewhere.

You can see this around here too if you’re a swim parent. The ones who will swim in college don’t get blown out of the water by the triallists. There aren’t that many of those even in PVS.

Are you kidding? A fencing or squash "beast" is probably the kid that gets routinely bullied by the soccer team in most us high schools, let alone a real sport like football

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What really stands out is that some poor kid from the inner city who fills out his college applications doesn't actually know that he's not competing with Fred. He's competing with Fred's mom who has an MA, and Fred's Dad, and a nanny who does research, and a coach who works for the family and a college admissions consultant and the pilot of the private plane, and some kind of sports strategist, a couple of regular tutors as well as the tutor who 'helped' write the essay. Also, a couple of psychologists, and the staff of the pricey summer camp, etc.

What stands out to me in all these stories is that this is a kid who is being produced by a team. It's not really fair that individuals have to compete with conglomerates.

My son has participated in three of these sports. Two of them are free or very low cost to inner city students where I live- rowing and squash.

Well, that makes all the difference.
Does the free or low cost rowing and squash come with world class coaches who move into the guest house? How about oppo research dossiers on opponents so the live in coach can devise strategies targeted to each opponent? How about the sports psychologist, and the national international tournament and showcase play to ensure the kid taking advantage of the free programs gets much needed time with recruiting coaches at top flight universities? Did you even READ the article?

They got free tutoring and free SAT/ACT tutoring. Many got scholarships. Isn't that the end result? Boom!

You obviously didn’t read the article. The lack of results shown by these programs was discussed. How can a kid whoNtslking about plays with a group once a week compete with a kid with a private court at their home and a former world-ranked professional live-in coach?

I did read the article. The rowers earned college scholarships because they rowed 3 seasons a year plus did cross-training in the winter. They rowed 5 days a week. It was an intense program. It worked out well for them.

Not sure what rowers you’re talking about. This is from the article:

And yet, according to figures compiled by the Squash and Education Alliance, an umbrella group for these programs, each year only approximately 50 of their students play on college varsity teams. Although several graduates of squash-access programs have reached the pinnacle of the sport—Reyna Pacheco of Access Youth Academy in San Diego became a top-100 world pro; the Bronx player Jessenia Pacheco (no relation) was a two-time All-American at Cornell—no player from an SEA program is currently represented among the top 30 juniors at any age level. Bryan Patterson, the director of CitySquash in the Bronx, says the odds are stacked against his athletes. “My kids have the talent, but they don’t have the means,” he told me. “These wealthy kids are getting a minimum of an hour and a half, five days a week. That’s verging on a pro schedule. We can only do things in groups. We don’t have the ability to do things one-on-one.” In other words, the same squash luminaries who underwrite squash-access programs have installed training regimens for their own children that make it difficult for regular kids to crack the system. There may be no better allegory for our era.

Just because you don't know about doesn't mean it isn't happening. Reach High in Baltimore (pre-Covid) trains HS rowers 5 days a week and many of their rowers have gone on to row in college after having received scholarships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, the point of the article is that niche sports angle isn’t working anymore. Because in a new global applicant pool there is always a beast somewhere.

You can see this around here too if you’re a swim parent. The ones who will swim in college don’t get blown out of the water by the triallists. There aren’t that many of those even in PVS.

Are you kidding? A fencing or squash "beast" is probably the kid that gets routinely bullied by the soccer team in most us high schools, let alone a real sport like football

Not in Fairfield, CT.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like people who pay 100k on their kids sport in high school probably don't even break even, even with a generous scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like people who pay 100k on their kids sport in high school probably don't even break even, even with a generous scholarship.

They don't care about breaking even. They want prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like people who pay 100k on their kids sport in high school probably don't even break even, even with a generous scholarship.

They don't care about breaking even. They want prestige.

Right. Spending 100K on your kids sport so they can get a scholarship is for upper middle class parents. The wealthy parents in the article are desperate for the opportunity to pay full tuition at Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I am an immigrant and cannot understand the obsession with sports in this country. I think sports are great for physical fitness and to learn a few important social skills - but I don't think sports should play any role at all into college admission.

My kids only do sports for recreational purposes and I refuse to get drawn into those travel teams that costs thousands per year plus all that time commitment. No way. Unless a child has a really remarkable talent and loves it, it is not worthy it.

As an American who went to an Ivy and played a sport and never was really that good and now has a non-sports job and family --

The experience I had of competition on a team, of working hard to get better, and knowing how to be a good winner and loser, was super valuable for my adult life. (Not saying it needs to be a varsity scholarship sport, though.)

Also, learning to trash-talk weak cowardly white men who thought they were god's gift and wanted to cheap shot you to get ahead was also extremely valuable. Kick their butts on the field, hit them back if they hit you, and they fold like a house of cards.

If only our namby-pamby White House correspondents corps had played sports and learned to do this, we'd all be much better off today.

former ivy athlete talking about "varsity scholarship sports" lol, okay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What really stands out is that some poor kid from the inner city who fills out his college applications doesn't actually know that he's not competing with Fred. He's competing with Fred's mom who has an MA, and Fred's Dad, and a nanny who does research, and a coach who works for the family and a college admissions consultant and the pilot of the private plane, and some kind of sports strategist, a couple of regular tutors as well as the tutor who 'helped' write the essay. Also, a couple of psychologists, and the staff of the pricey summer camp, etc.

What stands out to me in all these stories is that this is a kid who is being produced by a team. It's not really fair that individuals have to compete with conglomerates.

My son has participated in three of these sports. Two of them are free or very low cost to inner city students where I live- rowing and squash.

Well, that makes all the difference.
Does the free or low cost rowing and squash come with world class coaches who move into the guest house? How about oppo research dossiers on opponents so the live in coach can devise strategies targeted to each opponent? How about the sports psychologist, and the national international tournament and showcase play to ensure the kid taking advantage of the free programs gets much needed time with recruiting coaches at top flight universities? Did you even READ the article?

They got free tutoring and free SAT/ACT tutoring. Many got scholarships. Isn't that the end result? Boom!

You obviously didn’t read the article. The lack of results shown by these programs was discussed. How can a kid whoNtslking about plays with a group once a week compete with a kid with a private court at their home and a former world-ranked professional live-in coach?

I did read the article. The rowers earned college scholarships because they rowed 3 seasons a year plus did cross-training in the winter. They rowed 5 days a week. It was an intense program. It worked out well for them.

Not sure what rowers you’re talking about. This is from the article:

And yet, according to figures compiled by the Squash and Education Alliance, an umbrella group for these programs, each year only approximately 50 of their students play on college varsity teams. Although several graduates of squash-access programs have reached the pinnacle of the sport—Reyna Pacheco of Access Youth Academy in San Diego became a top-100 world pro; the Bronx player Jessenia Pacheco (no relation) was a two-time All-American at Cornell—no player from an SEA program is currently represented among the top 30 juniors at any age level. Bryan Patterson, the director of CitySquash in the Bronx, says the odds are stacked against his athletes. “My kids have the talent, but they don’t have the means,” he told me. “These wealthy kids are getting a minimum of an hour and a half, five days a week. That’s verging on a pro schedule. We can only do things in groups. We don’t have the ability to do things one-on-one.” In other words, the same squash luminaries who underwrite squash-access programs have installed training regimens for their own children that make it difficult for regular kids to crack the system. There may be no better allegory for our era.

Just because you don't know about doesn't mean it isn't happening. Reach High in Baltimore (pre-Covid) trains HS rowers 5 days a week and many of their rowers have gone on to row in college after having received scholarships.

Many? How many? From one program. Nice anecdote.

[Anonymous]

Apparently a little too wild to be real:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/30/atlantics-troubled-niche-sports-story/

[Anonymous]

Another update. The Atlantic was duped.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/business/media/atlantic-ruth-shalit-barrett.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR10eqXDNu1q7qkrT6kBYIwS30629Sooh_gO_khMYjwGKfGG1P_CbUcCgWY&fbclid=IwAR0j_5njeZxliyGh3-bv-DQISs5BRwgHDJrAzKePpPWLFUbMI_EmhZZsWIc&fbclid=IwAR1ie0DbbmaJpOEdsVcU-bQDsGEW8AbMh4BSCuqBZ0IFK7HztGNW-oYsLPw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another update. The Atlantic was duped.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/business/media/atlantic-ruth-shalit-barrett.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR10eqXDNu1q7qkrT6kBYIwS30629Sooh_gO_khMYjwGKfGG1P_CbUcCgWY&fbclid=IwAR0j_5njeZxliyGh3-bv-DQISs5BRwgHDJrAzKePpPWLFUbMI_EmhZZsWIc&fbclid=IwAR1ie0DbbmaJpOEdsVcU-bQDsGEW8AbMh4BSCuqBZ0IFK7HztGNW-oYsLPw

Hmm, one of the sources does not have a son, but the article was primarily about her daughters. The article also included some juicy quotes from the coaches. Are those true? Are there any problems with other sources? If the only issue is the existence of ason, the article is still pretty shocking and damning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another update. The Atlantic was duped.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/business/media/atlantic-ruth-shalit-barrett.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR10eqXDNu1q7qkrT6kBYIwS30629Sooh_gO_khMYjwGKfGG1P_CbUcCgWY&fbclid=IwAR0j_5njeZxliyGh3-bv-DQISs5BRwgHDJrAzKePpPWLFUbMI_EmhZZsWIc&fbclid=IwAR1ie0DbbmaJpOEdsVcU-bQDsGEW8AbMh4BSCuqBZ0IFK7HztGNW-oYsLPw

Hmm, one of the sources does not have a son, but the article was primarily about her daughters. The article also included some juicy quotes from the coaches. Are those true? Are there any problems with other sources? If the only issue is the existence of ason, the article is still pretty shocking and damning.

Just like the “Jackie” UVA article, people ignored there were 3 other women in the article.

[Anonymous]

Here’s another story describing the phenomenon without the fabricating of The Atlantic article.

https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/10/ivy-league-athletics-are-the-new-money-ball

[Anonymous]

Yes the stories in this article certainly did make a lot more sense once I found out it was fiction