Academic prep vs athletic coaching

[Anonymous]

For all those whining about Asians "prepping", read this eye opening article. You think this doesn't happen (maybe not at this level of intensity) around here? YOU are likely practicing this as well but may be in denial. This way worse than academic prepping! You are spending more money, for less seats which at the end of the day give most of these kids the ability to push a ball across the court better than most others. Not really a life skill if you ask me..

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/squash-lacrosse-niche-sports-ivy-league-admissions/616474/

[Anonymous]

Agreed. With academic tutoring (prepping), the skills and material carry forward through high school, college, and beyond. Can't say that about 99.9% of kids and their lacrosse game . . .

[Anonymous]

I know! People can be so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Here's my take on it.

Academic extracurriculars are fine. If you want to send your kid to Mathnasium or Kumon or whatever, go for it. I don't think of education as a competition and I don't think academic extracurriculars are super valuable - if you learn to do algebra in 6th grade vs. 7th or 8th or 9th, what does it really matter? - but I also find it unobjectionable.


I do disagree with prepping kids for tests that aren't meant to be prepped for. If you're prepping your kids to take the WISC or Cogat or whatever, you're invalidating the test scores. Those tests are designed to be taken unprepped. Prep can't raise your score on the Cogat as much as it can on something like the MAP, but it can boost your score. I know I just said it's not a competition, but those tests are typically given to allocate resources where they are most needed, and an artificially enhanced score is taking away a spot from someone else.

I don't think there's really an equivalent in sports (or music or anything else) because I don't think there are any sports competitions or tests that are meant to measure raw talent vs. current ability. If there were such tests, and you prepped for them, that would also be wrong. Kids' sports these days are over the top, and if you put your kid into a sport expecting a college scholarship out of it, you're probably nuts, but there are lots of good reasons for kids to participate in sports.

FWIW, my kids don't do either one (academic prep or athletic coaching). I am sure they will turn out just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on it.

Academic extracurriculars are fine. If you want to send your kid to Mathnasium or Kumon or whatever, go for it. I don't think of education as a competition and I don't think academic extracurriculars are super valuable - if you learn to do algebra in 6th grade vs. 7th or 8th or 9th, what does it really matter? - but I also find it unobjectionable.


I do disagree with prepping kids for tests that aren't meant to be prepped for. If you're prepping your kids to take the WISC or Cogat or whatever, you're invalidating the test scores. Those tests are designed to be taken unprepped. Prep can't raise your score on the Cogat as much as it can on something like the MAP, but it can boost your score. I know I just said it's not a competition, but those tests are typically given to allocate resources where they are most needed, and an artificially enhanced score is taking away a spot from someone else.

I don't think there's really an equivalent in sports (or music or anything else) because I don't think there are any sports competitions or tests that are meant to measure raw talent vs. current ability. If there were such tests, and you prepped for them, that would also be wrong. Kids' sports these days are over the top, and if you put your kid into a sport expecting a college scholarship out of it, you're probably nuts, but there are lots of good reasons for kids to participate in sports.

FWIW, my kids don't do either one (academic prep or athletic coaching). I am sure they will turn out just fine.

Asian here. Thank you for the nice explanation on why prepping for tests is different from sports. This is the first explanation that made sense to me. I do not agree completely, because even in sports a person who is performing at X level after a lots and lots of practice with expensive coaches might not be as good as someone who is performing at say 0.9X level but had minimal coaching. The latter person might be able to get to say a 1.5X level with proper coaching. So when they have a tryout, the coaches cannot really take into account how much coaching a person got. So we end up with a similar situation as test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on it.

Academic extracurriculars are fine. If you want to send your kid to Mathnasium or Kumon or whatever, go for it. I don't think of education as a competition and I don't think academic extracurriculars are super valuable - if you learn to do algebra in 6th grade vs. 7th or 8th or 9th, what does it really matter? - but I also find it unobjectionable.


I do disagree with prepping kids for tests that aren't meant to be prepped for. If you're prepping your kids to take the WISC or Cogat or whatever, you're invalidating the test scores. Those tests are designed to be taken unprepped. Prep can't raise your score on the Cogat as much as it can on something like the MAP, but it can boost your score. I know I just said it's not a competition, but those tests are typically given to allocate resources where they are most needed, and an artificially enhanced score is taking away a spot from someone else.

I don't think there's really an equivalent in sports (or music or anything else) because I don't think there are any sports competitions or tests that are meant to measure raw talent vs. current ability. If there were such tests, and you prepped for them, that would also be wrong. Kids' sports these days are over the top, and if you put your kid into a sport expecting a college scholarship out of it, you're probably nuts, but there are lots of good reasons for kids to participate in sports.

FWIW, my kids don't do either one (academic prep or athletic coaching). I am sure they will turn out just fine.

Agree on the last sentence. However, one's frame of reference for "fine" also changes over time.

I applied to go to school in the US 20+ years ago. Was admitted to Yale MBA (no merit aid) but ended up doing an MS at Penn State instead because they gave me money. As a foreigner, no merit aid was possible. Did I turn out fine? Of course. Would I have turned out finer if I had gone to Yale? You bet! That's what these parents - both the test preppers and sports coaching parents - are shooting for.. Yale and not UPenn. Can't blame them. We may not agree with them but as long as it's possible, these parents will try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on it.

Academic extracurriculars are fine. If you want to send your kid to Mathnasium or Kumon or whatever, go for it. I don't think of education as a competition and I don't think academic extracurriculars are super valuable - if you learn to do algebra in 6th grade vs. 7th or 8th or 9th, what does it really matter? - but I also find it unobjectionable.


I do disagree with prepping kids for tests that aren't meant to be prepped for. If you're prepping your kids to take the WISC or Cogat or whatever, you're invalidating the test scores. Those tests are designed to be taken unprepped. Prep can't raise your score on the Cogat as much as it can on something like the MAP, but it can boost your score. I know I just said it's not a competition, but those tests are typically given to allocate resources where they are most needed, and an artificially enhanced score is taking away a spot from someone else.

I don't think there's really an equivalent in sports (or music or anything else) because I don't think there are any sports competitions or tests that are meant to measure raw talent vs. current ability. If there were such tests, and you prepped for them, that would also be wrong. Kids' sports these days are over the top, and if you put your kid into a sport expecting a college scholarship out of it, you're probably nuts, but there are lots of good reasons for kids to participate in sports.

FWIW, my kids don't do either one (academic prep or athletic coaching). I am sure they will turn out just fine.

Asian here. Thank you for the nice explanation on why prepping for tests is different from sports. This is the first explanation that made sense to me. I do not agree completely, because even in sports a person who is performing at X level after a lots and lots of practice with expensive coaches might not be as good as someone who is performing at say 0.9X level but had minimal coaching. The latter person might be able to get to say a 1.5X level with proper coaching. So when they have a tryout, the coaches cannot really take into account how much coaching a person got. So we end up with a similar situation as test prep.

Except the Cogat doesn’t measure “raw talent” either. The Cogat is a test designed to assess reasoning ability, which is inseparable from academic achievement. When a child preps for the Cogat, they actually are developing better reasoning skills, which will translate into higher academic achievement (and a better Cogat score!). It is a stubborn myth that there exists a raw material intelligence that is somehow formed outside of academic work.

[Anonymous]

Agree. The belief that academic success is somehow due to talent and inborn gifts is one of the more pernicious beliefs that students are saddled with, and the reason why so many give up too soon.

I have some links here on the growth mindset vs the fixed mindset (see the second link on how it is used to combat racial bias). But the general theory is that students who believe that intelligence is fluid and can be shaped through learning tend to have higher academic achievement than those who believe intelligence is essentially fixed at birth. It also requires teachers and parents to hold this belief as well, and nurture their charges appropriately. The Singapore educational system follows this approach.

TED talk by the Stanford researcher who pioneered this - https://www.ted.com/talks/carol_dweck_the_power_of_believing_that_you_can_improve?language=en

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/2020/09/carol_dweck_students_growth_mindsets_protest_and_pandemic.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2019/07/09/why-a-growth-mindset-is-essential-for-career-success/#23228cd728b5

https://hbr.org/2018/09/having-a-growth-mindset-makes-it-easier-to-develop-new-interests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The belief that academic success is somehow due to talent and inborn gifts is one of the more pernicious beliefs that students are saddled with, and the reason why so many give up too soon.

I have some links here on the growth mindset vs the fixed mindset (see the second link on how it is used to combat racial bias). But the general theory is that students who believe that intelligence is fluid and can be shaped through learning tend to have higher academic achievement than those who believe intelligence is essentially fixed at birth. It also requires teachers and parents to hold this belief as well, and nurture their charges appropriately. The Singapore educational system follows this approach.

TED talk by the Stanford researcher who pioneered this - https://www.ted.com/talks/carol_dweck_the_power_of_believing_that_you_can_improve?language=en

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/2020/09/carol_dweck_students_growth_mindsets_protest_and_pandemic.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2019/07/09/why-a-growth-mindset-is-essential-for-career-success/#23228cd728b5

https://hbr.org/2018/09/having-a-growth-mindset-makes-it-easier-to-develop-new-interests

There's also this animation on the same subject https://youtu.be/Yl9TVbAal5s

[Anonymous]

The other legacy we have to contend with is a peculiar contempt for academic hard work. Students who work hard are often called grinds, wonks, strivers, swots - which I can only assume comes from a sort of aristocratic contempt for hard work. This I think is a legacy from across the pond, and it's not some old relic of history either - Boris Johnson in 2013 called David Cameron, as well as his own brother Jo Johnson (who recently resigned from the government over his brother’s Brexit policy), “girly swots” for gaining first-class degrees at university, while he had only achieved an upper second-class degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other legacy we have to contend with is a peculiar contempt for academic hard work. Students who work hard are often called grinds, wonks, strivers, swots - which I can only assume comes from a sort of aristocratic contempt for hard work. This I think is a legacy from across the pond, and it's not some old relic of history either - Boris Johnson in 2013 called David Cameron, as well as his own brother Jo Johnson (who recently resigned from the government over his brother’s Brexit policy), “girly swots” for gaining first-class degrees at university, while he had only achieved an upper second-class degree.

So true, everyone hates the curve-killer, sandbagger ... unless he lets you cheat off his paper!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on it.

Academic extracurriculars are fine. If you want to send your kid to Mathnasium or Kumon or whatever, go for it. I don't think of education as a competition and I don't think academic extracurriculars are super valuable - if you learn to do algebra in 6th grade vs. 7th or 8th or 9th, what does it really matter? - but I also find it unobjectionable.


I do disagree with prepping kids for tests that aren't meant to be prepped for. If you're prepping your kids to take the WISC or Cogat or whatever, you're invalidating the test scores. Those tests are designed to be taken unprepped. Prep can't raise your score on the Cogat as much as it can on something like the MAP, but it can boost your score. I know I just said it's not a competition, but those tests are typically given to allocate resources where they are most needed, and an artificially enhanced score is taking away a spot from someone else.

I don't think there's really an equivalent in sports (or music or anything else) because I don't think there are any sports competitions or tests that are meant to measure raw talent vs. current ability. If there were such tests, and you prepped for them, that would also be wrong. Kids' sports these days are over the top, and if you put your kid into a sport expecting a college scholarship out of it, you're probably nuts, but there are lots of good reasons for kids to participate in sports.

FWIW, my kids don't do either one (academic prep or athletic coaching). I am sure they will turn out just fine.

Asian here. Thank you for the nice explanation on why prepping for tests is different from sports. This is the first explanation that made sense to me. I do not agree completely, because even in sports a person who is performing at X level after a lots and lots of practice with expensive coaches might not be as good as someone who is performing at say 0.9X level but had minimal coaching. The latter person might be able to get to say a 1.5X level with proper coaching. So when they have a tryout, the coaches cannot really take into account how much coaching a person got. So we end up with a similar situation as test prep.

One difference with sports is that extra coaching can only do so much and experienced coaches are good at seeing raw talent.

An example is Misty Copeland. She took her first ballet class at about 12 years old- which is considered pretty old to be starting ballet. She went on to have a spectacular professional career, while many, many kids who had been dancing since they were three will never be even trainees in a professional company. Misty’s lack of years of ballet coaching did not keep her talent from being recognized.

[Anonymous]

Asian here. I do not see much contempt for hard work. Never experienced that.

I am very familiar with Carol Dweck's work. I agree with her completely.

But there is also a range. I see families who have coached the hell out of their kids. Worksheets upon worksheets of stuff. Their kids recite facts on World capitals, flags, spellings, simple math questions, science related facts, etc. It just rolls of their tongue.

It also killed their individuality, they lose a certain spark that I have a hard time describing.

Their raw intelligence has been stunted I think as a result of too much structured activity. Their personality decimated. The already introvert tendency in them amplified as free time, time with friends was de-emphasized.

I realized this as by accident we had to live away from fellow Asians for many years after my child was born. I was so grateful for the fact that I did not fall into this cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other legacy we have to contend with is a peculiar contempt for academic hard work. Students who work hard are often called grinds, wonks, strivers, swots - which I can only assume comes from a sort of aristocratic contempt for hard work. This I think is a legacy from across the pond, and it's not some old relic of history either - Boris Johnson in 2013 called David Cameron, as well as his own brother Jo Johnson (who recently resigned from the government over his brother’s Brexit policy), “girly swots” for gaining first-class degrees at university, while he had only achieved an upper second-class degree.

So true, everyone hates the curve-killer, sandbagger ... unless he lets you cheat off his paper!

actually people really hate intelligent people

I never had a problem with the folks who were studying all the time. It was the person out with us constantly and still breaking the curve. And really it's jealousy

Back to on topic. I actually wish real talent was valued more across the board. Sure it takes hard work too but talent is what should be rewarded and nurtured whether its academics, sports, the arts etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asian here. I do not see much contempt for hard work. Never experienced that.

I am very familiar with Carol Dweck's work. I agree with her completely.

But there is also a range. I see families who have coached the hell out of their kids. Worksheets upon worksheets of stuff. Their kids recite facts on World capitals, flags, spellings, simple math questions, science related facts, etc. It just rolls of their tongue.

It also killed their individuality, they lose a certain spark that I have a hard time describing.

Their raw intelligence has been stunted I think as a result of too much structured activity. Their personality decimated. The already introvert tendency in them amplified as free time, time with friends was de-emphasized.

I realized this as by accident we had to live away from fellow Asians for many years after my child was born. I was so grateful for the fact that I did not fall into this cycle.

What you're talking about (in terms of losing that spark) is burnout. Burnout is a well-recognized condition in athletics, academics and professional life. But to somehow suggest, as you seem to be doing, that all Asian kids are burned out, or that you were somehow protected from this because you stayed away from them is nonsense, and smacks of self-hate.