Anonymous wrote:My spouse and I are immigrants and don’t understand the obsession with youth sports in the US. We have 2 kids: one is naturally athletically gifted and the other , not so much, but is very academically competitive .
We were surprised when our not so athletic child was waitlisted at several high schools who accepted other kids in his class who had lower grades and lower standardized test scores but were good athletes.
I understand these kids will get recruited by good colleges and make the schools look good.
But what’s the end game ? If it’s a college scholarship, the math doesn’t add up. By the time, one pays for years of coaching and travel to get to the level where their child can be recruited, they could have easily saved that money over the years and paid for a college tuition.
Is it to keep kids out of trouble /boost their confidence/ stay healthy/ make friends with similar interests ? If so, why practice sports which such intensity , travel for tournaments, risk burning the child out …
This is a genuine question and not intended to throw shade at anything or anyone. We are simply trying to understand the culture better.
Anonymous wrote:Immigrant mom nerd again:
The other thing is that the schools know these kids have very supportive and wealthy parents if they are in travel sports.
It’s is very very very time consuming to do these sports and it takes a ton of money (hotels every weekend for games sometimes) and a ton of time management from the parents and the kids. Do not assume these kids are “dumb athletes” - they probably would do as well as your kid in school if they weren’t at practice 3 hours a day.
So it’s not just that your kid got passed over because they weren’t sporty. It’s because if they are in travel sports (which kinda needs to happen to even get onto high school teams now) they are wealthy, very involved parents. It might not appear that way, but my experience we are talking 7 figures in secret.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. The answer is straightforward. In college, athletes do better financially on average after graduation and they donate more. Academically, especially at competitive schools, they aren’t as good on average as the very top academic students but they aren’t far behind and hold their own academically, while also playing their sport at a very high level. Essentially, they launch successfully out of college at a higher rate than the rest of the student population and so bring more money back.
High schools recognize this so the competitive ones recruit athletes.
Can you please post some sources for this? i’ve read many articles stating the exact opposite. Only 2% of college athletes go pro and many have difficulty transitioning post-grad to life outside of sports.
Anonymous wrote:NP. The answer is straightforward. In college, athletes do better financially on average after graduation and they donate more. Academically, especially at competitive schools, they aren’t as good on average as the very top academic students but they aren’t far behind and hold their own academically, while also playing their sport at a very high level. Essentially, they launch successfully out of college at a higher rate than the rest of the student population and so bring more money back.
This. Athletes are leaders. They also are well rounded and disciplined. Good at time management. A good athlete will bring money to universities.
In addition:
Think about it. In a modern workforce TEAMS get it done. We could have funded a small African nation’s defense budget with our soccer expenditure but it isn’t really for the soccer - it’s for the training she would only receive in a high level corporation a decade later. I do not know a single D1 athlete who did not end up at 6 figures (or higher).
Colleges recognize this so the competitive ones recruit athletes. The nerds in short are not really worth much in aggregate. They are likely selected much like a lotto ticket. 1 out of million might end up as Zuck.
It must be hard to accept but universities are businesses here and fundraising is their sales. Athletes are key to the system.
Anonymous wrote:NP. The answer is straightforward. In college, athletes do better financially on average after graduation and they donate more. Academically, especially at competitive schools, they aren’t as good on average as the very top academic students but they aren’t far behind and hold their own academically, while also playing their sport at a very high level. Essentially, they launch successfully out of college at a higher rate than the rest of the student population and so bring more money back.
High schools recognize this so the competitive ones recruit athletes.