Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people do manage to be athletes and still know about other things. There are plenty of scholar-athletes. Still, it is true that with more and more competitive recruiting, kids are forced to spend more and more hours at sports, and parents are forced to spend more and more money.

And yet despite all of this time and money, essentially none of these kids will become professional athletes, and very few will even play in college at a high level. Could the time and money be invested more wisely, and yet still have athletics as smaller, more reasonable part of our kids lives? You need only to look at recent events at Penn State to see how sports are so ridiculously over-emphasized in our society. (I am a former Division 1 athlete and a sports fan, by the way, but my interest in sports wanes each year).

Many people will never be historians or scientists either. I don't think 2 hours of exercise a night is overemphasis. We are not talking abuot Penn State we are talking about high school sports.

Some kids love sports - more people are going to the football game than the art exhibit at school. I just don't see the reason people are so bitter about it.

Signed,

Aunt of the kid in the play. (Which is integral to that child's life right now - though a famous actor someday - probably not.)

Anonymous wrote:Depends on how the parents deal with the kids as it relates to that extra time.

Parents are going to micromanage what a kid is doing from 3pm until 10pm.

Depends on how the parents deal with the kids as it relates to that extra time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people do manage to be athletes and still know about other things. There are plenty of scholar-athletes. Still, it is true that with more and more competitive recruiting, kids are forced to spend more and more hours at sports, and parents are forced to spend more and more money.

And yet despite all of this time and money, essentially none of these kids will become professional athletes, and very few will even play in college at a high level. Could the time and money be invested more wisely, and yet still have athletics as smaller, more reasonable part of our kids lives? You need only to look at recent events at Penn State to see how sports are so ridiculously over-emphasized in our society. (I am a former Division 1 athlete and a sports fan, by the way, but my interest in sports wanes each year).

Do you think you would have spent those extra hours reading books and discussing topics when you were 16 give or take?

Anonymous wrote:Many people do manage to be athletes and still know about other things. There are plenty of scholar-athletes. Still, it is true that with more and more competitive recruiting, kids are forced to spend more and more hours at sports, and parents are forced to spend more and more money.

I agree about the money thing - but did you know many sporty kids are asked or required to leave intermural sports?

Anonymous wrote:Many people do manage to be athletes and still know about other things. There are plenty of scholar-athletes. Still, it is true that with more and more competitive recruiting, kids are forced to spend more and more hours at sports, and parents are forced to spend more and more money.

And yet despite all of this time and money, essentially none of these kids will become professional athletes, and very few will even play in college at a high level. Could the time and money be invested more wisely, and yet still have athletics as smaller, more reasonable part of our kids lives? You need only to look at recent events at Penn State to see how sports are so ridiculously over-emphasized in our society. (I am a former Division 1 athlete and a sports fan, by the way, but my interest in sports wanes each year).

Many people do manage to be athletes and still know about other things. There are plenty of scholar-athletes. Still, it is true that with more and more competitive recruiting, kids are forced to spend more and more hours at sports, and parents are forced to spend more and more money.

Long ago, I dated one of the top athletes at a very large state school. Extremely nice guy, but his life experience had been extremely limited by the number of hours he'd had to put into his sport. He had not had time to read, discuss, or think about major issues, much less form opinions. I think that is the problem I see with an undue focus on sports. It can lead to a one-dimensional approach to life.

I don't think the question is around varsity versus intramural sports, but rather the ongoing comparisons of Landon/Prep/StA versus Sidwell and to a lesser extent, Potomac. Somehow, being a varsity athlete at the former is superior even though, with the exception of football and maybe lacrosse, all of these teams/schools are pretty competitive with each other across the various sports.

The comparisons get old.

Anonymous wrote:Sports and team work can be appreciated out of school, in YMCA, neighborhood, family, club, intramural etc. Interscholastic sports does not have any monopoly on the positive aspects of sports.

Agree in part. Disagree in part. Many of the lessons that one can learn from sports obviously can be learned elsewhere in large part. No one has said otherwise. A fundamental difference, however, exists between playing varsity basketball (or some other sport) in high pressure games against an arch rival, the finals in a tourny, etc, versus playing intramural sports. The ability to step up to the plate, to focus, to be a good and supportive teammate, and to work with others for a common goal are very important life skills, and are directly learned in high school sports.

It's not a dollar v. dollar thing. It's more about attitude. At some schools, athletic success seems as important as athletic success. Other schools view academics as paramount and athletics as secondary. That's why there are different schools...so people can pick what fits their families best.

Anonymous wrote:Sports and team work can be appreciated out of school, in YMCA, neighborhood, family, club, intramural etc. Interscholastic sports does not have any monopoly on the positive aspects of sports.

Until a kid that could easily play D-1 sports is playing against an intermural team. Does not seem very sportsman like.

I also find it interesting that this conversation always points out Prep and Landon but does not mention Damatha.

Do you really want a Damatha football player playing against a kid in intermural sports - I don't want them tackling my non-sporty kid.

Sports and team work can be appreciated out of school, in YMCA, neighborhood, family, club, intramural etc. Interscholastic sports does not have any monopoly on the positive aspects of sports.

I think the problem is that some families have, perhaps, overinvested in athletics as a means to, what a D-1 scholarship or a leg up in admissions to the extent that they then denigrate athletics at any other "non-sports" school.

I am of the mind that team sports are a fantastic life lesson and if a child has superior skills or a mad love for a sport (or sports) they should pursue them at the highest level possible. However, that doesn't mean that the life-lessons cannot be learned at "non-sports" schools which still field competitive team sports.

I sense on this forum that there are some that feel that there is an inherent conflict between sports and academics. It is as if every dollar devoted to sports is one less dollar enhancing the academic quality of the school. I think it is rather silly. Sports can be an integral part of a young person's education. Important values such as teamwork, courage, sportsmanship, perseverance, and many others can be taught on the field and on the court. There are also excellent universities that excel in various sports: Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. Of course, sports can be given too much of an importance at any school, but I suspect that at most of the schools in question (GP, Landon, for example), sports are seen as part of the educational process, not the most important part. Am I off base?