Anonymous wrote:The best hiring process I have heard of is at a pool where they make a hiring committee out of the following roles:
Team reps
Head referee
Pool board treasurer
Data Coordinator

The reason that I like this structure is that it doesn’t put all the power into just the team reps (which is especially problematic if they are married, which at some pools they are and many others they aren’t). It also doesn’t allow the team reps to hand select a “committee” who will vote however they want. It allows 5 individuals who all commit a lot of volunteer hours to work together to make decisions.

In my opinion these hiring decisions should apply for hiring and re-hiring the head and assistant coaches as well as the junior coaches.

The process should also be transparent.

That said, children of the people who volunteer the most should absolutely be allowed to be hired if they are qualified!

Also as an aside, while being able to swim fast shouldn’t be a criteria for hiring, I do think understanding how to technically improve people’s swimming should be. We aren’t actually hiring babysitters but swim coaches.

I’ve seen many junior coaches who have no clue how to coach swimming actually make swimming harder for the kids they are “coaching”.

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

Anonymous wrote:The best hiring process I have heard of is at a pool where they make a hiring committee out of the following roles:
Team reps
Head referee
Pool board treasurer
Data Coordinator

The reason that I like this structure is that it doesn’t put all the power into just the team reps (which is especially problematic if they are married, which at some pools they are and many others they aren’t). It also doesn’t allow the team reps to hand select a “committee” who will vote however they want. It allows 5 individuals who all commit a lot of volunteer hours to work together to make decisions.

In my opinion these hiring decisions should apply for hiring and re-hiring the head and assistant coaches as well as the junior coaches.

The process should also be transparent.

That said, children of the people who volunteer the most should absolutely be allowed to be hired if they are qualified!

Also as an aside, while being able to swim fast shouldn’t be a criteria for hiring, I do think understanding how to technically improve people’s swimming should be. We aren’t actually hiring babysitters but swim coaches.

I’ve seen many junior coaches who have no clue how to coach swimming actually make swimming harder for the kids they are “coaching”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

This. Your kids only get them if there are openings even if your kid is the better swimmer. We had no club kids whose parents ran the pool as coaches. One could barely do a 25 and not legal in all strokes.

Being faster doesn’t make you a better coach. I say this as someone that has a very fast swimmer and I can acknowledge that there are slower swimmers that are better coaches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

This. Your kids only get them if there are openings even if your kid is the better swimmer. We had no club kids whose parents ran the pool as coaches. One could barely do a 25 and not legal in all strokes.

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that the people who run the swim team's kids get those jobs. If there are additional positions available after the nepo hires, your kid has a decent shot if s/he volunteered for free the previous season.

Anonymous wrote:It's competitive at our team. But we have had the same summer coach for a decade so they know almost all the kids coming up who apply. The coach makes the decisions. It's his employees and his team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter who does the writing if the thoughts are mine? I have learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to string thoughts cohesively together. Chat GPT is a godsend.

And yet, you managed for 40+ years just fine without AI re-writes.

Anonymous wrote:Does it matter who does the writing if the thoughts are mine? I have learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to string thoughts cohesively together. Chat GPT is a godsend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get why this topic comes up every year—it can look messy from the outside. But I do think it’s worth being careful about assuming intent or favoritism without seeing the full picture.

In many cases (mine included), parents don’t get involved to get their kids hired—they get involved because their kids are already deeply invested in the team. Those kids often grow up volunteering, helping at practices, assisting younger swimmers, and building relationships with coaches over several years. By the time they apply for a coaching role, they may genuinely be some of the strongest candidates—not because of who their parents are, but because of their experience, commitment, and familiarity with the program.

It’s also important to recognize that a lot of the hiring process happens behind the scenes. Unless you’ve stepped into those roles, you may not realize how many safeguards are already in place to keep things fair. Many teams use structured scoring systems or rubrics—evaluating things like leadership, reliability, communication, and interaction with younger swimmers—and once candidates are scored, decisions are often made in a way that’s effectively blind to who their parents are. Add in conflict-of-interest practices (like people stepping out of decisions involving their own kids), and there’s usually more intentionality than it might appear from the outside.

On the swimming piece—yes, by the time someone is a teen applying to coach, they should be legal in all four strokes. They don’t need to be fast, but being able to swim all four is a pretty basic expectation and usually reflects a level of engagement with the sport. That said, coaching ability is about much more than speed—some of the best teen coaches are the ones who connect with kids, bring energy, and show up consistently.

I’ll also add—having been on the other side of this—it can be tough when your child does earn a role and people assume it was handed to them. Sometimes the “favored” kid is actually just the one who’s been putting in the work for years.

Totally fair to want a fair and transparent process. But I’d focus less on who someone’s parent is and more on whether the team has a thoughtful, consistent approach to evaluating and selecting coaches.

Its also possible that your bias in favor of your own child colors your viewpoint on this.

That’s a fair point—and I don’t think anyone would claim these systems are completely free of bias. In a fully volunteer-run activity, that’s just the reality. The people stepping into these roles are usually parents whose kids have been in the program for years and are now at or near coaching age.

That said, I'll push back on the assumption of motive. These roles are a ton of work—far more than most people realize—and in my experience, the people stepping up to do them are doing it for the good of the team as a whole, not just to benefit their own child. Could bias creep in? Sure. But the default assumption shouldn’t be that’s why they’re doing it.

There’s no perfect system here—but there is a lot of effort behind the scenes to make it as fair and balanced as possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get why this topic comes up every year—it can look messy from the outside. But I do think it’s worth being careful about assuming intent or favoritism without seeing the full picture.

In many cases (mine included), parents don’t get involved to get their kids hired—they get involved because their kids are already deeply invested in the team. Those kids often grow up volunteering, helping at practices, assisting younger swimmers, and building relationships with coaches over several years. By the time they apply for a coaching role, they may genuinely be some of the strongest candidates—not because of who their parents are, but because of their experience, commitment, and familiarity with the program.

It’s also important to recognize that a lot of the hiring process happens behind the scenes. Unless you’ve stepped into those roles, you may not realize how many safeguards are already in place to keep things fair. Many teams use structured scoring systems or rubrics—evaluating things like leadership, reliability, communication, and interaction with younger swimmers—and once candidates are scored, decisions are often made in a way that’s effectively blind to who their parents are. Add in conflict-of-interest practices (like people stepping out of decisions involving their own kids), and there’s usually more intentionality than it might appear from the outside.

On the swimming piece—yes, by the time someone is a teen applying to coach, they should be legal in all four strokes. They don’t need to be fast, but being able to swim all four is a pretty basic expectation and usually reflects a level of engagement with the sport. That said, coaching ability is about much more than speed—some of the best teen coaches are the ones who connect with kids, bring energy, and show up consistently.

I’ll also add—having been on the other side of this—it can be tough when your child does earn a role and people assume it was handed to them. Sometimes the “favored” kid is actually just the one who’s been putting in the work for years.

Totally fair to want a fair and transparent process. But I’d focus less on who someone’s parent is and more on whether the team has a thoughtful, consistent approach to evaluating and selecting coaches.

Its also possible that your bias in favor of your own child colors your viewpoint on this.