Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP -- you sound really uniformed. Read the literature about how employers like to hire athletes for their discipline and team work. Companies don't just want smart people -- they want smart people who have strong emotional intelligence, who can work as teams, who are extroverts who can give speeches, etc. Much of the training companies like comes from team sports.

This is not a recent trend...study ancient Greece and the history of the Olympics. The "Olympian man" was an intellectual as well as an athlete.

+1.

Private schools strive to churn out future leaders. The tried and true recipe for that is scholar + athlete.

Agree completely. In fact, I thinks schools such as Sidwell and GDS (two that particularly come to mind), which seem to disregard the importance of strong team sports and leadership ability, send less well adapted and capable students out into the world.

I used to coach at Sidwell (and now teach and coach at a different school because of teaching opportunities, not coaching issues). I loved their athletic program. They had lots and lots of teams and tons of participation -- kids playing to play, not just with college hopes. We had some great athletes who were college bound too, and it was fun to watch them working with and bringing up the level of play of some of their less athletic (but smart and competitive) teammates. The athletic department actively encouraged academic teachers to coach, and they had some teacher coaches (though not as many as schools where that is part of the core employment model). The kids had fun. They wanted to win but they were good sports. They were quirky and hilarious to coach. The school and athletic department cared about girls' sports as well as boys' sports. I saw it as a terrific model of balancing sports with academic rigor, in a way which worked both for the college bound "serious" athlete and the kid looking for a team experience, competition, leadership, comraderie, and exercise. When athletes consider Sidwell or my school (which is single-sex) I have nothing but good to say about Sidwell athletics, if they prefer the co-ed route.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions out there about the various athletic programs, some of which stem from a tunnel vision focus (at least on this forum) on a handful of sports (and pretty much all-boys). I will admit, my favorite sport to watch is probably still football, with a well-played basketball or soccer or lacrosse game close behind. But the accomplishment and growth that can come from JV girls' volleyball or varsity wrestling or cross-country is just as great.

Anonymous wrote:Was at an alumni gathering for my MBA program recently. There are some very successful people from my class - CEOs, private equity guys, MDs, etc. Many, if not most of them, were college(and high school obviously) athletes. While I can't say I did a scientific study I'd say there was a pretty high correlation between college athletes and success. Of course most of them went to Ivy or other top schools so got a good education too.

I do think there is value in high school sports. And to the PP who thinks being a JV captain is on par with the kardashians, I will say that my DC learned more about leadership and team/people dynamics being a JV captain than any class could have taught.

Would you have complained about your child not being elected JV captain? That's the problem. JV sports are great, generally -- kids playing for the love of the game and exercise and not worrying about college scholarships or "hooks." But parents complainining about JV playing time, or coaching strategy, or who gets to be captain? Bizarre.

PP: the sports threads always bring out a couple of virolent anti-Sidwell folks. It's a very consistent theme. No matter what you say, he will bash your school.

Kinda of proves my theory about character/sports/ parenting. My experience is that the most obnoxious parents are the loudest ones on the sidelines. They are always upset about the refs, the sportsmanship of the other players, need for their son/daughter to have more time or play a bigger role on the team.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this obsession with high school sports. 99.9 percent of the most successful high school athletes won't play professionally. Maybe one out of ten kids at a very athletically oriented high school will play in college. In this era of global competition, all these lacrosse and football players with lcool hair and big muscles are going to end up middle aged bald guys with beer bellies working for an Indian or Chinese kid with a Ph.D in chemistry.
I'm even more confused when I read that schools import athletes from other schools just so their teams have winning records - so your son or daughter isn't even playing. You just get more talented people to do the work for you. It's not how it works in the real world.

I found your post truly off-putting. You wrote "In this era of global competition, all these lacrosse and football players with lcool hair and big muscles are going to end up middle aged bald guys with beer bellies working for an Indian or Chinese kid with a Ph.D in chemistry." Well, first of all, you're wrong. That's a broad and generalization that doesn't really play itself out in the real world, as you put it. And frankly, though I get your point, the dumb jocks will not be working for a kid with a Ph.D in chemistry. And really, that points to part of the answer. Yes, everyone values academics. Yes, a Ph. D in chemistry is a great accomplishment. But what the private schools get is that the Ph.D's in chemistry won't be masters of the universe. They are smart, studious, yes. But are they leaders? Can they team build? The athlete-scholars will be building the companies that hire the Ph. D's in chemistry.

Anonymous wrote:Agree completely. In fact, I thinks schools such as Sidwell and GDS (two that particularly come to mind), which seem to disregard the importance of strong team sports and leadership ability, send less well adapted and capable students out into the world.

PP, what's your basis for commenting on sports at Sidwell? Are you an alumnus/a or the parent of a current student or alum? Are you a teacher there? As a Sidwell parent myself, I can say that in each of my sons' graduating classes 20-25% of the students earned at least 6 varsity letters. This doesn't sound like a school that disregards the importance of athletics. I will agree, with you, however, that sports offer students a wonderful opportunity to grow in character and as leaders. My children have benefitted as much from their experience as athletes at Sidwell as they have from their experience as students there.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP. I'm not attacking sports. I see athletics as a very important part of school. I'm confused by the idea of recruiting kids for their athletic ability instead of their academic ability or seeing people disparage schools because they have a reputation for producing strong academic kids - isn't that at least as important as athletics? Here is what I'm struggling with -it's not sports or athletics, it's the disproporiniate emphasis on sports/identities.

I just think it is more obvious. It is talked about more. It is covered in the newspaper.

I have a family member that was recruited on academics. They do recruit on academics. They recruit on lots of thing people don't really talk about. It would be nice if we could get a thread on if you child was recruited for something other than sports what was it.

We have a friend who was recruited because of an instrument he played. (I think it was the baritone horn.) In order for bands to win competitions they need to show complexity past the trumpet and sax. He was later recruited to a college and travels with the football team. How awesome is that.

A boy from our school was highly recruited to colleges for choir. Our school won competitions all over the world, Germany for example, while he was a student at our school.

I just think schools have figured out what colleges are looking for and channel kids to colleges based on their skills.

If there are 15 sports in a school there are probably 10 clubs that are non-sports.

I'm the OP. I'm not attacking sports. I see athletics as a very important part of school. I'm confused by the idea of recruiting kids for their athletic ability instead of their academic ability or seeing people disparage schools because they have a reputation for producing strong academic kids - isn't that at least as important as athletics? Here is what I'm struggling with -it's not sports or athletics, it's the disproporiniate emphasis on sports/identities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP -- you sound really uniformed. Read the literature about how employers like to hire athletes for their discipline and team work. Companies don't just want smart people -- they want smart people who have strong emotional intelligence, who can work as teams, who are extroverts who can give speeches, etc. Much of the training companies like comes from team sports.

This is not a recent trend...study ancient Greece and the history of the Olympics. The "Olympian man" was an intellectual as well as an athlete.

+1.

Private schools strive to churn out future leaders. The tried and true recipe for that is scholar + athlete.

Agree completely. In fact, I thinks schools such as Sidwell and GDS (two that particularly come to mind), which seem to disregard the importance of strong team sports and leadership ability, send less well adapted and capable students out into the world.

Anonymous wrote:OP -- you sound really uniformed. Read the literature about how employers like to hire athletes for their discipline and team work. Companies don't just want smart people -- they want smart people who have strong emotional intelligence, who can work as teams, who are extroverts who can give speeches, etc. Much of the training companies like comes from team sports.

This is not a recent trend...study ancient Greece and the history of the Olympics. The "Olympian man" was an intellectual as well as an athlete.

+1.

Private schools strive to churn out future leaders. The tried and true recipe for that is scholar + athlete.

Anonymous wrote:OP -- you sound really uniformed. Read the literature about how employers like to hire athletes for their discipline and team work. Companies don't just want smart people -- they want smart people who have strong emotional intelligence, who can work as teams, who are extroverts who can give speeches, etc. Much of the training companies like comes from team sports.

This is not a recent trend...study ancient Greece and the history of the Olympics. The "Olympian man" was an intellectual as well as an athlete.

^ yes and Rhodes scholars too. Cecil Rhodes liked intelligent athletic boys.

While I think that high school sports are very important for creating a well-rounded child (I take seriously the value of the Classical concept of the "mens sana in corpore sano"), I think the OP was pointing more toward schools that focus on sport to the detriment of academics. When the two are in balance, I think you see graduates who are academically well grounded while having the focus and discipline that comes from athletic training. That balance is hard to achieve though when football, basketball, or lacrosse overshadow everything else in terms of focus or funding. It is valid to ask why parents would want to send their kids to schools that proudly proclaim to the world that they are out of balance.

On the whole, NCAA athletes may have higher graduation rates than the student body at large. But how many of those kids graduated only because they were channeled through 101 classes or General Studies majors designed specifically to enable some of them to maintain eligibility?

OP -- you sound really uniformed. Read the literature about how employers like to hire athletes for their discipline and team work. Companies don't just want smart people -- they want smart people who have strong emotional intelligence, who can work as teams, who are extroverts who can give speeches, etc. Much of the training companies like comes from team sports.

This is not a recent trend...study ancient Greece and the history of the Olympics. The "Olympian man" was an intellectual as well as an athlete.

For every CEO who is a former athlete, how many criminal out there? Just look at last night's Superbowl. There been more than two dozen arrrests by team members of both teams over the last ten years, not to mention the double murder charge that Ray Lewis beat a while ago. Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Pete Rose, George Hugeley, Jamal Lewis, Dexter Manley, Lenny Dystra, Dwight Gooden, Plaxico Buress. just off the top of my head. Totaly myth that character is created by the playing field.

Was at an alumni gathering for my MBA program recently. There are some very successful people from my class - CEOs, private equity guys, MDs, etc. Many, if not most of them, were college(and high school obviously) athletes. While I can't say I did a scientific study I'd say there was a pretty high correlation between college athletes and success. Of course most of them went to Ivy or other top schools so got a good education too.

I do think there is value in high school sports. And to the PP who thinks being a JV captain is on par with the kardashians, I will say that my DC learned more about leadership and team/people dynamics being a JV captain than any class could have taught.

It must be for braggging rights and name (brand) recognition.
The Catholic schools for some reason are the worst offenders.
Would you send your kid to a certain high school because they were state champs in women's basketball? I could care less.
I know these schools actively recruit and sometimes not just in the U.S. either.
Like OP, I just wonder why. Colleges - sure, but high school?