Anonymous wrote:I am actually former Ivy League athlete myself with kids in AAP now.
Athletes can be smart too (why do I even have to say that?) Great things come out of sports including many real world applicable skills such as working with other people (of course you can gain these skills in other extra-curriculars too).

I don't academic prep or athletic coach my kids. Don't worry about the fringe people - the ones you really have to worry about, to the extent you're worrying about anyone (I'm not), are the ones who weren't prepped or coached - those are the ones that are really talented IMO.

I really like this article about over coaching kids in sports:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/sports-should-be-childs-play.html

I don't think anyone here is saying athletes can't be smart. We're comparing how society views hard work in academics vs sports.

Pushing that extra mile. Getting those reps in. Working extra hours. Attending camps. Getting coached. Those are all viewed as acceptable and/or admired in sports.

Pushing that extra mile. Getting those reps in. Working extra hours. Attending camps. Getting coached. Cheater. Nerd. Prepper. Striver. Gunner. Drone. Overachiever. I could go on and on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But for some reason there's a often a stigma against people who work hard in academics, but no real stigma against people who work hard in sports.

This. If a kid spends 10-20 hours per week on travel sports, everyone assumes that the kid must really love the sport. If a kid does even 3 hours of extracurricular math, people assume that the parents are forcing the kid. Even on this forum, there are people who insist that no kids would ever want to do extracurricular math, and they only do so to please their parents. The sad part is that there are kids out there who love math and spend a lot of time self-studying and participating in math circles (like my kid), and there are a lot of kids doing travel sports who don't enjoy it and just want to please their parents.

If it is kid-led, sports or school - who cares. IDGAF what anyone thinks about what my kids WANT to do on their own.

I am actually former Ivy League athlete myself with kids in AAP now.
Athletes can be smart too (why do I even have to say that?) Great things come out of sports including many real world applicable skills such as working with other people (of course you can gain these skills in other extra-curriculars too).

I don't academic prep or athletic coach my kids. Don't worry about the fringe people - the ones you really have to worry about, to the extent you're worrying about anyone (I'm not), are the ones who weren't prepped or coached - those are the ones that are really talented IMO.

I really like this article about over coaching kids in sports:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/sports-should-be-childs-play.html

"But for some reason there's a often a stigma against people who work hard in academics, but no real stigma against people who work hard in sports."

Agreed. And thank you to the OP for the Atlantic article.

"Any worker bee factory drone can get "smart" sutdying 10 hours a week in elementary and/or middle school"
As a math tutor and teacher I can attest that this is not true. Unfortunately not all children are capable of or intelligient enough, EVEN with tutoring, to reach higher levels in mathematics. And the same holds for sports, even with stellar coaching, not all children can reach the top levels in any given sport. There has to be some innate talent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a world of difference between robotics, coding, math club, chess club, model United Nations and attending Mathnasium or AoPS or Russian math or any tutoring program. The clubs tend to more social and creative then tutoring classes. They still encourage the development of STEM skills but in a less formal way. The gave kids a creative outlet.

Some kids want to do Mathnasium, AoPS, or Russian math. Some kids are also much more gifted in math than your kid and need the outlet. Some kids are the same or less gifted in math than yours, but still love math and want to do more. Not all kids are like your kid, even though you persist in believing otherwise. My kid thinks that chess club and cub scouts sound like torture. My kid loves extracurricular math classes, which contrary to your assertions, teach creative problem solving and do serve as a social outlet.

You're going to be one of the people whining on here in a few years when many Asian kids are better than your child, because you think that your kid deserves to be at the top without putting in any real effort. Good luck with that.

um that's not how America works. This isn't whatever country you came from where your whole life outcome is prepping for some test.

and again the whole effort bs thing. Things like intelligence matter more here. Any worker bee factory drone can get "smart" sutdying 10 hours a week in elementary and/or middle school. Again that's not how the USA works.

p.s. I think the whole TJ thing is bs too but if this is what yall really think they may be on to something. TJ should be for people who are smart not some drone prepping constantly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a world of difference between robotics, coding, math club, chess club, model United Nations and attending Mathnasium or AoPS or Russian math or any tutoring program. The clubs tend to more social and creative then tutoring classes. They still encourage the development of STEM skills but in a less formal way. The gave kids a creative outlet.

Some kids want to do Mathnasium, AoPS, or Russian math. Some kids are also much more gifted in math than your kid and need the outlet. Some kids are the same or less gifted in math than yours, but still love math and want to do more. Not all kids are like your kid, even though you persist in believing otherwise. My kid thinks that chess club and cub scouts sound like torture. My kid loves extracurricular math classes, which contrary to your assertions, teach creative problem solving and do serve as a social outlet.

You're going to be one of the people whining on here in a few years when many Asian kids are better than your child, because you think that your kid deserves to be at the top without putting in any real effort. Good luck with that.

um that's not how America works. This isn't whatever country you came from where your whole life outcome is prepping for some test.

and again the whole effort bs thing. Things like intelligence matter more here. Any worker bee factory drone can get "smart" sutdying 10 hours a week in elementary and/or middle school. Again that's not how the USA works.

Anonymous wrote:
I think there is a world of difference between robotics, coding, math club, chess club, model United Nations and attending Mathnasium or AoPS or Russian math or any tutoring program. The clubs tend to more social and creative then tutoring classes. They still encourage the development of STEM skills but in a less formal way. The gave kids a creative outlet.

Some kids want to do Mathnasium, AoPS, or Russian math. Some kids are also much more gifted in math than your kid and need the outlet. Some kids are the same or less gifted in math than yours, but still love math and want to do more. Not all kids are like your kid, even though you persist in believing otherwise. My kid thinks that chess club and cub scouts sound like torture. My kid loves extracurricular math classes, which contrary to your assertions, teach creative problem solving and do serve as a social outlet.

You're going to be one of the people whining on here in a few years when many Asian kids are better than your child, because you think that your kid deserves to be at the top without putting in any real effort. Good luck with that.

I don’t think kids in Elementary School Should be doing any activity for 10 hours or more a week, academic or athletic.

I think there is a world of difference between robotics, coding, math club, chess club, model United Nations and attending Mathnasium or AoPS or Russian math or any tutoring program. The clubs tend to more social and creative then tutoring classes. They still encourage the development of STEM skills but in a less formal way. The gave kids a creative outlet.

I think that kids need time to play and explore and be bored.

DS plays sports, plays with friends, does Cub Scouts, and after school clubs. The mixture exposes him to different kids, activities, and things that he may or may not be good at. He is figuring out what he is interested in and learning a variety of skills.

DS is ahead in all subjects. He is 8 and enjoys doing math problems using different bases. I appreciate his interest in these areas and we encourage him to explore those things. We don’t think he needs to spend extra time studying at specialized math programs but we are happy to look things up online to challenge him or solve whatever problem he comes up with.

Trust me, there are kids on his sports teams who are there because their parents want them there and not because the kid is interested. It is obvious that the kid is only pleasing their parent, even when the kid is good. I suspect that there are kids who are the same way in the academic programs.

I don’t understand the desire of the academic or athletic focused families to push their kids ahead in a specific area. I know in sports it leads to early injuries and burn out, I suspect something similar happens in academic. Or you end up with kids who have great study skills but likely no reallove of learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But then there’s the Misty Copeland example where talent beat out the kids who had been working hard their whole lives.

Hard work without talent takes you nowhere.

She may have started late, but why are you assuming that Misty Copeland didn't work hard? It sounds like she was motivated enough before formally starting ballet to teach herself a bunch of flips and dance moves. After she started ballet, she had a combination of extreme talent and a lot of hard work that launched her to the top. Talent + hard work will make you the best, but a hard working average person generally does better than a lazy talented one.

Also, Misty Copeland is a great example of why results should matter more than either talent or hard work. After a point, no one cares about your innate talent or how hard of a worker you are. They care about how skilled you are right now. Elite ballet companies aren't going to place someone who is an extreme talent, but not yet close to the requisite proficiency level.

Oh, I never said she didn’t work hard. But it is extremely rare for someone to make it in the ballet world without starting at three or four years old. Misty surpassed kids who had been working hard for almost ten years longer than she had because she was amazingly talented and ballet directors could easily see that talent.

She didn’t need all those extra years of coaching to do what she did. And the kids who had had all those extra years of coaching but didn’t have the requisite level of raw talent were never going to make it as professional ballet dancers.

Hard work is great, but hard work without talent will only take you so far.

Anonymous wrote:

But for some reason there's a often a stigma against people who work hard in academics, but no real stigma against people who work hard in sports.

This. If a kid spends 10-20 hours per week on travel sports, everyone assumes that the kid must really love the sport. If a kid does even 3 hours of extracurricular math, people assume that the parents are forcing the kid. Even on this forum, there are people who insist that no kids would ever want to do extracurricular math, and they only do so to please their parents. The sad part is that there are kids out there who love math and spend a lot of time self-studying and participating in math circles (like my kid), and there are a lot of kids doing travel sports who don't enjoy it and just want to please their parents.

Anonymous wrote:

But then there’s the Misty Copeland example where talent beat out the kids who had been working hard their whole lives.

Hard work without talent takes you nowhere.

She may have started late, but why are you assuming that Misty Copeland didn't work hard? It sounds like she was motivated enough before formally starting ballet to teach herself a bunch of flips and dance moves. After she started ballet, she had a combination of extreme talent and a lot of hard work that launched her to the top. Talent + hard work will make you the best, but a hard working average person generally does better than a lazy talented one.

Also, Misty Copeland is a great example of why results should matter more than either talent or hard work. After a point, no one cares about your innate talent or how hard of a worker you are. They care about how skilled you are right now. Elite ballet companies aren't going to place someone who is an extreme talent, but not yet close to the requisite proficiency level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a common saying in sports, “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.”

For some reason the hard worker is often looked well upon in sports.

For some reason the hard worker is often looked down upon in academics, especially Asians.

But then there’s the Misty Copeland example where talent beat out the kids who had been working hard their whole lives.

Hard work without talent takes you nowhere.

But for some reason there's a often a stigma against people who work hard in academics, but no real stigma against people who work hard in sports.

Anonymous wrote:There’s a common saying in sports, “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.”

For some reason the hard worker is often looked well upon in sports.

For some reason the hard worker is often looked down upon in academics, especially Asians.

But then there’s the Misty Copeland example where talent beat out the kids who had been working hard their whole lives.

Hard work without talent takes you nowhere.

There’s a common saying in sports, “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.”

For some reason the hard worker is often looked well upon in sports.

For some reason the hard worker is often looked down upon in academics, especially Asians.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Real talent should be detected and nurtured, but I don't agree that it needs to be rewarded. Results should be rewarded. The talented kid already has a leg up with achieving better results than a less talented kid, but if other kids are better than the talented kid because they put in the work, then they're the ones who should get the reward.

The culture clash surrounding achievement is interesting. The American cultural mindset is that talent should be rewarded, and talented kids shouldn't need to spend much time on academics, music, or any non-sports activities. Even without the effort, the most talented kid deserves to be on top. The Asian mindset rewards effort more than talent, they have no problem with kids spending a lot of time on academics or music, and there's no expectation that their kids deserve to be at the top.