Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood this obsession with high performing athletics, like travel sports as a normal thing people "should" do or even relevant for college applications unless the kid has some special talents. I value recreational sports as something kids can do to enjoy and also with no strings attached, something you don't have to schedule your life around. Same is true for other extracurriculars too like music and art for kids who are simply ok and aren't super talented.

The truth is vast majority of kids who do these consuming activities will never benefit from them, make any money on it, have it as a career or even get a scholarship. Surely they won't be playing when they are adult as teams are hard to come by and life, job, family will become priority. Why do people waste so much energy, time and money on this rat race? Is it just a thing to do that others are doing and is accepted as a standard of "success" or a good college "resume"?

Cue the parents who will come in to justify that little Brayden absolutely had to be on a travel team because even though he isn’t good enough to play in college the competition of rec teams just wasn’t enough for his immense talent and skill.

I’m genuinely confused by this response. Maybe little Brayden won’t be good enough to play in college, but how will he possibly know that unless he plays to the highest level that he can BEFORE college?

When do you completely write off your kid academically because they’re not good enough to go to an Ivy? At what point will you make that determination?

They should play to their highest level. It’s when they’re at their highest level and it’s not good enough for the parents, that’s when it’s a problem. The parents hire tutors and over schedule their kids trying to squeeze out whatever they can. That’s too much stress and it’s not necessary

^^This. Very well said.

It might be a valid point but it is not a response to the criticism that kids shouldn’t be in travel sports before college if they’re not good enough to play in college.

There are always a handful of absolutely delusional kids/parents where it’s obvious to everyone the kid is in over his head, but for the most part the kids who continue to play travel into high school are the kids who legitimately *might* have a shot at playing in college. There are no guarantees, of course, but they’re doing what they think they need to do to throw their name into the hat.

It’s no different from the kids who take the SAT or ACT multiple times because they think they’re *this close* to having a shot at an elite University. There’s no guarantee there, either, but why shame them for giving it their all until the door is actually closed?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My public high school had tons of people try ott it for golf team. Why? Free golf and driving range time and instruction.
So they had to make a skills matrix and take the top 16 people only. Half were natural athletes and half had been golfing since age 7 w dad and private coaching.

16 players on the golf team, Seriously?

McLean and Langley HS on has 10 players on varsity golf team, and all of them are from either UMC or UC families. If I have to guess, all of them have been playing golf at a young age.

May have been split varsity and JV.

There is no JV golf or tennis in FCPS.

THats weird.
I didn’t grow up here and were in MCPS plus privates.

No court space?

Private schools do have JV tennis. I know this because my kid attends Potomac School, but there is no JV golf in either private or public schools in the DMV.

I also grew up in a big school district 10 mins from downtown in a “small campus”. Some sports practiced before school and some after to utilize space and temps better.

Here there’s just lack of HS swimming pools. We’d even have swim as a unit in HS PE! Was that a hoot and waste. Plus some people genuinely could only do doggie paddle.

Anonymous wrote:Travel sports is basically feeding a parent’s ego. My kid joined competitive basketball in spring for the first time because the rec team we signed up for didn’t have enough players to make a team. The kids on the competitive that we joined were mostly okay players. Nothing amazing, they didn’t need to be on the travel/competitive team. Our team lost every single game we played. The teams we played against were much much better. So not all travel/club teams are equal and not all kids who are on these teams need to be on these teams. I get that its a huge self esteem boost that you get selected to play club sport etc but most of these travel sports organizations are in it for the money not to make your kid a better player.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood this obsession with high performing athletics, like travel sports as a normal thing people "should" do or even relevant for college applications unless the kid has some special talents. I value recreational sports as something kids can do to enjoy and also with no strings attached, something you don't have to schedule your life around. Same is true for other extracurriculars too like music and art for kids who are simply ok and aren't super talented.

The truth is vast majority of kids who do these consuming activities will never benefit from them, make any money on it, have it as a career or even get a scholarship. Surely they won't be playing when they are adult as teams are hard to come by and life, job, family will become priority. Why do people waste so much energy, time and money on this rat race? Is it just a thing to do that others are doing and is accepted as a standard of "success" or a good college "resume"?

Cue the parents who will come in to justify that little Brayden absolutely had to be on a travel team because even though he isn’t good enough to play in college the competition of rec teams just wasn’t enough for his immense talent and skill.

I’m genuinely confused by this response. Maybe little Brayden won’t be good enough to play in college, but how will he possibly know that unless he plays to the highest level that he can BEFORE college?

When do you completely write off your kid academically because they’re not good enough to go to an Ivy? At what point will you make that determination?

They should play to their highest level. It’s when they’re at their highest level and it’s not good enough for the parents, that’s when it’s a problem. The parents hire tutors and over schedule their kids trying to squeeze out whatever they can. That’s too much stress and it’s not necessary

^^This. Very well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. My DS made the varsity tennis team at Langley HS as a freshman.

My kid also made the tennis team as a freshman. There is only varsity tennis in fcps. No JV. For your kid and my kid, it doesn’t seem so competitive. For the other 40 kids who came to tryouts and didn’t make the team, they will say it is extremely difficult to make the tennis team.

There is no JV in either golf or tennis in FCPS. They are probably the two most difficult sports due to the small roster size. It is even more difficult in HS such as Langley, Mclean, and Oakton because just about every kid in the tryouts is either from UMC or UC families. Those kids are trained at a very young age, since money is not an issue. The competition to be in the golf or tennis team is ten times worse than the competition in academics.

Wut. As long as you play some tournaments you can make high school team.

Not if you attend any of the schools in a wealthy neighborhood.

Everyone here makes everything about wealth. There is no correlation between wealth and athleticism. Quite a few private schools require students to participate in a sport after school. That doesn’t make them all athletes but it’s a great idea.

Sports like basketball can only take a very few kids. That would be the tall kids who have coordination, hand eye coordination, endurance, fast rubbers, skills necessary to play. This happens in every town.

Agreed. This area in particular has a lot of parents trying to buy their kid a shot, whether it be education or athletics, and then grousing if it doesn’t pan out.

All the private coaching and elite travel in the world provided to pre-pubescent kids won’t mean a thing after the puberty lottery. And it’s fine if you have the resources and inclination to go for it as long as possible, but the kids who play varsity basketball aren’t playing because their parents were wealthy and got them lots of coaching. They’re playing because they’re the superior athletes with the right genetics.

(Golf may be a different story, but of course, golf isn’t a sport, or at least not a sport that requires any particular athletic ability.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My public high school had tons of people try ott it for golf team. Why? Free golf and driving range time and instruction.
So they had to make a skills matrix and take the top 16 people only. Half were natural athletes and half had been golfing since age 7 w dad and private coaching.

16 players on the golf team, Seriously?

McLean and Langley HS on has 10 players on varsity golf team, and all of them are from either UMC or UC families. If I have to guess, all of them have been playing golf at a young age.

May have been split varsity and JV.

There is no JV golf or tennis in FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends. My DS made the varsity tennis team at Langley HS as a freshman.

My kid also made the tennis team as a freshman. There is only varsity tennis in fcps. No JV. For your kid and my kid, it doesn’t seem so competitive. For the other 40 kids who came to tryouts and didn’t make the team, they will say it is extremely difficult to make the tennis team.

There is no JV in either golf or tennis in FCPS. They are probably the two most difficult sports due to the small roster size. It is even more difficult in HS such as Langley, Mclean, and Oakton because just about every kid in the tryouts is either from UMC or UC families. Those kids are trained at a very young age, since money is not an issue. The competition to be in the golf or tennis team is ten times worse than the competition in academics.

Wut. As long as you play some tournaments you can make high school team.

Not if you attend any of the schools in a wealthy neighborhood.

Everyone here makes everything about wealth. There is no correlation between wealth and athleticism. Quite a few private schools require students to participate in a sport after school. That doesn’t make them all athletes but it’s a great idea.

Sports like basketball can only take a very few kids. That would be the tall kids who have coordination, hand eye coordination, endurance, fast rubbers, skills necessary to play. This happens in every town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood this obsession with high performing athletics, like travel sports as a normal thing people "should" do or even relevant for college applications unless the kid has some special talents. I value recreational sports as something kids can do to enjoy and also with no strings attached, something you don't have to schedule your life around. Same is true for other extracurriculars too like music and art for kids who are simply ok and aren't super talented.

The truth is vast majority of kids who do these consuming activities will never benefit from them, make any money on it, have it as a career or even get a scholarship. Surely they won't be playing when they are adult as teams are hard to come by and life, job, family will become priority. Why do people waste so much energy, time and money on this rat race? Is it just a thing to do that others are doing and is accepted as a standard of "success" or a good college "resume"?

Cue the parents who will come in to justify that little Brayden absolutely had to be on a travel team because even though he isn’t good enough to play in college the competition of rec teams just wasn’t enough for his immense talent and skill.

I’m genuinely confused by this response. Maybe little Brayden won’t be good enough to play in college, but how will he possibly know that unless he plays to the highest level that he can BEFORE college?

When do you completely write off your kid academically because they’re not good enough to go to an Ivy? At what point will you make that determination?

They should play to their highest level. It’s when they’re at their highest level and it’s not good enough for the parents, that’s when it’s a problem. The parents hire tutors and over schedule their kids trying to squeeze out whatever they can. That’s too much stress and it’s not necessary

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy League college and I used to interview for the school, but I stopped wasting my time when no one I interviewed ever got in. At least from that, I knew since my kids’ births that elite college admissions was a total crapshoot.

Sports - my oldest is doing great in HS in no cut activities - marching band and crew. I think the important thing is to be a joiner and get involved in literally anything you can enjoy.

College - maybe we are thinking VT or Penn State is more likely than UVA. I think grad school is the new college. I think my kids will likely go to grad school and that will help.

Work - I am honestly not that impressed with the younger people at work these days. I still think there is still a place for people to succeed who are dependable, responsive, and who take initiative to do the hard work.

I have good older role models. My grandmother lived in the same small un-updated ranch house from 1960-2023. You do NOT need a McMansion to be happy. You need to use something like YNAB / Ramit Sethi and take responsibility for your own finances and live within your means.

I don't really understand this mentality. There are tons of underemployed grad school graduates with really massive student loan debt. There are plenty of VT graduates doing well as engineers or other STEM fields, or working for Accenture, etc. Same for Penn State.

I’ve said this to someone else on here before - but my engineer dad has a masters. My spouse is a teacher and gets paid more with a masters. Most of my peers are employed and have graduate degrees. It’s not imperative but I think can be helpful in most fields if you do it right. But you don’t have to agree with me!

If I am not mistaken, a teacher gets an automatic pay bump for having a graduate degree...so, if you become a teacher you would of course go do that. There are similar government jobs that work this way as well.

However, even your examples are a far cry from "grad school is the new college", and you just have anecdotes. To this day, most CEOs (over 50%) have nothing more than a BA/BS.

Some people value education. Others don’t. It is fine if you don’t. I personally think it is the easiest and fastest way to guarantee yourself a six figure income. I earned 200k+ out of grad school at age 27 and that 20 years ago.

That's a silly argument...law school isn't "education", it's vocational training...getting an MBA isn't "education", it's again vocational training and networking.

You even don't seem to value education as you described it as the "easiest and fastest way to guarantee yourself a six-figure income".

You sound dumb. I’m sure we don’t travel in the same circles.

DP but actually the person to whom you’re replying was spot on.

And truly intelligent people know by the time they’re middle aged adults that money earned simply does not correlate with intelligence, contribution, or overall worth as a person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to an Ivy League college and I used to interview for the school, but I stopped wasting my time when no one I interviewed ever got in. At least from that, I knew since my kids’ births that elite college admissions was a total crapshoot.

Sports - my oldest is doing great in HS in no cut activities - marching band and crew. I think the important thing is to be a joiner and get involved in literally anything you can enjoy.

College - maybe we are thinking VT or Penn State is more likely than UVA. I think grad school is the new college. I think my kids will likely go to grad school and that will help.

Work - I am honestly not that impressed with the younger people at work these days. I still think there is still a place for people to succeed who are dependable, responsive, and who take initiative to do the hard work.

I have good older role models. My grandmother lived in the same small un-updated ranch house from 1960-2023. You do NOT need a McMansion to be happy. You need to use something like YNAB / Ramit Sethi and take responsibility for your own finances and live within your means.

I don't really understand this mentality. There are tons of underemployed grad school graduates with really massive student loan debt. There are plenty of VT graduates doing well as engineers or other STEM fields, or working for Accenture, etc. Same for Penn State.

I’ve said this to someone else on here before - but my engineer dad has a masters. My spouse is a teacher and gets paid more with a masters. Most of my peers are employed and have graduate degrees. It’s not imperative but I think can be helpful in most fields if you do it right. But you don’t have to agree with me!

If I am not mistaken, a teacher gets an automatic pay bump for having a graduate degree...so, if you become a teacher you would of course go do that. There are similar government jobs that work this way as well.

However, even your examples are a far cry from "grad school is the new college", and you just have anecdotes. To this day, most CEOs (over 50%) have nothing more than a BA/BS.

Some people value education. Others don’t. It is fine if you don’t. I personally think it is the easiest and fastest way to guarantee yourself a six figure income. I earned 200k+ out of grad school at age 27 and that 20 years ago.

That's a silly argument...law school isn't "education", it's vocational training...getting an MBA isn't "education", it's again vocational training and networking.

You even don't seem to value education as you described it as the "easiest and fastest way to guarantee yourself a six-figure income".

You sound dumb. I’m sure we don’t travel in the same circles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never understood this obsession with high performing athletics, like travel sports as a normal thing people "should" do or even relevant for college applications unless the kid has some special talents. I value recreational sports as something kids can do to enjoy and also with no strings attached, something you don't have to schedule your life around. Same is true for other extracurriculars too like music and art for kids who are simply ok and aren't super talented.

The truth is vast majority of kids who do these consuming activities will never benefit from them, make any money on it, have it as a career or even get a scholarship. Surely they won't be playing when they are adult as teams are hard to come by and life, job, family will become priority. Why do people waste so much energy, time and money on this rat race? Is it just a thing to do that others are doing and is accepted as a standard of "success" or a good college "resume"?

Cue the parents who will come in to justify that little Brayden absolutely had to be on a travel team because even though he isn’t good enough to play in college the competition of rec teams just wasn’t enough for his immense talent and skill.

I’m genuinely confused by this response. Maybe little Brayden won’t be good enough to play in college, but how will he possibly know that unless he plays to the highest level that he can BEFORE college?

When do you completely write off your kid academically because they’re not good enough to go to an Ivy? At what point will you make that determination?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My public high school had tons of people try ott it for golf team. Why? Free golf and driving range time and instruction.
So they had to make a skills matrix and take the top 16 people only. Half were natural athletes and half had been golfing since age 7 w dad and private coaching.

16 players on the golf team, Seriously?

McLean and Langley HS on has 10 players on varsity golf team, and all of them are from either UMC or UC families. If I have to guess, all of them have been playing golf at a young age.

May have been split varsity and JV.