Anonymous wrote:What in the world? Encourage your kid to play sports for exercise and fun, not college admissions. Don’t make everything a grind for your kid.

👏🏼

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of athletes, particularly excluding top level basketball and football, are generally relatively close to the rest of the student body. It is the high profile stories that get the most press.

And I would argue that the skills learned playing a competitive sport will serve many people better in life than most of the other characteristics prioritized by all of the ignorant people who love to hate on sports. Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.

I would rather hire an athlete with slightly lower academic qualifications but strong EQ for most jobs than some kid with 18 APs who has never watched TV or been to a sporting event, doesn't have a firm handshake and can't make small talk. I'm sure I will be slammed for this but I don't care.

You forgot domestic violence, rape, animal abuse, drug abuse, and gambling.

There are plenty of non-athletes who do the same thing. Generalizing like that shows how ignorant you are. The stereotype of the person who goes on a shooting rampage is a non-athletic person with no friends.

Sure there are plenty of non-athletes who do the same. But by the same token, there are plenty of non-athletes who have learned “Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.” Athletes don’t have any sort of lock or edge on these qualities. So your argument is moot. And you mooted it.

Of course people learn those skills in non-athletic settings. But, it is often commented that athletes do have an edge in those areas compared to the general population. There is a significant body of academic research which backs this up as well.

What “general population?” Do you think a violinist in an orchestra doesn’t know determination? Do you think someone who works on a play doesn’t know teamwork? A debater doesn’t know failure? There’s nothing special about sports, except in the minds of people who have elevated them to a religion.

I’m sensing quite a bit of insecurity especially since I never said people couldn’t learn those skills in other pursuits. I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented.

Again, what “general population?” You seem to be positing athletes against everyone else, and that’s stupid. Perhaps they have an edge in these qualities over kids who do no extracurriculars whatever, but all of the attributes you confer upon athletes are just as well found in kids who pursue other activities. You’ve set up a false premise of “gen pop” vs athlete.

You know who else has a high level of success? Rich kids - do you think they have some behavioral advantage over others?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

The PP said “ I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented” to argue that because athletes have certain levels of success they must be learning something from sports. My point is that rich kids also have certain levels of success and I don’t think anyone thinks it has anything to do with merit.

Also the overlap at highly selective colleges between athletes and income is pretty big. These are rich kids doing rich kid sports. So their success may have very little to do with anything they supposedly learned on the field.

Lastly - if you’re arguing a link exists between college sports and later success then why does it matter whether you played sports in high school and didn’t get recruited? You wouldn’t have played sports in college and none of these “studies” applies

Your reasoning is very weak. If you want to discount that the leadership attributes attributed to athletes success are better attributed to wealth because that also correlates you have fallen into typical correlation causation fallacy.

Funny coming from the person who sees athletes having success and arguing it is because of athletics that they are successful. It seems possible that these are rich kids benefiting from their wealth as much as from anything

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What in the world? Encourage your kid to play sports for exercise and fun, not college admissions. Don’t make everything a grind for your kid.

You can’t just play sports for fun given how hard it is to make the high school teams here

You play sports for the love of the game. Unfortunately not everyone is an athlete just like not everyone can get all As in 10 AP classes.

If you don’t love the game don’t play. It’s not worth it. Find something enjoyable to do

+1 By definition, everyone's kid can't be a star athlete. But sports are good for the body and the mind, and even if you won't be an athletic recruit, it's part of a healthy lifestyle, and being on a team is a fine EC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What in the world? Encourage your kid to play sports for exercise and fun, not college admissions. Don’t make everything a grind for your kid.

You can’t just play sports for fun given how hard it is to make the high school teams here

You play sports for the love of the game. Unfortunately not everyone is an athlete just like not everyone can get all As in 10 AP classes.

If you don’t love the game don’t play. It’s not worth it. Find something enjoyable to do

The athletes I know play because they love it but it is still very very hard and demanding for their families both in terms of time and money.

For some parents, the prospect of some additional benefit keeps them going. But it's all a delusion. The number of kids that are going to get recruited to a school they actually want to go to is pretty small.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What in the world? Encourage your kid to play sports for exercise and fun, not college admissions. Don’t make everything a grind for your kid.

You can’t just play sports for fun given how hard it is to make the high school teams here

You play sports for the love of the game. Unfortunately not everyone is an athlete just like not everyone can get all As in 10 AP classes.

If you don’t love the game don’t play. It’s not worth it. Find something enjoyable to do

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of athletes, particularly excluding top level basketball and football, are generally relatively close to the rest of the student body. It is the high profile stories that get the most press.

And I would argue that the skills learned playing a competitive sport will serve many people better in life than most of the other characteristics prioritized by all of the ignorant people who love to hate on sports. Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.

I would rather hire an athlete with slightly lower academic qualifications but strong EQ for most jobs than some kid with 18 APs who has never watched TV or been to a sporting event, doesn't have a firm handshake and can't make small talk. I'm sure I will be slammed for this but I don't care.

You forgot domestic violence, rape, animal abuse, drug abuse, and gambling.

There are plenty of non-athletes who do the same thing. Generalizing like that shows how ignorant you are. The stereotype of the person who goes on a shooting rampage is a non-athletic person with no friends.

Sure there are plenty of non-athletes who do the same. But by the same token, there are plenty of non-athletes who have learned “Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.” Athletes don’t have any sort of lock or edge on these qualities. So your argument is moot. And you mooted it.

Of course people learn those skills in non-athletic settings. But, it is often commented that athletes do have an edge in those areas compared to the general population. There is a significant body of academic research which backs this up as well.

What “general population?” Do you think a violinist in an orchestra doesn’t know determination? Do you think someone who works on a play doesn’t know teamwork? A debater doesn’t know failure? There’s nothing special about sports, except in the minds of people who have elevated them to a religion.

I’m sensing quite a bit of insecurity especially since I never said people couldn’t learn those skills in other pursuits. I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented.

Again, what “general population?” You seem to be positing athletes against everyone else, and that’s stupid. Perhaps they have an edge in these qualities over kids who do no extracurriculars whatever, but all of the attributes you confer upon athletes are just as well found in kids who pursue other activities. You’ve set up a false premise of “gen pop” vs athlete.

You know who else has a high level of success? Rich kids - do you think they have some behavioral advantage over others?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

The PP said “ I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented” to argue that because athletes have certain levels of success they must be learning something from sports. My point is that rich kids also have certain levels of success and I don’t think anyone thinks it has anything to do with merit.

Also the overlap at highly selective colleges between athletes and income is pretty big. These are rich kids doing rich kid sports. So their success may have very little to do with anything they supposedly learned on the field.

Lastly - if you’re arguing a link exists between college sports and later success then why does it matter whether you played sports in high school and didn’t get recruited? You wouldn’t have played sports in college and none of these “studies” applies

Your reasoning is very weak. If you want to discount that the leadership attributes attributed to athletes success are better attributed to wealth because that also correlates you have fallen into typical correlation causation fallacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re the only country where sports is a big part of the “college experience” and can be tied to college admission for some. Other countries manage to produce top athletes without making it part of the kids’ high school or college experience. I’m not saying that America should be the same way. However it is concerning when families dedicate so much expenses and time away from family life, rest, work to put their kids in youth sports, with the hope they’ll at least make the high school team.

Other countries identify their top athletes early (as young as 5) and start training those kids separate from the general populace at sports academies where they go to live and train.

Sometimes those 5 year olds become Messi (sent to Spain at 5), while others are kicked out at 7 for better players…who may get kicked out at 10 for better players…by 13 they basically have their players.

Many kick around in soccer, basketball, hockey, baseball minor leagues and never really make it…and are nearly functionally illiterate at 23 or so when they turn around and try to become coaches in the same system.

Maybe this is better…if you aren’t at one of these academies you just play Rec…or maybe not.

Many wash out later and some come to America on a full scholarship to get their degree for free.

Many is a bit strong, it is actually few. But, if you are a HS soccer or Hockey player trying to get recruited it can absolutely feel like “many”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of athletes, particularly excluding top level basketball and football, are generally relatively close to the rest of the student body. It is the high profile stories that get the most press.

And I would argue that the skills learned playing a competitive sport will serve many people better in life than most of the other characteristics prioritized by all of the ignorant people who love to hate on sports. Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.

I would rather hire an athlete with slightly lower academic qualifications but strong EQ for most jobs than some kid with 18 APs who has never watched TV or been to a sporting event, doesn't have a firm handshake and can't make small talk. I'm sure I will be slammed for this but I don't care.

You forgot domestic violence, rape, animal abuse, drug abuse, and gambling.

There are plenty of non-athletes who do the same thing. Generalizing like that shows how ignorant you are. The stereotype of the person who goes on a shooting rampage is a non-athletic person with no friends.

Sure there are plenty of non-athletes who do the same. But by the same token, there are plenty of non-athletes who have learned “Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.” Athletes don’t have any sort of lock or edge on these qualities. So your argument is moot. And you mooted it.

Of course people learn those skills in non-athletic settings. But, it is often commented that athletes do have an edge in those areas compared to the general population. There is a significant body of academic research which backs this up as well.

What “general population?” Do you think a violinist in an orchestra doesn’t know determination? Do you think someone who works on a play doesn’t know teamwork? A debater doesn’t know failure? There’s nothing special about sports, except in the minds of people who have elevated them to a religion.

I’m sensing quite a bit of insecurity especially since I never said people couldn’t learn those skills in other pursuits. I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented.

Again, what “general population?” You seem to be positing athletes against everyone else, and that’s stupid. Perhaps they have an edge in these qualities over kids who do no extracurriculars whatever, but all of the attributes you confer upon athletes are just as well found in kids who pursue other activities. You’ve set up a false premise of “gen pop” vs athlete.

You know who else has a high level of success? Rich kids - do you think they have some behavioral advantage over others?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

The PP said “ I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented” to argue that because athletes have certain levels of success they must be learning something from sports. My point is that rich kids also have certain levels of success and I don’t think anyone thinks it has anything to do with merit.

Also the overlap at highly selective colleges between athletes and income is pretty big. These are rich kids doing rich kid sports. So their success may have very little to do with anything they supposedly learned on the field.

Lastly - if you’re arguing a link exists between college sports and later success then why does it matter whether you played sports in high school and didn’t get recruited? You wouldn’t have played sports in college and none of these “studies” applies

I have two kids - one who was not an athlete but had a bunch of other time consuming ECs and the other who played high school varsity on a hard to get onto team along with club sports. Both excellent students with high test scores, rigor and high GPA. I do think the athlete has more executive functioning capability in learning how to ruthlessly prioritize. Older one is at a T20. Let’s see where the athlete lands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of athletes, particularly excluding top level basketball and football, are generally relatively close to the rest of the student body. It is the high profile stories that get the most press.

And I would argue that the skills learned playing a competitive sport will serve many people better in life than most of the other characteristics prioritized by all of the ignorant people who love to hate on sports. Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.

I would rather hire an athlete with slightly lower academic qualifications but strong EQ for most jobs than some kid with 18 APs who has never watched TV or been to a sporting event, doesn't have a firm handshake and can't make small talk. I'm sure I will be slammed for this but I don't care.

You forgot domestic violence, rape, animal abuse, drug abuse, and gambling.

There are plenty of non-athletes who do the same thing. Generalizing like that shows how ignorant you are. The stereotype of the person who goes on a shooting rampage is a non-athletic person with no friends.

Sure there are plenty of non-athletes who do the same. But by the same token, there are plenty of non-athletes who have learned “Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.” Athletes don’t have any sort of lock or edge on these qualities. So your argument is moot. And you mooted it.

Of course people learn those skills in non-athletic settings. But, it is often commented that athletes do have an edge in those areas compared to the general population. There is a significant body of academic research which backs this up as well.

What “general population?” Do you think a violinist in an orchestra doesn’t know determination? Do you think someone who works on a play doesn’t know teamwork? A debater doesn’t know failure? There’s nothing special about sports, except in the minds of people who have elevated them to a religion.

I’m sensing quite a bit of insecurity especially since I never said people couldn’t learn those skills in other pursuits. I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented.

Again, what “general population?” You seem to be positing athletes against everyone else, and that’s stupid. Perhaps they have an edge in these qualities over kids who do no extracurriculars whatever, but all of the attributes you confer upon athletes are just as well found in kids who pursue other activities. You’ve set up a false premise of “gen pop” vs athlete.

You know who else has a high level of success? Rich kids - do you think they have some behavioral advantage over others?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

It’s the largest hook there is in college admissions.

This conversation is about student athletes, who may or may not be rich. Please keep on track.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re the only country where sports is a big part of the “college experience” and can be tied to college admission for some. Other countries manage to produce top athletes without making it part of the kids’ high school or college experience. I’m not saying that America should be the same way. However it is concerning when families dedicate so much expenses and time away from family life, rest, work to put their kids in youth sports, with the hope they’ll at least make the high school team.

Other countries identify their top athletes early (as young as 5) and start training those kids separate from the general populace at sports academies where they go to live and train.

Sometimes those 5 year olds become Messi (sent to Spain at 5), while others are kicked out at 7 for better players…who may get kicked out at 10 for better players…by 13 they basically have their players.

Many kick around in soccer, basketball, hockey, baseball minor leagues and never really make it…and are nearly functionally illiterate at 23 or so when they turn around and try to become coaches in the same system.

Maybe this is better…if you aren’t at one of these academies you just play Rec…or maybe not.

Many wash out later and some come to America on a full scholarship to get their degree for free.

Soccer yes…but that’s about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure the pro player is really sad about missing high school sports …ha. The fiction on these threads is unreal.

Except for soccer and tennis…no American pro players missed HS sports. The international pro hockey, baseball and basketball players don’t have any HS sports, so there wasn’t anything to miss.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that many excellent athletes don’t care that they didn’t compete for their high school? The bigger problem are the guys that can’t outgrow their high school glory.

It’s not hard to understand…it’s just not true. You won’t find a single American MLB, NFL, or NBA player that didn’t play HS sports. Now, they may have moved around to different private HS powerhouses…but they still played for HS teams.

NHL is a bit different in that fewer HSs have teams, but the MN and New England players also played in HS (which may have been a boarding school).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of athletes, particularly excluding top level basketball and football, are generally relatively close to the rest of the student body. It is the high profile stories that get the most press.

And I would argue that the skills learned playing a competitive sport will serve many people better in life than most of the other characteristics prioritized by all of the ignorant people who love to hate on sports. Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.

I would rather hire an athlete with slightly lower academic qualifications but strong EQ for most jobs than some kid with 18 APs who has never watched TV or been to a sporting event, doesn't have a firm handshake and can't make small talk. I'm sure I will be slammed for this but I don't care.

You forgot domestic violence, rape, animal abuse, drug abuse, and gambling.

There are plenty of non-athletes who do the same thing. Generalizing like that shows how ignorant you are. The stereotype of the person who goes on a shooting rampage is a non-athletic person with no friends.

Sure there are plenty of non-athletes who do the same. But by the same token, there are plenty of non-athletes who have learned “Teamwork. People skills. Determination. Dealing with failure. Sense of humor.” Athletes don’t have any sort of lock or edge on these qualities. So your argument is moot. And you mooted it.

Of course people learn those skills in non-athletic settings. But, it is often commented that athletes do have an edge in those areas compared to the general population. There is a significant body of academic research which backs this up as well.

What “general population?” Do you think a violinist in an orchestra doesn’t know determination? Do you think someone who works on a play doesn’t know teamwork? A debater doesn’t know failure? There’s nothing special about sports, except in the minds of people who have elevated them to a religion.

I’m sensing quite a bit of insecurity especially since I never said people couldn’t learn those skills in other pursuits. I merely pointed out that the levels of success for athletes has been well studied and documented.

Again, what “general population?” You seem to be positing athletes against everyone else, and that’s stupid. Perhaps they have an edge in these qualities over kids who do no extracurriculars whatever, but all of the attributes you confer upon athletes are just as well found in kids who pursue other activities. You’ve set up a false premise of “gen pop” vs athlete.

You know who else has a high level of success? Rich kids - do you think they have some behavioral advantage over others?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

It’s the largest hook there is in college admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re the only country where sports is a big part of the “college experience” and can be tied to college admission for some. Other countries manage to produce top athletes without making it part of the kids’ high school or college experience. I’m not saying that America should be the same way. However it is concerning when families dedicate so much expenses and time away from family life, rest, work to put their kids in youth sports, with the hope they’ll at least make the high school team.

Other countries identify their top athletes early (as young as 5) and start training those kids separate from the general populace at sports academies where they go to live and train.

Sometimes those 5 year olds become Messi (sent to Spain at 5), while others are kicked out at 7 for better players…who may get kicked out at 10 for better players…by 13 they basically have their players.

Many kick around in soccer, basketball, hockey, baseball minor leagues and never really make it…and are nearly functionally illiterate at 23 or so when they turn around and try to become coaches in the same system.

Maybe this is better…if you aren’t at one of these academies you just play Rec…or maybe not.

Many wash out later and some come to America on a full scholarship to get their degree for free.