Only one President who went to high school in the 20th century the did NOT want to play high school sports: Bill Clinton. Two others were medically barred: Kennedy and Truman (because of his thick glasses). Some were stars ( Gerald Ford) and some were terrible ( FDR), but they all played.

Obama - basketball
W Bush - baseball
H W Bush - soccer, baseball
Reagan - swimming, football
Carter - basketball
Ford - football
Nixon - football
Johnson - baseball
Eisenhower - college football
FDR - football

Depends on the job. But in general, I'd stay away from D who is a loner. Shown no ability to be part of something larger than self. Also in general, A students do not turn out to be the most successful at life. They are usually good following instructions, but lacking in other essential life skills.

I would never hire D because there is no evidence of any ability to get along welll with others. And, putting all one's efforts into grades and a marathon, of all sports, demonstartes a solitariness and self-absorption that is challenging in the work place. Being able to be a part of team, winning or loosing, school sponsored or not, is the most important skill for most jobs. The only jobs I would give to A would be jobs where there is little to no interaction with others, e.g. In a lab or counting money.

I would find C or B to be the best choice. Unless it was to play football, or maybe commentate or coach, I woud not hire A for a job. First is the poor grades and second is the likelihood of getting a prima Donna.

I think sports can be wonderful for many students. However, I completely agree with OP that the emphasis on sports in high school and college is ridiculous. If sports takes up 1 - 1.5 hours every day after school and a few hours on the weekend, fine. But it seems like many students are spending much more time on sports than anything else, including academics. You can also learn leadership and teamwork from working on a school newspaper, being on a debate team, or starting up a business with other students. And the benefit to these arenas is that you're actually learning something useful (how to write, how to argue, how to make financial decisions) instead of just chasing a ball around. Not that there's anything wrong with chasing a ball around -- just don't spend every waking second doing it!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think you can legitimately claim that Sidwell or GDS lacks vigorous athletic participation (as well as lots plenty of success in various sports from what I read). The only real criticism I've heard leveled at them is that neither has had many winning football seasons. While undoubtedly football is a marquee sport, I don't think there's any relation at all between the win-loss record of a school's football team and the quality of its grads. Indeed, if that were the case, employers would be passing on Ivy League grads and hiring only the students from places like Alabama and Tennessee.

What do you mean? GDS has never lost a football game, much less ever had a losing football season! Where do you get your facts?

Just like Madeira - they had a sweatshirt for their 100th anniversary that said "Madeira Football - 100 years and Undefeated"

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think you can legitimately claim that Sidwell or GDS lacks vigorous athletic participation (as well as lots plenty of success in various sports from what I read). The only real criticism I've heard leveled at them is that neither has had many winning football seasons. While undoubtedly football is a marquee sport, I don't think there's any relation at all between the win-loss record of a school's football team and the quality of its grads. Indeed, if that were the case, employers would be passing on Ivy League grads and hiring only the students from places like Alabama and Tennessee.

What do you mean? GDS has never lost a football game, much less ever had a losing football season! Where do you get your facts?

Try homeschooling OP. You can teach your poor kid whatever you want and ruin his life.

This was a poorly crafted thread to begin with, assuming much, and even in the very beginning exhibiting a bias towards academics rather than sports. OP has made it worse by trying to restate the question in several ways, but each restatement really points to other questions and issues, and doesn't nail down what she really wants to get at. And therein lies the rub. It's not altogether clear what she wants to get at. My guess is that OP has a very brainy child who is not very sporty, and is a bit frustrated that many of the top independent schools (keep in mind all you hypo creators, OP posted specifically on the independent school thread) seem to highlight, applaud, and perhaps even admit based on athletic prowess.

OP, the fact is that even the braniest of independent schools do emphasize athletics, but not at the expense of academics.

If the entire athletic emphasis bothers you, either find an independent school that does not emphasize athletics, or go to a public shool. They do also emphasize sports, but generally the school is so big your kid might easier find his nitch.

D wins although you are in effect making him/her a Varsity Athlete quality athlete showing grit and termination.

I would hire an A student who didn't play sports because in my career I need really, really smart people who work quickly, don't need a lot of supervision. I don't rule out athletets at all but I'm not looking for people who need a coach or a cheer leader.

Here is my hypo.

Option 1: Student with mostly C grades and a couple Ds, who was a starter on the school's football team that won a NCAA bowl game.

Option 2: Student with mostly C grades and a couple Ds, who was a starter on the school's football team but never got a chance to go to college because sports are meaningless and this child does not deserve an education like the rest of us.

If I am the NFL I would choose B.

If I was NBC looking for a sports reporter I would choose A.

15:20 again. Despite my reservations, let's try a hypothetical choice though, since maybe we can get somewhere ....

First Hypothetical: Who would you hire? And how much does the student's athletic career affect your decision?

Option A: Student with all B & C grades, who was a bench player on the school's football team that went to a NCAA bowl.

Option B: Student with mostly C grades and a couple Ds, who was a starter on the school's football team that won a NCAA bowl game.

Option C: Student with all A & B grades, who the president and captain of the school's club ice hockey team, which never won any awards or accolades of any kind. (A club team with no formal school support because ice hockey is not a recognized sport at the school.)

Option D: Student with all A grades, who is a recreational runner and has completed two marathons.

All are coming from the same school, all are relatively equal in terms of interview personality and general likability, and all are applying for the same job.

Pick one, and explain your reasoning. No fair changing the parameters or adding an Option E. If you want to choose a different option, make up your own hypo.

I'll go first: I'd pick either D because of the top grades, or C because I like how s/he organized the team. I would not care one bit how successful any of these sports teams were, so A and B stand no chance with me.

Anonymous wrote:Seems to me that no one will truly answer a hypothetical choice, because each person recasts they hypothetical to suit her preferred outcome.

It's because it's a silly question. If you had asked, do you prefer apples or oranges, you'd still get answers of "it depends" and "why can't I have fruit salad." Several PPs have tried to explain to you why.

Seems to me that no one will truly answer a hypothetical choice, because each person recasts they hypothetical to suit her preferred outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

No. Actually that's not my question. I'm trying to set up a choice to see what people value more: success in the classroom or success on the playing field.


Well, that's really setting up a straw man, isn't it?

Np here.

No, it's really not setting up a straw man. There are plenty of private high school students who are either / or (and yes, a handful who are both, but we're setting them aside for this sub-topic).

I don't want to derail the thread by naming names or schools, but if I -- just one person -- personally know of several current high school athletes who are middling-to-C-minus students even WITH the help of $600 a month tutoring .... this cannot be a rare situation.

Or possibly we are quibbling about the definition of ^^^ "a success in the classroom." To me, than means ~ top 25% at a minimum. It does not mean "barely getting mostly Cs and a few low Bs with the help of a heavy lifting tutor." That is not a "success in the classroom" to me. That's a struggling, middling student.

Interesting! Because at my DC's school, this same complaint is made in reference to legacy students. They leave the athletes alone because they seem to be pulling their weight and getting into colleges.