Outliers merely makes the point that the youth hockey players at the upper end of the cut-off were generally the ones who did better.

What the parents in DC (and other areas, as the Los Angeles blog indicates) is the take the outer edge of those dates and shatter them to make their kids even bigger outliers. And this is either endorsed or encouraged by many of the schools.

Thanks for the definitive word on redshirting.

Outliers had some to say about all this. Canadian hockey players succeed at a much higher rate if born in the first few months of the year. So what does this "prove"?

From the Outliers Wikipedia entry:


"Outliers asserts that success depends on the idiosyncrasies of the selection process used to identify talent just as much as it does on the athletes' natural abilities."

That seems pretty clearly to suggest a belief the systems of selection can be gamed to help those with less than stellar natural gifts.

This is not quite how folks who haven't read Outliers carefully sum up its message on these boards.

Not necessary. You are released.

I bow to your wisdom.

17:25 here. My intended, but not well articulated, point was that you likely benefited in the college admissions process from your sports skills, however you were able to demonstrate them on paper. Some parents are trying to achieve that same result through enhanced paper records that happen to relate to an older child playing with younger teams.

Nice try. I was not an athletic recruit. Neither my high school coach nor I contacted college or university coaches when I applied to university. Athletics did not serve as a means to that end. I was simply a walk on when I arrived to college.

I don't mean to be presumptious, your comments on these Boards (and they are too numerous) reveal you know nothing about education in general; and the college admissions process, in particular.

Anonymous wrote:We have a friend with a daughter in 3rd grade. They were going to enroll her in a the 3rd-4th grade level basketball but decided to give her the "gift of time" and enrolled her in the 1st-2nd grade division.

She looked ridiculous being so tall and dominant. Did other little girls complain? No. But don't you see that having an older kid in the group robbed another girl the chance to learn?

I fault the league more than the parents but its the same as redshirting your kid in school.

What poor short-sightedness on the parents' part. Couldn't happen in leagues our kids play -- I need to show an original birth certificate as proof of age. I think in some cases they can play up but never down.

Anonymous wrote:I love it when the parent of a 5'5'' 125 lb 11 year old 4th grader brags about how well her kids does in class. He should do well becuase he should be in 5th grade.

And this parent is an idiot should be ignored -- not made the patron saint of redshirting.

17:25 here. My intended, but not well articulated, point was that you likely benefited in the college admissions process from your sports skills, however you were able to demonstrate them on paper. Some parents are trying to achieve that same result through enhanced paper records that happen to relate to an older child playing with younger teams.

No, declined pro soccer. Poor pay at the time and I went on to professional and graduate school. But, on another note, as someone who interviews for a prestigious Ivy in the D.C. area, I would caution you not to advise your child to include 6th Grade soccer ribbons and tin trophies on their college application. It will be the child's death knell. Just a word to the wise.

And you make a living now as a pro athlete?

Perhaps the parents are happy as clams to give their children something to put on the college applications, however contrived the apparent success was.

That's one way to look at it if you're wired that way.

Another way to look at it is the smaller less dominant kids will grow up quicker and soon neutralize the bigger, older and dominant kid (Ask Lebron James and Kobe Bryant. There were wired a little different when playing against much older, bigger and stronger opponents).

The big kid on the block loses out in the long run since she will not play against "good" competition.

As a school and collegiate athlete I always preferred to play with the bigger and older kids during my development days. I made it a point to always age or grade up for higher and more intense athletic competition (It works for academics too). Growing up, I would never dream of playing on teams where I was the oldest and dominant athlete...because it did not improve my game in the log run. Coaches and players understand this phenomenon. Ribbons and tin trophies do not an athlete make. But, parents are happy as clams and have something to brag about.

Touche. Redshirting on academic playing fields and in the educational arena is no different.

I love it when the parent of a 5'5'' 125 lb 11 year old 4th grader brags about how well her kids does in class. He should do well becuase he should be in 5th grade.

When you put it in perspective and understand the pathology it shouldn't really bother most people with more important issues to deal with. Redshirting has never bothered me. It does not put my children at any disadvantage.

We have a friend with a daughter in 3rd grade. They were going to enroll her in a the 3rd-4th grade level basketball but decided to give her the "gift of time" and enrolled her in the 1st-2nd grade division.

She looked ridiculous being so tall and dominant. Did other little girls complain? No. But don't you see that having an older kid in the group robbed another girl the chance to learn?

I fault the league more than the parents but its the same as redshirting your kid in school.

That's one way to look at it if you're wired that way.

Another way to look at it is the smaller less dominant kids will grow up quicker and soon neutralize the bigger, older and dominant kid (Ask Lebron James and Kobe Bryant. There were wired a little different when playing against much older, bigger and stronger opponents).

The big kid on the block loses out in the long run since she will not play against "good" competition.

As a school and collegiate athlete I always preferred to play with the bigger and older kids during my development days. I made it a point to always age or grade up for higher and more intense athletic competition (It works for academics too). Growing up, I would never dream of playing on teams where I was the oldest and dominant athlete...because it did not improve my game in the log run. Coaches and players understand this phenomenon. Ribbons and tin trophies do not an athlete make. But, parents are happy as clams and have something to brag about.

We have a friend with a daughter in 3rd grade. They were going to enroll her in a the 3rd-4th grade level basketball but decided to give her the "gift of time" and enrolled her in the 1st-2nd grade division.

She looked ridiculous being so tall and dominant. Did other little girls complain? No. But don't you see that having an older kid in the group robbed another girl the chance to learn?

I fault the league more than the parents but its the same as redshirting your kid in school.