<p>
[Quote]
How do you know my son is not fit? His GP is happy, I'm happy. He is skinny and muscled. Really...
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I was just basing my comments on what you said. You said your son is a couch potato. If he is a couch potato and does no cardiovascular exercise, then he is not fit. It's not rocket science.</p>
<p>gonewithfergus-- the three-sport mediocre athlete is a different circumstance than what is being discussed, I believe. </p>
<p>Objections are routinely made on CC to what is (mistakenly, imho) believed to be an unfairly favorable nod given by colleges and universities to recruited athletes and many of those making the objections seem to have a mindset that all such athletes are neo-cortically challenged human impersonators who perhaps randomly filled in the bubbles on the SAT's. Rejoice all ye who doubt -- the new writing exam should ferret some of them out!</p>
<p>Your three-sport athlete is pursuing a different goal than college recruitment. As xiggi's latest post illustrates, colleges often seek depth, not breadth. Why? Because they want to be assured that an admitted student to their rigorous program can go the distance and manage the curriculum even while homesick and living in a tenement of a dorm eating nothing but starch for nine months of the year and enduring constant facial eruptions due to the climate change. The recruited athlete is one who demonstrates both an ability and a true passion for his or her sport and a willingness to dedicate him or herself to it entirely by the age of 13 or 14 at the very latest. </p>
<p>Of everything being debated about athletics, I think this is the area most open to question -- just as our children seem to be losing their childhoods in their quest for academic perfection via the standardized tests in order to gain admittance to college, there is also a no-doubt unintentional push trickling down from those same colleges and universities that has sent tens of thousands of young children into intense and narrow athletic training at too early an age. The result is generally burn-out well before the time those college applications are completed, or the student letting his or her parent know in no uncertain terms that he or she is DONE with the sport and does NOT wish to play in college, dashing the dreams of those parents, which is appropriate, since they are the parents' dreams, not the child's dreams. </p>
<p>Of course, this occurs with music as well, in that some parents place the violin in the child's hands at age 3 and never let him or her set it down to explore the soccer field or the swimming pool. I've even seen it happen in theatre, where a parent whose greatest regret is that he didn't act in musical theatre steers his son that direction with a do-not-pass-go, no-get-out-of-jail-free card. </p>
<p>But I digress. The three-sport athlete is no doubt having a great time and enjoying his cross-training. Unless he is a phenom at all three sports, which you indicate he is not, he will not be recruited, and the CC members who wish athletic recruitment would go the way of the wringer washer and Newt Gingrich will not be offended by his presence in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>It is not rocket science, but his GP who has seen him at least once a year since he was born has no complaint about his fitness AFTER administering a check-up. She has a medical degree and more than 30 years experience. What are YOUR qualifications? A degree in clairvoyance and reading popular magazines? You don't even need a picture of the person you diagnose as being unfit? Wow!!!! At least, it's free as well as gratuitous.</p>
<p>I could only wish that being a varsity athlete helped me out as far as admissions goes, because in HS I was a two sport varsity for four years. Ive always played the sports I played for fun, and didnt worry about college admissions. I wasnt recruited, so there was no sports hook and I probably should of paid more attention to my GPA. :)</p>
<p>Although I would like to point out, the time management skills that I was forced to learn with sports have immensely helped out in college compared to most of my peers who seem to get distracted very easily.</p>
<p>shagpin, are you certain that being a two-sport varsity athlete for four years did not help you out in admissions? Yes, being a recruited athlete is a whole other ballgame ('scuse the pun), but earning varsity letters in two sports for four years is evidence of the kind of "commitment" that allows college admissions people to check that box as they go down their list of desirable criteria.</p>
<p>Well I got rejected from 5 of the 7 schools that I applied to, and the two that I got into are fairly medicore. It was a bad time to be in my shoes, but it has all worked out for the best.</p>
<p>At my current school I have;
Interned for a radio Station
Played for its Water Polo team
Gotten heavily involved with the local Democrats
Gotten accepted for an internship with a US House Rep.
And maintend an overall GPA of 3.4.</p>
<p>I would attribute being able to do all these things almost directly from lessons I learned from sports.</p>
<p>Athletes learn to deal with failure and rejection. They are rarely the kids left sobbing and mad at the world because they got rejected by all the Ivies. By the time a successful athlete (recruitable or not) has gotten to the college application process, they have learned well that their place on the pedestal is only one new transfer student away. They always have a backup plan. </p>
<p>Dedicated athletes are always trying to get to the next level. For many, there is usually a coach or two and maybe some parents on hand to remind them constantly where the next level is and that they are not there yet. (LOL) Elite athletics is an exercise in learning how to keep going, knowing you're not good enough. The definition of an instant is "the time between when you reach the next level and when the bar is raised." </p>
<p>I like shagpin's attitude. Rejected from 5 of 7 schools, no fairy tale ending, but "it has all worked out for the best." </p>
<p>Student-athletes learn more than time management. They learn to keep going even when they know they will never get anywhere close to greatness, they learn to deal with sometimes difficult, sometimes unreasonable adults, they develop tenacity, resourcefulness and resilience. They learn to cope with the frustration caused by injuries. (Athletes don't complain about pain, they complain about not being out on the field.) They learn to change course in midstream. No amount of practice or weight training can prepare you for an unknown, unpredictable opponent. </p>
<p>You don't need to be a recruited athlete to benefit from these learning experiences, and colleges know that. I'm not convinced that CMC, et al, likes athletes because they fill teams as much as they like them because they are less likely to fall apart the first time something doesn't go as planned. </p>
<p>There are other activities that teach similar lessons, and I am sure that experienced college admissions people are aware of them. But nobody ever complains when the concertmistress gets in with lower stats than someone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Student-athletes learn more than time management. They learn to keep going even when they know they will never get anywhere close to greatness, they learn to deal with sometimes difficult, sometimes unreasonable adults, they develop tenacity, resourcefulness and resilience. They learn to cope with the frustration caused by injuries. (Athletes don't complain about pain, they complain about not being out on the field.) They learn to change course in midstream. No amount of practice or weight training can prepare you for an unknown, unpredictable opponent.</p>
<p>You don't need to be a recruited athlete to benefit from these learning experiences, and colleges know that. I'm not convinced that CMC, et al, likes athletes because they fill teams as much as they like them because they are less likely to fall apart the first time something doesn't go as planned.</p>
<p>There are other activities that teach similar lessons, and I am sure that experienced college admissions people are aware of them. But nobody ever complains when the concertmistress gets in with lower stats than someone else.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agree completely with this. Not all life's lessons are learned in athletic arenas, but enough of them can be certainly experienced there to make those students (especially ones who are NOT "superstars", so they've experienced plenty of disappointment and adversity, yet remained dedicated and perservered) more desirable to a lot of colleges, for the reasons you've cited.</p>
<p>"It may be that showing leadership in athletics will help you get into a good college, but what about playing at a mediocre level and taking time away from academics? My brother, who is a high-school sophmore, plays three sports (JV or Varsity, depending on the event) and hasn't achieved much at any of them, although he is dedicated and really pushes himself. The problem is that with all his sports practices and meets, he's had no time to get involved with any other academic or extracurricular groups, or to get a job, and I'm afraid that this will really hurt him come application time."</p>
<p>My kid (3-sporter) played every season at the varsity level except for a semester away from school because she was Paging on the Hill. She is never home before 6 pm when she is in season. Although this child did not work except for babysitting during the school year in hs, she managed to get selected to and become an active member in 6 Honor Societies, continue her membership in Scouting and not only earn the Gold Award (highest national award for GSUSA) but also the Silver Trefoil (highest local council award) which many girls actually find more difficult to complete.</p>
<p>I doubt that colleges pick student/athletes because they feel they are "more desirable" than other students with leadership in the arts, student government, etc. They pick them because they are just as qualified as the others, and they need to fill their teams. This is <em>the word</em> from my son's hs counselor. Happily for the colleges, there are plenty of good students out there to fill those teams, and if that means a school is somewhat imbalanced in their percentages of athletes accepted, that's fine, because those students usually have other interests and talents going for them that add to the school enviromment as well, especially in a Div III school. In Claremont's case, they have to take more male athletes to make up for the lack of men at Scripps. (they are a combined team) They don't take theses kids because they think they're "better" leaders, but they are needed.
If a student is not as interested in a college with a higher proportion of male athletes, there are other options within the Claremont colleges. Claremont used to be a men's college not too many year's ago. A lot has changed since they went co-ed, but they still need their athletes.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I doubt that colleges pick student/athletes because they feel they are "more desirable" than other students with leadership in the arts, student government, etc. They pick them because they are just as qualified as the others, and they need to fill their teams.
[/QUOTE]
My son got into Stanford with no extracurriculars beyond the two varsity sports he played in high school. By the time he applied to Stanford, he had 6 varsity letters and nothing else to put down under "extracurriculars". He had inconsequential community service hours, no clubs, no scouts, nothing, nada. Like almost every other applicant, he had good grades in "the most challenging curriculum" and good SAT scores, but nothing especially outstanding...3/7uw and 1520. He was not interested in playing sports in college, wasn't good enough even if he wanted to, and certainly not good enough for Stanford. So I just don't by the argument that colleges only pick student-athletes in order fill out their teams. The only role he could have had on a Stanford team was water boy. For the record, though, I don't think anyone has said that non-recruited athletes are "more desirable" than students with other leadership accomplishments. It's just that some people don't think of athletics as leadership -- they put it into a category of its own. The CMC pamphlet simply made it clear that sports is one way to demonstrate leadership. </p>
<p>As far as having time to do something else and also be a 3-sport athlete, that depends on whether you play only high school sports or whether you also play on a traveling club team, and it depends on the sport. Some club teams are ridiculously demanding and they go on for months and months. My daughter's club team starts practice the day after the high school season ends in the fall and continues into July. Then come the college camps and then pre-season training for high school the first or second week of August. And even within that one sport, some teams practice twice a week, some three times, some as much as five nights a week...and the tournaments are on weekends, sometimes 3000 miles away. Scouting is out of the question, as are many on-going activities that require a reliable physical presence. So, yeah, the kids who play on intense traveling teams can dabble in things, but dabbling isn't the same as accomplishing something.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
his GP who has seen him at least once a year since he was born has no complaint about his fitness AFTER administering a check-up.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Looks like I hit a nerve! YOU called him a couch potato, not me! I do have a lot of expertise in the health and fitness area- many GPs are not very well-versed in cardiovascular fitness, by the way. If someone doesn't do any cardiovascular exercise, then they are NOT fit. Perhaps your son does some exercise in order to stay fit. Marite- you are off-base on this one. Anyone knows that to be fit you need to do some form of exercise that elevates your heartrate. If your son doesn't do this, despite being young and thin, he is not fit. Don't be so defensive- he's YOUR couch potato! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Athletes learn to deal with failure and rejection. They are rarely the kids left sobbing and mad at the world because they got rejected by all the Ivies.
[/quote]
I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I just wanted to point out that musicians, dancers and theater kids also learn how to deal with rejection and failure. My kids have had various auditions since about third grade -- for music competitions and orchestras -- and they have certainly not won each and every time. That doesn't mean they quit or whine about it. What about kids involved in science? Anyone who's ever done research has encountered botched experiments with unexpected results. There are a variety of ways to learn character, and sports is certainly one of them -- it's just not the only one. As a matter of fact, my son did a research project between junior and senior year, and submitted the paper with his applications. However, the experiment did not work out as planned, so the results section just discussed ways to do it next time. That's the nature of science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For the record, though, I don't think anyone has said that non-recruited athletes are "more desirable" than students with other leadership accomplishments.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, someone did say that, which promted my post. They have since edited it. I should have put the entire sentence in the post instead of just the two words.</p>
<p>But, yeah - it's both. But, when a school's numbers show 98% of their admitted students (even 48%, if every kid had two sports), there is something going on there besides just thinking sports makes for good students. In CMC's case, it makes sense when you realize they are making up for carrying their all-girls school in their team.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild:</p>
<p>Yes, he is a couch potato in the sense that he does not do any sports or sustained physical activity. Although having to climb four flights of stairs several times a day might help keep him fit.</p>
<p>You've just denigrated a physician who is employed by the best HMO in the country (per USN&WR) without even knowing her qualifications or experience, or dealings with her patients. </p>
<p>Please remember that even Bill Frist,a highly respected phsysician, looked at pictures of Terry Schiavo plus medical reports to review before making a fool of himself with his diagnosis.</p>
<p>This will be the end of my participation in this totally ludicrous exchange.</p>
<p>Marite- sorry. I do not intend to attack your child. YOU said he was a couch potato. I value fitness. It's fine with me if you don't.</p>
<p>FWIW the CMC/Scripps/HMC team draws from about the same size of male student population as the Pitzer/Pomona team does (5-8% difference), so I doubt the need to fill teams with male athletes is the primary reason that so many students have prior varsity team experience.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I don't buy that 100% varsity athlete figure at CMC, even figuring in a high number of private school 2- and 3-sport varsity kids. It would have to mean that over half the class played at least one varsity sport, and/or that CMC was essentially ignoring any large public schools. (At my kids' school, there are probably only a couple hundred varsity athletes out of 2,500 students. Some of those have good grades/scores; others don't.) Just can't be. We ought to consider that there could be something off about the graph.</p>
<p>Going to try to put together something more coherent this time, since I actually have slept a bit.</p>
<p>One thing that struck me in many of the responses here, is that in general, the children of the CCers tend to have good character and work ethic. (I know this from snooping at the high school forum, too. Not just taking your word for it. ;) ). So of course when they pursue athletics, they become outstanding scholar-athletes who, whether they continue in sports or not, become an asset to their college campuses. </p>
<p>But as is frequently said around here, CCers are something of a special group, so using them as our exemplars may not say much about the experiences of the general population. Basically, if we only look at each other's children, we aren't going to see the other side of the coin. </p>
<p>Though I think the Duke lacrosse players may well be innocent of the recent rape charges against them, U. officials are saying that prior to this event, the players had been very over-represented in the citations for alcohol violations/underage drinking and other disruptive behaviors; yet the university took no major action against them till their stripper party and its aftermath hit the media attention fan. UC Boulder has been plagued by rape scandals for decades IIRC. These are just major things that grab public attention; some of the things that have happened in our state U. system are also very shocking and troubling. </p>
<p>Worse are the life histories of some former college football players I know. Some of the kids who turn out bad didn't leave home that way. Though perhaps technically adults, they are still pretty young to put in a world with enormous temptations and told over and over again that the rules that apply to ordinary people just don't apply to them.</p>
<p>Edited to add: I am not saying these are typical experiences either. Just that the full picture needs to include both sides of the coin.</p>
<p>10% participate in varsity sports? That seems low. Maybe the word varsity is misleading. For instance tennis, only 10-12 boys/girls make the ladder, but there might be 30 on the team. They practice every day, they put the same hours in and if they aren't playing in the matches, they are on another court playing challenge matches. They are still on the team and they are still varsity athletes. Being the mother of 3 boys, this whole thread has made me happy. Athletics do take an enormous amount of time. Add that to 20 hours a week for a job (boys "got to" have the gas money), homework every night and one or two other ECs like NHS or the school newspaper, and fitting in the required community support activitiy of their choice and those kids are NEVER home Good to know colleges value the time, effort, stick-to-it-ness and juggling that goes on to be in athletics. The bottom line is to each his own in terms of what gets your juices flowing, but to make assumptions about athletics and the caliber of students that participate in them or to say that playing on a team is less than playing in an orchestra is just plain wrong. I do think that admins may devalute the flitterers, those kids that dibble, dabble at a whole bunch of stuff and don't stick it with a few things and maybe this shows up less in athletes because they participate for multiple years and don't have the time to flitter about with a multitude or ECs.</p>