<p>I have no doubt that a lot more people could become top-notch athletes if:
<p>I still think there would be plenty of people who would never be that good at any of them, though.</p>
<p>Annasdad, I 'm assuming you are mentioning a short basketball player. How many short basketball players are stars or even play? What percent?</p>
<p>So you’re an expert in what coaches want, yet you’ve never even heard of Calvin Murphy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above is exactly what the Russians did when they wanted win at the Olympic level–coaches would identify kids at an early age who had the potential to do well in a particular sport and then would put those kids in a training program to develop that potential. I know that it’s true for the sport on which my D competed. (She had Russian coaches.) I’m sure it true for other sports as well. Parents were thrilled when coaches selected their kids–it was a way for the family and the kid (if successful) to get ahead of the pack.</p>
<p>I wonder how many college varsity athletes have been trained by Russian coaches?</p>
<p>My guess would be a very small percentage.</p>
<p>I think parents are more thrilled when their kids are playing a sport they love.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Authoritarian/totalitarian regimes which used the above methods were subjecting such kids to a harsh punishing regimen no true American parent concerned about well-roundedness, educating children to become active citizens in a democratically oriented republic, and basic human rights would tolerate. That’s not accounting for the use of drugs or other forms of cheating as seen in the East German cases. </p>
<p>It also wasn’t necessarily effective in selecting the best athletes. One Mainland Chinese woman who ended up becoming a gold medalist was initially regarded as so unpromising that she was effectively ignored and shut out. </p>
<p>Only though jury-rigged homemade improvised training setups consisting of a mattress and a ridiculous amount of lobbying/pestering of Olympic officials and lucky chance when other more seemingly promising candidates didn’t measure up did she get selected to represent her country. She was so embittered by her experience that once she got her gold medal and prizes, she openly criticized the Mainland Chinese Olympic establishment. As she was a successful Gold medalist, had many Chinese fans, and didn’t care to compete again as she was embittered by the Olympic training establishment…even the flustered authoritarian government couldn’t do anything to her.</p>
<p>This is by the author of the study that Gladwell based his 10,000 hours assertion on:</p>
<p>[The</a> Making of an Expert - Harvard Business Review](<a href=“The Making of an Expert”>The Making of an Expert)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>see also: [Secrets</a> of greatness: Practice and hard work bring success - October 30, 2006](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm]Secrets”>Secrets of greatness: Practice and hard work bring success - October 30, 2006)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Evidence crosses a remarkable range of fields. In a study of 20-year-old violinists by Ericsson and colleagues, the best group (judged by conservatory teachers) averaged 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over their lives;</p>
<p>I think this is how Amy Chua trained her daughter in Piano!</p>
<p>I do agree practice on an instrument makes an unbelievable difference. Just hearing piano being played in my home, I know exactly how much practice the kid has put into a particular piece.</p>
<p>Many folks are conflating developmental candidates with legacy candidates. Few legacies are developmental, but most developmentals are legacy. If it were possible to pore over the files of non-developmental legacy candidates, it would be apparent that the overwhelming majority are accepted because of merit, and legacy means nothing, or it is a minute tipping point. Developmental candidates - and they are a tiny, tiny number - are extremely important to the college. These students are from families who have supported the college for many years in most cases - in terms of giving money, sure, but also in other ways - in areas critical to the college’s core mission. It would be extremely counterproductive for colleges not to recognize this contribution. And again, there is overlap, because kids brought up in this environment typically appreciate higher education and are with the “program.” The idea that some slacker kid is a lock at Harvard because his dad wrote a check doesn’t really happen.</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that many parents are attempting to follow those two steps listed in post 101. They sign their children up for several different sports when they’re young to ascertain what they’re good at and what they enjoy most. Then they move toward competitive clubs or travel leagues for better development in the sport of preference by the time the kids reach middle school. One would assume that if your child is in the 15th percentile for height on the pediatrician’s chart, part of this evaluation process would entail discouraging them from basketball, volleyball and high jumping. How is this different from helping your child select a musical instrument or choose any other EC? If your child has a squeaky, nasal voice and a shy, conflict-avoiding personality, then debate club would not be optimal. People are keen on placing hereditary limitations on athletics that they don’t attribute as strongly to academics or other pursuits.</p>
<p>Parental values and expectations play a big role in what a child will do and how much effort he will put into doing it well. Do we assume that the majority of Chinese-Americans are simply born with the right hereditary traits to play the violin (piano, cello), to play tennis, or to excel in mathematics? No, we believe the parents see these things as important and promote them. When the children excel, we say it was hard work, lots of practice, and maybe some tiger parenting. But when an American kid excels in soccer, we say it’s heredity. Hmmm.</p>
<p>Edit–did not see above posts when I posted this.</p>
<p>I think each school should have a few seats they should be able to auction off to the highest bidders in a way to raise money. Are there any legal restrictions on private colleges not to do this?</p>
<p>I think Gladwell is onto something with his 10,000 hours of practice idea, but I think he underestimates the role of inherent talent in making it possible for all that practice to “stick.” I know too many young violinists who practice a lot, but who still aren’t all that impressive. For me, the takeaway is that real stars are both born AND made.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Ivy League is an NCAA Division I conference, although it is in Division I Football Championship Subdivision instead of the better known Division I Football Bowl Subdivision.</p>
<p>A study of NCAA Division III schools indicated that student athletes in more intensely recruited sports tended to have lower GPAs.</p>
<p>[At</a> Selective Division III Colleges, a Gap Between Athletes and Nonathletes - Players - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/at-selective-division-iii-colleges-a-gap-between-athletes-and-nonathletes/27587]At”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/at-selective-division-iii-colleges-a-gap-between-athletes-and-nonathletes/27587)
[Welcome</a> to The College Sports Project](<a href=“http://www.collegesportsproject.org/]Welcome”>http://www.collegesportsproject.org/)</p>
<p>It would not be too surprising if something similar happened at Division I schools. Most student athletes are not in the high visibility sports, but the high visibility sports like football and basketball have the most negative image with respect to academic capabilities of the student athletes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They don’t have to do it - there are ample discrete donations, which would dry up if bidding started - the net result would probably be a reduction in giving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know of at least two Harvard Profs with 20+ years under their belt as of the late '90s who’d beg to differ with that. Granted, the only legacies which fit this profile are the truly wealthy who can spare hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations at a bare minimum with perhaps a multi-million dollar donation thrown in at random and the numbers of developmental families with the wealth and/or connections are also exceedingly small as well. On the other hand…those Profs are of the opinion that even one marginal student admitted under such schemes* is one too many. </p>
<p>Also…we did have one recent president who was admitted to Yale College and HBS mainly on his family’s legacy connections to the former and a large donation to the latter school. Can you credibly claim that an applicant without such connections could be admitted to those schools with an 1156 on the SATs and a college GPA in the 2.0 range respectively??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>South Korea’s top universities proposed this very policy back around 2000…10% of freshmen seats were to be reserved for families willing to pay $2 million dollars each…no need to pass the highly cutthroat national college entrance exam. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, there was a loud outcry about institutional fairness and worries the universities’ academic rigor was going to go to the crapper to cater to the dim wealthy kids who could only gain admission through what was seen as a large bribe. Considering the strong Confucian ethos and ideas of institutional fairness…the outcry among the public and even most elites was such that the proposal was dismissed out of hand.</p>
<p>The expertise study asserts that it’s not only about practicing a lot, it’s about doing a lot of quality, directed practice. My youngest practices her instrument a lot, but does not have a private teacher and I have no expertise in it. She wants to play the songs she likes over and over again. I encourage her to practice scales and those exercise pieces, and to try to improve her tone, etc., but in the absence of better guidance she hasn’t improved much.</p>
<p>
And yet, those Profs presumably cash their paychecks each month.</p>
<p>Yale, at least, claims that it has recently rejected children of Sterling (read: big $$$) donors–they may have said most of them, but I’m not sure. They certainly reject most legacy applicants.</p>
<p>Is there some donation amount that will cause Harvard or Yale to admit even the dumbest cluck? Maybe, but if there is, it’s got six, or more likely seven zeroes to the left of the decimal point.</p>
<p>Hunt’s post 112 hit the nail on the head. Micheal Phelps is a great example of 10,000 hours of practice PLUS inherited talent plus some unique physical traits that have created the swimming machine that he has been. I remember reading that his physique is exactly what one would choose if one were “designing” the perfect swimmer. He has disproportionately long arms and short legs, huge hands, huge feet. His body naturally produces less lactic acid than most people. He has the upper body of a 6’8" person, but the lower body of a 5’10" person. His body is constructed in such a way that it creates an almost perfect plane in the water. If he had decided to be a sprinter, would 10,000 hours of practice have made him an olympic sprinter? His body type would have worked against him. Would 10,000 hours of piccolo practice have gotten him into the Peabody Institute? He would have been fighting to adjust his huge hands to the size of a piccolo.</p>
<p>I’m talking about today - the last 10 years or so. George W. Bush was admitted to Yale over forty years ago. Sure, the old boy’s club was active and flourishing back then - women were not even admitted until a year after Bush graduated. Times really have changed - today’s campuses look nothing like they did back then. No one operates on a handshake any longer and it’s much more difficult to finagle for many reasons, not withstanding the simple fact that everyone is now watching.</p>
<p>I also wonder whether it gets harder and harder for somebody who doesn’t have the ideal body type to excel. Would that short basketball Hall-of-Famer have a chance today?</p>