<p>You must not have known many parents of serious young musicians, then! My daughter went to an arts academy for high school, and I assure you that the parent expectations had to be managed by the faculty as far as conservatory admission prospects, much less scholarships!</p>
<p>I am a huge believer in the value of sports- both individual sports like my own and team sports. I also disagree that the Ivy schools significantly lower admission standards for what jonri regards as the “rich kid sports”. Almost all the kids in these sports (and cross country) are competitive applicants who get a bump because of their athletic talent. So what? We can turn this into the millionth thread about the dumb football and basketball players if you want, but it might get boring. I have so much respect for young athletes who are accomplished enough to continue to play in college- whatever the sport. I love it even more when they do well in school (which many do) and get degrees.</p>
<p>“far more people question the value of dedication to sports than question the value of music and other arts.”</p>
<p>This may be in part because appreciation of the arts is universal among humans, both across cultures and across individuals. That isn’t true of competitive sports, which have value in some cultures and to some individuals. There are plenty of people in the world who wouldn’t be troubled, or at least could get by, if sports ceased to exist. Virtually everyone in every culture would be bereft if asked to live a life without music. Even deaf people love it. The vast majority of us would be lost without storytelling (whether novels, poetry, acting), too. No religion exists without art, so if you value religion, you value arts.</p>
<p>I personally enjoy watching many sports, but I know lots of people who couldn’t care less. If there were people who couldn’t care less about any arts, maybe we’d question the value of dedication to those things. But there really aren’t any such people, so it doesn’t seem open to question. What athlete preps for a match nowadays without his iPod? Our species hasn’t even even come up with a way of honoring Olympic winners that doesn’t involve music.</p>
<p>I’m not talking Interlochen. If I were visiting some tennis academy, I’d expect the parents to be planning on pro careers. At Interlochen, I’d expect singing careers. I’m talking about kids who attend regular schools and are simply the best pitcher for the local Little League or who won the lead in the high school musical. While I think both groups often have parents who are unrealistic about how competitive their kids are in the real world, I personally haven’t met a whole lot of parents of singers and dancers who expect scholarships to college. They may be unrealistic in thinking their kids are going to get into Tisch or CMU, etc., but they don’t expect a free ride. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, your’e much more likely to find middle class kids on an Ivy cross-country team than on an Ivy equestrian, squash, etc. team. I didn’t include it in my example.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with it is that this whole process makes college admissions much less of a level playing field than it already is. Moreover, the pie is only so big. Having spots reserved for sports that in MOST cases only the wealthy have ever had exposure to means that other kids who excel in other areas don’t get in. If the Ivies dropped water polo and added floor hockey–a serious sport I assure you at many Girls & Boys Clubs throughout the US–at least in the short run the socioeconomic profile of admitted athletes would change a lot. At many of the Ivies, the basketball and football teams in the aggregate come from LESS affluent backgrounds than most of their classmates. I personally don’t mind kids from less affluent backgrounds getting a “bump.” I do mind when the bump goes to girl whose parents bought her a horse. </p>
<p>Don’t misunderstand…I don’t want to discriminate AGAINST the girl with the horse. I just don’t want her to get more of a bump than the girl with the same stats who plays floor hockey…or the girl who is an amazing artist or the girl with the amazing singing voice. But she does get a bump because at some top colleges, there are equestrian teams. </p>
<p>Things aren’t going to change any time soon.</p>
<p>The original Olympics was a gathering of the athletes and artists. The statutes would glorify the human form of the athletic competitor–think the discus. The poets composed tributes to the games and the winners.</p>
<p>Wrestling, and track and field like competitions go as far back as recorded history. Mythology is full of athletic competition.</p>
<p>Well, jonri, then those of us who value athletic excellence are merely tuned-in to what our institutions of higher education value. Chasing a sports dream as a way to reach the goal of attending a top school, is a perfectly valid choice to make. Frankly, it’s more practical than striving for first chair in the orchestra because you think it will pave your way to Harvard. Can’t tell you how many parents around here think that! Their kids are NOT all playing because of their deep love of music and what unites humanity. They’re playing because their parents are forcing them to do so because to them it represents success. I am not impressed by their delusion any more than I am impressed by the overbearing Little League dad.</p>
<p>And again, it’s not one or the other for many smart, hard-working kids. My D was first chair in her intrument AND the top player on her team AND had great SAT scores and grades.</p>
<p>It’s a great question to ponder. I guess the answer is, in part, related to the child and to the dream. Some children (and people) are capable of pursuing any dream. Maybe Gabby is that type of person; it turned out that her dream was gymnastics, but perhaps she could have achieved any dream. I would like to think so. In fact, most children are capable of achieving a dream of some sort; sometimes the real challenge is finding the dream that is the best match.</p>
<p>Frequently, I really find myself nodding in agreement with the posts you make, Jonri. In this case, however, I just have to say that anything which de-emphasizes fitness at this juncture in our culture of increasing obesity is actually dangerous, imho. The truth is that many states have no four year fitness class requirements in high school, and while we are a group of over achievers, as a rule, on CC, the general population is gaining more and more weight and becoming increasingly sedentary. The danger of diabetes alone ought to have us all up and running and lifting wieghts 3 or 4 times a week, and yet, here we are bemoaning the athletic.</p>
<p>There is space in the world for the physically as well as intellectually gifted, and the more we see it as an and/and proposition, the better off we will all be. Too much unhealthiness in our culture for me to believe we don’t need MORE athletics and athletic participation in schools and not less. Who cares if you are a rocket scientist if you can’t run a few miles here on planet earth?</p>
<p>“I do mind when the bump goes to girl whose parents bought her a horse.”</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>jonri, I love that line. </p>
<p>I also don’t think there should be a bump for The girl either.</p>
<p>Now, I do not have a problem if the horse gets a bump and gets into a school because of his activity. I have heard that there are some classes athletes take that don’t exist.
I have no doubt a horse can do just as well as any athlete in those classes.</p>
<p>Regarding the classist implication about sports: Do you actually think the top student musicians are developing their own talents all by themselves and without significant financial input by their affluent parents! Some sports are downright cheap, and therefore socially egalitarian, in comparison to musical pursuits. An instrument will run you a least a $1-2000 for the cheaper starter brass instruments and many, many thousands more for others. Then it will cost the parents about $300 a month for private lessons from an ordinary teacher, and much more for better-qualified teachers. That makes my $90 every 4 months for new running shoes a real bargain.</p>
<p>HYPS is committed to diversity. We should encourage them to reach out to more horses, especially in stables in lower income areas.</p>
<p>Harvard. We’re talking about Harvard, no matter what we are talking about on CC, unless we are talking about HYPS, in which case we are still talking about Harvard. ;)</p>
<p>My kid who played a varsity sport in college was NOT recruited. She got in on her own merits. Her academic profile was in the ballpark for her college and not below the typical applicant. There are also no athletic scholarships to the Ivies, and she went to one. She was academically qualified (val, yadda yadda) and upon her college graduation, she got the top award in her department and got into top grad schools in her field. Also, she came from a middle class background. Like GFG’s D, my athletic D also was tops in music, as well as sports and academics (two instruments, band, jazz band, wind ensemble, All States, etc.)</p>
<p>However, it is my musical theater kid who DID win scholarships, though we did not even know the scholarships existed until she received them with her admissions. She ended up at NYU/Tisch. She was not in the field to chase scholarships but merely it is her passion and the scholarships (substantial one to Tisch) were a nice bonus in her admissions, but she’d have attended for MT even if no scholarships were available. She went to a rural public high school that doesn’t even have drama classes.</p>
<p>Academics will most of the time prevail over athletics for women. Don’t get me wrong sports are important for girls but have shown not to be profitable. All I am saying is focus on academics will have greater benefits. In all honesty America needs more female doctors (which in recent studies has increased drastically) rather than more WNBA players. However sports for EC’s are more important than aiming for it to be their profession.</p>
I don’t agree with that statement. Plenty of people couldn’t care less about any arts, which is why it is one of the first things to be cut from school budgets. </p>
<p>I love the arts, I love sports, and I think they are very similar pursuits. Both can be enjoyed by the doer and the observer. Both have an intrinsic value to the participant and to the fan. That intrinsic value can be hard to explain to someone who just doesn’t see it, kind of like how it’s hard to explain the value of a non-STEM degree to those who just don’t see it.</p>
<p>“Plenty of people couldn’t care less about any arts, which is why it is one of the first things to be cut from school budgets.”</p>
<p>Ah, they don’t care about other people’s arts. They DO care about their own. Those folks voting against music programs in school universally own TVs and radios and DVDs and CDs full of the music or drama they like. These folks are selfish, but they are not indifferent to arts. Maybe you have met an exception; I have never met a single one.</p>
<p>And ** poetgirl ** I actually suspect our societal obsession with sports and fitness somehow helps drive the obesity epidemic. I’ve been out in CA the past few days in an affluent college town. Can’t believe the number of chubby people walking around in expensive yoga clothes, hopping on and off very elaborate bikes, etc. Everyone seems to be fitness crazed and everyone seems to be kind of pudgy.</p>
<p>Then go to Paris. The people dress in actual clothes vs spandex, get out of the car and out of the spinning class and walk the sidewalks, shop, purchase fresh ingredients to make wholesome food, savor the meal. And they are thin.</p>
<p>Sorry, I don’t think sports in high school or college improves the fitness of the students.</p>
<p>I’m now in my mid-50s and have gone thru decades of assiduous exercise regimens but feel as if I’m probably at my most fit of my life. I walk every chance I get. I garden. I clean my house and look for excuses to climb the stairs vs take the elevator. I avoid the couch. I just try to move. And it works much better than any regimen I’ve ever followed.</p>
<p>^ I wonder what part of California you were in? Certainly not true throughout California, but I am struck by how “svelte” the majority of metropolitan (NYC, San Francisco ) folk are compared to more rural areas. Not compared to France. Iv’e never been to France.</p>
<p>^ Palo Alto - and I was struck by how much heavier people were than last time I visited about five years ago. We really are swelling up as a population. And not just fat, either. I’m amazed by the huge feet this cohort of college kids have. :)</p>
<p>Well, this thread has certainly meandered! Thanks for agreeing with me, sewhappy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right! I agree. If you’re an affluent parent who has a kid who is smart, but not brilliant and equally talented athletically and musically, it’s a much better bet to get him/her involved in squash, sailing, water polo, fencing or to buy the kid the horse than it is to sink the same amount of $ and time into music lessons. </p>
<p>I just think it shouldn’t be that way. I think the US overemphasizes sports generally and especially in college admissions. If doing that prevented obesity, than the typical American ought to have a much lower BMI than the typical Canadian or European…and that is not the case. Moreover, I’ve never seen any evidence that the students who aren’t on sports teams who attend universities with highly ranked near professional sports teams are more physically fit than those who don’t. And I don’t think the couch potato high school kid with limited athletic skills is going to get up off the couch and get moving because he sees the high school QB get into an Ivy based on his athletic skills.</p>
<p>I agree that playing sports is a good thing for participants in and of itself. I agree that playing a musical instrument is a good thing in and of itself. I think there are lots of other things that are good in and of themselves–learning to play chess well or participating in student government, acting, writing for the school newspaper,drawing, community service, etc. </p>
<p>All those things count at colleges with holistic admissions policies. In a few rare cases you can get merit $ for doing them. However, they don’t count as much as sports do at most schools. As I said at the beginning…and to me the responses to my posts support my hypothesis–I think parents of athletes tend to think athletes are somehow special and entitled to more consideration in admissions. I just don’t. That’s all. </p>
<p>Back to the original question…I’d have a hard time letting my kid put in the time and energy to succeed in gymnastics at such a young age…even if I had unlimited financial resources and this was my only child. But, I’ve never had a child who was so darn good at something like that that it was a realistic choice. (When someone like Chow agrees to coach a kid, it IS a realistic choice. ) Who knows what I’d do if I did?</p>
<p>jonri- Do you know what a small percentage of high school athletes actually continue their sport at a intercollegiate level? It isn’t many, and a lot of the ones who do aren’t getting any scholarship money. For those few who have that much talent, yes it does help with admissions if the student is willing (or pretends they are willing) to represent the college in that sport. I really don’t think all that many budding clarinetists are being displaced.</p>
<p>My daughter actually got a merit award to Rice for music. My son didn’t get a dime as an Ivy athletic recruit!</p>