<p>I agree with Pizzagirl here. I don’t understand what’s wrong with casual participation in a hobby or community activity.</p>
<p>A colleague of mine plays a musical instrument in a not-very-high-level community orchestra. Another colleague occasionally plays small roles in community theater productions. These people enjoy their special interests and the people they meet while pursuing them, but they have no intention of ever going beyond their current modest levels of participation. They couldn’t pursue their interests seriously even if they wanted to (which they don’t) because of their work and family responsibilities.</p>
<p>What does an “ec” mean for the rest of your life? That you get to take a break from the daily grind and do something you find enjoyable or meaningful. You don’t have to be super good at it. I’m thinking a lot of things that happen at my church wouldn’t happen at all if adults didn’t feel compelled to continue what might be merely an “ec” to a high school student or if only “the best” were allowed to help with bible school or go on a prison visit.</p>
<p>In college? D1 is singing. She does have a better voice than a lot of the performance majors and the faculty are all over her to consider at least a minor. She won’t. She doesn’t want to suck the joy out of the activity my making it a job. She’ll probably sing until age changes her voice because she likes it.</p>
<p>And I haven’t yet seen a nod to the very real fact that sometimes, as we age, we simply can no longer pursue what we did as youngsters. Our bodies wear out. We can’t perform physically at the same level that we used to. So, we coach tumbling to youngsters or become game officials and stay involved in what we find enjoyable and meaningful that gives us a break. We all need a break.</p>
<p>You don’t even have to be committed to being the best you can be in your major life activities.</p>
<p>There are plenty of people on these boards, for example, who chose to pursue their careers less intensively than they could have because of their family commitments. </p>
<p>People who pursue one passion with everything they’ve got tend to be people with one-track lives. This is fine for some people, but others choose different paths that involve lesser commitments to multiple things.</p>
I think it’s good for the world that there are some people who do this. But I also think it’s good for the world that there are a lot of people–even leaders and very successful people–who don’t.</p>
<p>If a person is unidimensional… and by that I mean overly focused on that one skill, even if they are exceptional at it(eg sports, music, etc) and for whatever reason they cannot or do not wish to pursue it vocationally (eg due to injury), hopefully they have other skills/interests/training to fall back on.</p>
<p>We have a good friend who got his degree from the CIA (culinary institute of America) but has been career military/civil affairs. He doesnt use his cooking background at all in this career, but we sure love it when he comes to visit!</p>
No, the key point of difference is that you are a Platonist and we are Aristoteleans, who are trying to tell you that there is no single “form” of the passionate, successful, or exceptional person.</p>
<p>iP, you have also said before that colleges should value only those students that are deeply passionate about doing one thing extremely well, over the person who does a bunch of things well. That may be your personal value, that may be how you were raised,but that doesn’t mean American colleges need to adhere to those values. You’ll see elite colleges admit both the brilliant focused-on-one-thing kid and the does-many-things-well kid. There is no need for them to privilege one type over the other, unless they want to.</p>
<p>I didn’t say that. I have gone past that discussion about college admissions. This discussion started when someone expressed sorrow when talented musicians stop playing after they go to college, and, how, if everyone did the same, human civilization as e know it would come to an end. </p>
<p>This has nothing to do with college admissions.</p>
<p>I’m thinking of two people I know, both of whom have about the same level of intelligence (in my opinion) and both of whom happen to have degrees from Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>One is the president of a national non-profit organization. She has been deeply committed to that organization’s work for several decades, and it is the main focus of her life.</p>
<p>The other is a health professional who spends large amounts of time working as a volunteer in various organizations that benefit the children of his community. His volunteer activities do not involve his professional skills (he does things like coaching athletic teams and leading scout troops).</p>
<p>Can we conclude that one of these people is making a greater contribution to society – or making better use of his/her talents – than the other? I don’t think so. I also don’t think that either of them would be happy living the other person’s life.</p>
<p>On a campus tour of Stanford many years ago, a young woman told us that what they valued were people who were deep, not wide (not her words, mine). Of course, by now this may have changed.</p>
<p>Marian, Let me ask you a question. Let’s say you know this kid who started playing the piano at the age of 3, played all through age 18, achieved great heights, and then stopped after getting into college. Would you be sad, or would you say that the kid wouldn’t be happy otherwise, so it’s fine? If you do the latter, I have no quarrel with you. That’s how this thread started by the way.</p>
<p>I think it’s fine if the young person chooses a different direction in life, rather than continuing the serious pursuit of music.</p>
<p>If the young person loves music, I hope that he/she will find opportunities to include it in his/her life in some way. I would be sad if that never worked out. </p>
<p>But I would also be sad if the young person felt obligated to continue the serious pursuit of music if he/she would prefer to devote the time and energy to other things.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: One of my kids was an All-State musician in high school. She chose to participate in instrumental music only at a casual level in college (by playing in a non-selective, non-traveling musical ensemble) so that she could devote more time to other things. This young person has graduated from college and is working (in a career unrelated to music), and currently is not involved in music at all – although I think she might want to get back to it at some point in the future. All of this is fine with me.</p>
<p>OK, IP, to get back to the bickering, what do you think of this concept?</p>
<p>A talent is an opportunity, not an obligation.</p>
<p>What I mean is that if a person has a particular ability or skill, that can open doors that would not be available to other people. A talented musician with many years of musical training might have the opportunity to pursue a career in musical performance. A very tall and athletic person might have the opportunity to play varsity or even professional basketball. A person who is really good at sounding like a duck might be able to become the spokesperson for Aflac.</p>
<p>But what if these people don’t want to go through the doors that their talents open for them? What if what they really want to do is become veterinarians, teach elementary school, or open a restaurant? Does that bother you?</p>