Why are athletic ECs so valued?

Parents Forum
101

<p>“I really don’t see how this thread got twisted into a “music/performing arts vs athletic” thread.”</p>

<p>Absolutely the only thing that ever came into play in that regard is the ignorant notion that performing arts is not as physically demanding & as time-demanding & as discipline demanding as Varsity athletics. If you are playing on the (equivalent) “varsity” level of performing arts, you are putting as much effort into that, or those, as you are your academics, & therefore – like the athlete – performing at a high level in them. It is ignorant to state, or believe, that a physical performing art like dance is not an intense physical training, because many people have no clue what’s involved. It is just as ignorant as the myth that states that “athletes are just a bunch of goons who are all brawn and no brain” – see my post #91 in that regard.</p>

<p>If you add to that a <em>competitive</em> performing art, in which, like the athlete, you are constantly evaluating & improving upon your past performance, then, like the athlete, you are adding another dimension to your growth as a performer/athlete.</p>

<p>My larger point was not to compare/contrast. That’s been done over & over by parents & sometimes students who claim that sports is unique in some of these matters or somehow builds character better. I have no doubt that it builds character tremendously, particularly in the eloquent way just recounted by boysx3. But lots of other activities do an equal job at building character: some of those activities do it in a very similar way; others in a very different way. My point was not to rank; quite the opposite; my point was to celebrate the fact that in the United States of America we have the privilege of those variations, which is why people from abroad without such variety in their institutional choices beat down our doors, plan for years to come here, and will engineer their entire circumstances in order to qualify to apply to a great state school or a fine private.</p>

<p>But I can see that my points have gone completely over the heads of many people here.</p>

<p>Whatever…</p>

102

<p>Why is a stool with 3 legs better than a stool with 2?</p>

<p>All other things equal why would you not sit on the stool with 3 legs?</p>

<p>My S’s best friend has a 34 ACT, Varsity BB, 4.0+, Accompished Piano(Perfect & Reletive Pitch) is active in the community and a great balanced kid. </p>

<p>Why would he be less valued at a school than a kid with fewer “legs” on his chair.</p>

103

<p>^^We’ve come back around the question of “well-rounded” versus “angular.”</p>

<p>One of my kids is a stool, and another is a monopod. The monopod has taken her interest to an extreme degree of excellence. If she’d been busy trying to be a stool, it never would have happened. Both will find their fit in college.</p>

104

<p>True, but if well rounded student performs just as well in the objective areas I can see why a university might give <em>extra</em> value to their subjective involvment. </p>

<p>That’s why I mentioned “all other things being equal” and used my S’s freakish best friend who is excellent at everything vs. my S who is more the “well balanced” jack of all trades master of none :)</p>

105

<p>I’m on a selection committee for scholarships at our local university. One thing I can’t help but consider when I look at applications, is how students spend their free time. Some must work, some pursue a particular passion: research, sports, and so on, and others get top grades with heavy academic schedules. The students I find myself not very impressed by are the ones who have average grades and no ECs/work. Spending one’s free time in a productive way catches my eye. I can’t help but think admissions officers have the same thoughts. It’s not so much what you do, but that you do something.</p>

106

<p>I am so glad to be able to agree with many posters here that we have many times disagreed on other passionate topics. Seems like the biggest disagreement on this topic comes from those who are trying to compare athletics to academics to music/art to etc… and are trying to claim that one is better than another. They aren’t.</p>

<p>Academics is a no brainer. If a kid didn’t have a decent academic background, this topic would be a moot point. Without the academics, the colleges wouldn’t even consider the student for admission; barring a couple of phenoms.</p>

<p>In every field of life you have that person who stands out as being one of the best of the best. Maybe they’re a musician, artist, dancer, athlete, mathematician, etc… But that isn’t what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the traditional student who is applying to a college or university where selection isn’t an “automatic” such as out-state and private universities.</p>

<p>The question is; Why are athletic EC’s so valued? This question has been answered numerous times and quite accurately. Athletics contribute to making a more “well rounded” individual. There are 2 main accepted definitions of athletics. The first is the meaning of exercise. e.g. hiking, biking, walking, swimming, running, etc… The main purpose for this is to work on physical exercise to enhance one’s health, and/or for the enjoyment of doing such activities. </p>

<p>What differs in the second accepted definition is usually the inclusion of competition. Not that a fun racketball game with your friend can’t be competitive, just at a different level. The competitive athletics that we are defining in the original question that colleges and universities are interested in, usually have the individual athletes as part of a team. The team however can include non-athletes. The team can be the school you represent, contributing to their school pride and spirit. You can be an individual weight lifter; tennis player; etc… You are representing your school and as such, they are your team. It is a group of people that you are part of and you use your talents to help them excel. One of the many attributes is the competition involved. This type of athletics also includes the traditional teams such as sports that have direct team mates working together for that common goal; e.g. football, basketball, baseball, track, swimming, etc… Again, the difference between this athletics and the first definition; even if it includes the same “physical involvement” I.e. swimming for exercise and swimming on a team; is that the team version (team mates or swimming for the school) requires competition and representing someone other than yourself.</p>

<p>In other words; schools and such are looking for people who know how to work as part of team. Know how to contribute their talents to that of other’s for the common good of the team. People who will make sacrifices for something bigger than themselves. People who can contribute to a team pride en mas. College is just a microcosm of the rest of life. Your school pride is similar to the loyalty that many companies look for in their workers. The team work you contribute your talents to in college are similar to what teams within organizations require.</p>

<p>Remember; just because colleges look for athletics in their applicants doesn’t mean they are expecting to recruit every college applicant as an NCAA/NAIA athlete. But, the attributes they are looking for demonstrate a potential student who is willing to be part of something larger than themselves and not a loner that doesn’t contribute to the common good of the whole. They want students who are part of the “Student Body”. Students that support the entire school. Who assist their classmates. Who contribute to the learning process to make the experience better for all students and faculty. They don’t want a bunch of loners who’s main objective in college is to go to class; learn the lesson; pass the test; and graduate. If that’s all you want; get a degree from an accredited online university.</p>

<p>Again, not that musicians, artists, academias, etc… can’t contribute to this larger than self environment. They most certainly can and do. But athletics, as we are defining it, is a simple means of determining an individual’s ability and experience in doing such.</p>

107

<p>Boysx3 has explained it beautifuly:

This is why athletics are important to college admissions committees and our culture in general. I am second to none in my admiration for all that is required to excel in music and other performing arts. And my kids are heavily involved. But this statement perfectly explains the difference between athletics and those pursuits.</p>

108

<p>For my D, the comments of Boysx3 are relevant. Any endeavor pursued with excellence requires a great investment of time and strong, focused commitment. Effort and time expended is not, IMO, what distinguishes a top athlete from someone who excels in another EC. </p>

<p>Sports involvement at a high level entails regular tests of skill and progress. There are very objective results evident to all, and dealing with that pressure necessitates mental toughness and humility on the part of the athlete. There are many grueling pursuits, and I’d agree that peforming arts can be one of them. However, the level of community awareness of one’s performance just isn’t the same and that’s an important difference IMO. You can bomb a chemistry exam, place last in the Math Olympiad, forget a line in a play, or screw up your timing during a band concert, and few people will ever know about it. Have you ever seen a review of a high school play in which the reporter commented that Chelsea forgot a line or that John tripped and fell during his dance number? No. But when an athlete misses an important foul shot, strikes out, lets a goal in, or runs 10 seconds slower than usual, that “failure” is plastered in the local newspapers for all to see. And even if it’s not, ahtletics provides very regular objective results which slap an athlete in the face. </p>

<p>There’s also the question of injuries which require patience and perseverance to overcome. I’ve participated in both athletics and music, and so have my kids. Both are valuable, but unless you’re in NYC auditioning every day, you probably don’t take the regular knocks in the arts that you do in sports. That builds perseverance of character.</p>

<p>PS–Studying alone in your room until 3 AM requires character and perseverance too. It’s just not something that you can prove to the adcoms you did, or that you would be admired for doing if you could prove it. To the contrary, actually.</p>

109

<p>

Exactly. And don’t forget all the websites that are constantly weighing & rating the athletes & their teams.</p>

<p>I’d also add that in our sports crazed culture, virtually every fan in the stands is a critic. I have attended vocal performances or musical theater productions where the audience has no awareness of pitch problems or tempo issues. The general public seems to include many tone deaf people! (Probably a good thing, from the h.s. performers’ perspective. I’ve heard vile things yelled at kids on a sports field, yet fortunately never have seen anything other than enthusiastic applause for the arts.) The same holds true for dance. Unless one is familiar with technique, sometimes there is no distinction seen between good dancers and those who are exceptional & highly trained. If I turned on my tv right now, I’d likely find several channels devoted to the NCAA basketball tournament. How many symphonies or ballets are being televised? Our general sports awareness is much greater than that of the arts. That certainly contributes to many people being unaware of the dedication needed for artistic excellence.</p>

110

<p>Again, not to slight the performing arts because I well know the degree of commitment it takes to gain a high level of competitive success. The original question asked why athletics is such a valued EC. I loved boyxx3’s explanation too: points and a stop watch are unforgiving judges. </p>

<p>If we acknowledge that the performing arts offer many of the same benefits in terms of dedication, time management, conditioning, etc, what about the myriad of other EC’s? The question was not directed specifically toward fine arts, although I question the comparison of somebody who casually sings in chorus for 1 period per day without outside lessons or competitions. Is the chess club, the future business leaders club, the NHS, or even the casual singer participating on the same level as a varsity athlete, an all-state musician or a dancer who works five days per week? I don’t think so. Think about all of the clubs at your school. Many activities are confined to the regular school day or require a very minimal after school commitment. Not to minimize the worth of the many clubs and groups, but they are not all equal. This is partly why organized athletics is valued as an EC. The amount of commitment is fairly easily assessed by colleges. They know the student is working for many hours per day during the season and ususally several hours per week out of season. Some EC’s might take up lots of after-hours time too, but it is more difficult to determine a student’s level of involvement.</p>

<p>For the same reason, I think that anything a student can do to validate his time in an EC will help, such as winning music or science competitions. The fact that you get to the top of the heap helps colleges to see that you have put a lot of time and effort into the activity.</p>

111

<p>Yup, online and newspaper-published ranking lists of individual athletes are always such fun! But I’ve never seen the results of a regional or state band audition published in the newspaper, complete with the points each musician received from each of 3 judges and the list of who got accepted and who didn’t. Now that would be something!</p>

112

<p>“There’s also the question of injuries which require patience and perseverance to overcome. I’ve participated in both athletics and music, and so have my kids. Both are valuable, but unless you’re in NYC auditioning every day, you probably don’t take the regular knocks in the arts that you do in sports. That builds perseverance of character.”</p>

<p>^^ Again with the lack of awareness. Competitive performing arts (esp. dance) require you to compete very regularly in order to maintain that level. “Daily” competition? No. But the top performers train daily, compete up to several times a month, and must also compete regionally, nationally, and internationally every year. Part of this competition is TEAM competition, i.e., performing in a team, as a team. As to “objective” results, you are scored based on the particular elements of your performance. You never know who your competitors will be, what their own level of training will be, so you must push yourself toward that unknown standard – or unknown team competitor.</p>

<p>Injuries? My gosh, again what ignorance. Not only does one have the injuries associated with dance, but also the additional training apart from dance per se. (Many dancers do sports on top of dance SO THAT they will be in prime condition.)</p>

<p>Again, I liked the description boysx# provided. And I am NOT taking anything away from that. But “being involved in the arts” is NOT the same thing as training as an athlete/performer.</p>

<p>As to character, I also interview for leadership scholarships for a major public elite U. Some of these students wrote the book on character, yet they’ve never kicked a ball in their lives. The sacrifices, the TEAM building, the creativity, the refusal to let discouragement thwart their goals – all these aspects of the genuine leader put many adults to shame. I wish to high heaven that some of my interviewees would run for office: they clearly have the “stuff” that is required. They are practiced in the virtue of putting themselves last, for the common good.</p>

<p>My larger point – still not apparently understood – is that I respect admissions committees for their ability to see BOTH the similarities and the differences among what students “bring to the table.” And the original question, “Why are sports valued so much?” I think has been answered & illuminated. They are indeed valued, and an individual college has every right to rank order sports as “higher” than anything else, as equal to, or as anywhere else along the spectrum. It comes down both to the priorities of that campus & the level of accomplishment demonstrated by that student.</p>

113

<p>Imagine this press coverage: “Max Smith stared blankly, slack-jawed, clutching the buzzer. He was motionless as Sally Jones from Washington High buzzed in ahead of him and won the Quizzbowl. Coach Johnson was disappointed, but admitted that he had never clearly explained the difference between budding and binary fission. Riverdale’s team will be increasing their prep time for next season.”</p>

114

<p>Too funny! :smiley: We are really brutally honest about the failures of our hs athletes, though.</p>

115

<p>SS,
Why are you comparing an athlete/performer to a QuizBowl contestant?</p>

<p>And also, are you & others saying that sports wins & losses have more impact in the character-building arena because sports are more publicized than the arts, or because they’re more understood than being trained in a physically demanding performing art?</p>

<p>Why are you celebrating ignorance? I don’t get it.</p>

116

<p>Epiphany, we understand your point. Why can’t you understand the points raised by GFG & Boys3? There is no comparison between the amount of coverage given to sports and arts participants. The eyes of an entire city are not on a dancer who is off competing at an event that not many are aware even exists. Also, the judging is subjective. I know, becasue my own D has competed regionally, nationally, & overseas in the arts. Her results (good or bad) were not plastered all over local papers. She could reveal them to anyone who was interested. Or not.</p>

<p>Yet the team is put under a microscope, both in the press & by “fans” in the stands. There really is no comparison. Young arts participants are constantly praised in the media. Sports participants are picked apart.</p>

117

<p>

Because I find the comparison relevant to this discussion. </p>

<p>When a kid enters Intel, or any academic competition, we are all praising his efforts. Yet most of us have no frame of reference for judging just how special his knowledge base may be. If a kid were to enter a project on some esoteric scientific subject, I would have to dig out some old textbooks to understand it. I can more easily relate to a virtuoso musical performance because I am more aware of the music world. Others who are finely tuned to defensive strategies on the grid iron would be more aware of a lineman’s outstanding performance than I would be. </p>

<p>And yes, the intense spotlight under which athletes operate has a huge impact on character building. There is no time or place for an athlete to gather up his emotions before reacting to a loss or an unfair call. Or no place to hide when he enters school after blowing the game, or being the subject of a highly critical article.</p>

118

<p>I did and do understand the points. Particularly those of boysx3. Possibly 3 or 4 times now I have referenced them. You haven’t seen that? I think GFG has huge knowledge gaps, however, and the tee-hee smirkiness & condescension is not something I respect.</p>

<p>You’ve clarified & reinforced your point: You do believe that the accomplishments, wins, losses in sports SHOULD be valued more because they are more public, more “scrutinized.” I don’t know: I didn’t see anything in that letter posted by boysx3 that talked about press coverage, but again, whatever.</p>

<p>You people are determined to prove that sports is superior to anything else. I think that’s unfortuante, & I think that SS referred indirectly to that fact with a post above which acknowledged how the public has limited knowledge of competitive physical activities beyond sports.</p>

<p>I am not determined to prove a superiority or an inferiority. But the point has still not been appreciated, so whatever, just keep congratulating yourselves, & I’ll move on here…</p>

119

<p>epiphany, you’re not being fair. When I spoke of injuries, I was comparing athletics and music. Certainly, competitive dance shares many of the same qualities as other sports. I believe that you are also on target when you mention the level of accomplishment as a factor. We know quite a few athletes who are casual players, frequently miss sports practices for other EC’s, are not good enough to ever be discussed in the press, and frankly, who must be skimping on the training because they still look like the Pillsbury dough boy. I’m not sure that qualilties like mental and physical toughness can be attributed to all of these individuals. </p>

<p>(Not to start another firestorm, but you’d have a tougher time convincing me that marching band is a sport, though many people insist it is.)</p>

<p>PS-My children have been involved in theater and vocal and instrumental music, so I’m not clueless. As a high schooler and college student I was involved in marching band and chorus, and I also played the piano for years. I’ve played field hockey, lacrosse, and I ran club x-c a little in college. Sports aren’t a superior endeavor, but the experience IS definitely different.</p>

120

<p>epiphany, I never meant to say that sports is more character-building than performing arts. In fact, I said that success in the arts requires much commitment which is more easily seen if competitive awards are won. These awards along with sports team participation make it easier for a college (or anyone) to assess the dedication involved.</p>

<p>Say you had limited time for EC’s due to a part-time job or need for study time or w/e. Would you rather be on the swim team and swim both before and after school every day, as well as do running and weights all year long? Or might it be easier to be in a group that only meets during school or in a club that meets after school once per month? It would even be easier to be a band kid who never took the instrument home. You see what I mean…the time involved is vastly different. </p>

<p>I thought StickerShock’s post about the Quiz Bowl was so funny because it is true. We would NEVER think of publicizing a kid’s shortcomings in any endeavor except for sports.</p>