I was a varsity fencer, though nowhere near as good as some of the people listed in this article.
I have met numerous parents over the years who got their kids into fencing because it would look good for college. There is a stereotype of the SAT prep book next to a fencing bag.
Most of these kids quit fencing as soon as they start college. A few stick with the university team, but quit as soon as they graduate. It is rare to find someone who continues fencing at the age of 22 and isn't trying to make the Olympic team. (Which is ironic because fencing is an individual sport that can be done the rest of someone's life.)
Like the article states, there are very few fencing spots available, primarily because there are very few universities that are serious about it. Anytime a parent asks me what the chances are their kid gets a scholarship, I always ask, "What's your kid's world ranking?" From plenty of first-hand observation: if a kid isn't in the top 100 of the world, that kid isn't going to be recruited. (A walk-on spot will still be available for people who want to fence, but forget about getting a phone call from a coach.)
Frightening but also a little confusing. When I was in high school (fairly recent), several of my friends got into top tier ivy leagues without doing any sports.
Are these parents pushing their kids this hard because:
1. Their kids aren't academically talented enough to make it into these schools otherwise?
2. Being in a rich zip code means that there is severe bias against these kids?
3. Entrance requirements have really just gotten this extreme?
or
4. These parents are misguided and somehow locked into the sports = success mentality?
Probably they are out to improve the kid's chances. From the time somebody in one of these families hits pre-K, there is a whole list of boxes to check and keep checking: sports, music, whatever. Has everyone admitted to a good school checked every box? No, of course not. But it can't hurt, and it also provides some structured time when the kid probably can't be getting up to mischief.
It reads like these are very wealthy parents who believed that targeting a niche sport associated with wealth and elite institutions would improve the likelihood of their child's admission to those institutions. Therefore, these parents have hyperoptimized for a single sport and have possibly not developed a well-rounded person.
The real money quote seems to be this:
> “It’s easy to stereotype the Fairfield County player,” says Lars Tiffany, the men’s varsity-lacrosse coach at the University of Virginia. “The Fairfield County player is the rich kid who still has his umbilical cord connected: the kid who doesn’t really have to take ownership of his mistakes or actions.”
> He elaborates: “Do I hold the Fairfield County lacrosse player to a higher standard? Of course. You just know he’s been coached up. [...] Maybe I’ll take a player from Northern California or Texas. Someone who hasn’t been exposed to such elite coaching. Someone whose best lacrosse could be ahead of him.
From his experience, given two students with similar academics and similar athletic performances, he'd rather pick the one whose life hasn't revolved around lacrosse for the past decade: they're a more realized person, and they may have a higher athletic ceiling that they can be coached to reach.
To add to that, the article discusses the physical injuries that are associated with the sports. Specifically, the issues with concussions. To a coach or athletic director, the kid with less concussions likely has a better future in the sport than the one that has been injured already. The article talk about this explicitly with the arguments over wether to tell the schools about medical history.
There's a bit of hubris in that too. The coaches are just that confident in their training and coaching that they are willing to take less experienced players over more experienced, but injured, ones.
> There's a bit of hubris in that too. The coaches are just that confident in their training and coaching that they are willing to take less experienced players over more experienced, but injured, ones.
I didn't read it that way, but that's an interesting take too. Ties into the end of the article that describes the crushing physicality of rowing.
I'm not sure I'd ascribe hubris, though: elite level sports is marginal gains theory taken to the extremes. If a coach evaluates two players as "similarly talented as of today" but one player has years of access to elite coaches whereas the other has only played recreationally or in minor regional tournaments, you couldn't look past the potential of the latter. Find enough diamonds in the rough and you'll be rich.
And if the reality is that it's not about diamonds in the rough but actually about finding uninjured players, well – that's possibly a sensible optimization to make too.
The Atlantic now has a WARNING on top of this article:
Editor’s Note: After The Atlantic published this article, new information emerged that has raised serious concerns about its accuracy, and about the credibility of the author, Ruth Shalit Barrett.
We have established that Barrett deceived The Atlantic and its readers about a section of the story that concerns a person referred to as “Sloane.” We are sharing with our readers what we have learned so far.
7 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] threadI have met numerous parents over the years who got their kids into fencing because it would look good for college. There is a stereotype of the SAT prep book next to a fencing bag.
Most of these kids quit fencing as soon as they start college. A few stick with the university team, but quit as soon as they graduate. It is rare to find someone who continues fencing at the age of 22 and isn't trying to make the Olympic team. (Which is ironic because fencing is an individual sport that can be done the rest of someone's life.)
Like the article states, there are very few fencing spots available, primarily because there are very few universities that are serious about it. Anytime a parent asks me what the chances are their kid gets a scholarship, I always ask, "What's your kid's world ranking?" From plenty of first-hand observation: if a kid isn't in the top 100 of the world, that kid isn't going to be recruited. (A walk-on spot will still be available for people who want to fence, but forget about getting a phone call from a coach.)
Are these parents pushing their kids this hard because:
1. Their kids aren't academically talented enough to make it into these schools otherwise?
2. Being in a rich zip code means that there is severe bias against these kids?
3. Entrance requirements have really just gotten this extreme?
or
4. These parents are misguided and somehow locked into the sports = success mentality?
The real money quote seems to be this:
> “It’s easy to stereotype the Fairfield County player,” says Lars Tiffany, the men’s varsity-lacrosse coach at the University of Virginia. “The Fairfield County player is the rich kid who still has his umbilical cord connected: the kid who doesn’t really have to take ownership of his mistakes or actions.”
> He elaborates: “Do I hold the Fairfield County lacrosse player to a higher standard? Of course. You just know he’s been coached up. [...] Maybe I’ll take a player from Northern California or Texas. Someone who hasn’t been exposed to such elite coaching. Someone whose best lacrosse could be ahead of him.
From his experience, given two students with similar academics and similar athletic performances, he'd rather pick the one whose life hasn't revolved around lacrosse for the past decade: they're a more realized person, and they may have a higher athletic ceiling that they can be coached to reach.
There's a bit of hubris in that too. The coaches are just that confident in their training and coaching that they are willing to take less experienced players over more experienced, but injured, ones.
I didn't read it that way, but that's an interesting take too. Ties into the end of the article that describes the crushing physicality of rowing.
I'm not sure I'd ascribe hubris, though: elite level sports is marginal gains theory taken to the extremes. If a coach evaluates two players as "similarly talented as of today" but one player has years of access to elite coaches whereas the other has only played recreationally or in minor regional tournaments, you couldn't look past the potential of the latter. Find enough diamonds in the rough and you'll be rich.
And if the reality is that it's not about diamonds in the rough but actually about finding uninjured players, well – that's possibly a sensible optimization to make too.