[BostonCard]

[article retracted]

Provocative piece by The Atlantic about “niche” sports like squash, crew, and lacrosse, that are being used by wealthy (mostly white) parents as a way to give their kids a leg up on Ivy League admissions. Perhaps not coincidentally, these is a lot of overlap with the sports Stanford cut. I was disappointed at the time, but the more I have read since then, the more I come to the reluctant realization that it was probably the right move.

Cool pictures in the article as well.

BC

EDIT: Please read the update posted by Needle at the end of this thread.  I am not going to delete the thread, but there are serious questions about how truthful the article is.

Edit #2: the article has been retracted.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1323083824193019909?s=21[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

[article retracted]

Provocative piece by The Atlantic about “niche” sports like squash, crew, and lacrosse, that are being used by wealthy (mostly white) parents as a way to give their kids a leg up on Ivy League admissions. Perhaps not coincidentally, these is a lot of overlap with the sports Stanford cut. I was disappointed at the time, but the more I have read since then, the more I come to the reluctant realization that it was probably the right move.

Cool pictures in the article as well.

BC

EDIT: Please read the update posted by Needle at the end of this thread.  I am not going to delete the thread, but there are serious questions about how truthful the article is.

Edit #2: the article has been retracted.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1323083824193019909?s=21[/tweet]

[lex24]

“Being who you are is not enough. It might be enough in Kansas. But not here.”

And people wonder why many have nothing but disdain for the “elite”. The problem isn’t sports.  It’s parents that believe if their kid doesn’t go to an elite University they will be a failure.  Not the kids, the parents.  I mean how embarrassing to answer the “where is your son/daughter going to college” with - Foothill.  Is there any wonder that today’s kids suffer more from anxiety and depression. 

I made plenty of mistakes as a parent.  But neurotically pushing my kids to do x,y and Z so they could get into a top tier Univ wasn’t one of them.  Both my kids went to solid schools. One private.  One out of State (after first going to community college - which was the best thing that happened to her educationally).  Somehow both are managing just fine.

And lest you think I’m being  overly harsh - I was one of those that at one time was “embarrassed” at those cocktail parties when my eldest was going to a CC.  SHAME ON ME.

Also, I’m not talking about parents that have kids that truly love the sports they’re playing and sacrifice much so that their kids can play it.

[lex24]

“Being who you are is not enough. It might be enough in Kansas. But not here.”

And people wonder why many have nothing but disdain for the “elite”. The problem isn’t sports.  It’s parents that believe if their kid doesn’t go to an elite University they will be a failure.  Not the kids, the parents.  I mean how embarrassing to answer the “where is your son/daughter going to college” with - Foothill.  Is there any wonder that today’s kids suffer more from anxiety and depression. 

I made plenty of mistakes as a parent.  But neurotically pushing my kids to do x,y and Z so they could get into a top tier Univ wasn’t one of them.  Both my kids went to solid schools. One private.  One out of State (after first going to community college - which was the best thing that happened to her educationally).  Somehow both are managing just fine.

And lest you think I’m being  overly harsh - I was one of those that at one time was “embarrassed” at those cocktail parties when my eldest was going to a CC.  SHAME ON ME.

Also, I’m not talking about parents that have kids that truly love the sports they’re playing and sacrifice much so that their kids can play it.

[Phogge]

Agree Lex. One son was a Banana Slug and he enjoyed it immensely. The other was the king of a small school in Westchester County and he is now elite. In the non profit world. Both are solid citizens and productive and never had parental stress to deal with.

A successful life has little to do with being elite. I have come across a bunch of elite azzholes in my profession.

[Phogge]

Agree Lex. One son was a Banana Slug and he enjoyed it immensely. The other was the king of a small school in Westchester County and he is now elite. In the non profit world. Both are solid citizens and productive and never had parental stress to deal with.

A successful life has little to do with being elite. I have come across a bunch of elite azzholes in my profession.

[Mick]

As parents, we all want what's best for our child.  And we want our children to be happy, and successful at life.  A successful life can come from a lot of different educational backgrounds, and trying to squeeze a child into a hole that isn't meant for them does both the parent and child a disservice.

My parents were a very strange blend of "get good grades and go to a good college" and "we won't lift a finger to help you beyond that admonition."  They sent me to a terrible high school that closed six years after I graduated.  I only applied to two colleges, Stanford and Santa Clara.  Got into SCU with honors.  Didn't get into Stanford.  Choice was easy.  And SCU was, frankly, not remotely difficult.

I've regretted attending SCU in the past.  Am I satisfied with how my life has turned out?  Enough.  But I wonder what might have been, had I tried for a school with a bigger reputation.  I've had a successful career, but I've missed out on a few of the highest level opportunities.  And I know, very well, the people who received those opportunities and now occupy those roles, and they went to the big name schools.  And...well, let's just say that I understand why the turnover is high in those jobs.

So, I learned the lesson.  Merit counts, to a point.  I encouraged both of my my kids to try hard in grade and high school.  Got them help when they needed it.  Sent them to good schools.  I would have been absolutely delighted had they been accepted at a mid-level UC, to be frank.  And unaccountably, all three of their cousins are happy at USC... ;).  I told both my kids that if they wanted to attend SCU or a UC or a CSU, I would have been fine with that and I meant it.  I still mean it.  

I understand the impetus behind wanting to do what's best for one's child.  I understand that different parents will go to different lengths.  My parents didn't do a damn thing, though to be fair, they didn't attend college...although my maternal grandfather went to Cal, and my paternal grandparents went to Stanford.  

Parenting is like a lot of activities.  It's really easy to do poorly and really hard to do well.  Finding that perfect blend is a challenge.

[Mick]

As parents, we all want what's best for our child.  And we want our children to be happy, and successful at life.  A successful life can come from a lot of different educational backgrounds, and trying to squeeze a child into a hole that isn't meant for them does both the parent and child a disservice.

My parents were a very strange blend of "get good grades and go to a good college" and "we won't lift a finger to help you beyond that admonition."  They sent me to a terrible high school that closed six years after I graduated.  I only applied to two colleges, Stanford and Santa Clara.  Got into SCU with honors.  Didn't get into Stanford.  Choice was easy.  And SCU was, frankly, not remotely difficult.

I've regretted attending SCU in the past.  Am I satisfied with how my life has turned out?  Enough.  But I wonder what might have been, had I tried for a school with a bigger reputation.  I've had a successful career, but I've missed out on a few of the highest level opportunities.  And I know, very well, the people who received those opportunities and now occupy those roles, and they went to the big name schools.  And...well, let's just say that I understand why the turnover is high in those jobs.

So, I learned the lesson.  Merit counts, to a point.  I encouraged both of my my kids to try hard in grade and high school.  Got them help when they needed it.  Sent them to good schools.  I would have been absolutely delighted had they been accepted at a mid-level UC, to be frank.  And unaccountably, all three of their cousins are happy at USC... ;).  I told both my kids that if they wanted to attend SCU or a UC or a CSU, I would have been fine with that and I meant it.  I still mean it.  

I understand the impetus behind wanting to do what's best for one's child.  I understand that different parents will go to different lengths.  My parents didn't do a damn thing, though to be fair, they didn't attend college...although my maternal grandfather went to Cal, and my paternal grandparents went to Stanford.  

Parenting is like a lot of activities.  It's really easy to do poorly and really hard to do well.  Finding that perfect blend is a challenge.

[82lsju]

“Being who you are is not enough. It might be enough in Kansas. But not here.”

And people wonder why many have nothing but disdain for the “elite”. The problem isn’t sports.  It’s parents that believe if their kid doesn’t go to an elite University they will be a failure.  Not the kids, the parents.  I mean how embarrassing to answer the “where is your son/daughter going to college” with - Foothill.  Is there any wonder that today’s kids suffer more from anxiety and depression. 

I made plenty of mistakes as a parent.  But neurotically pushing my kids to do x,y and Z so they could get into a top tier Univ wasn’t one of them.  Both my kids went to solid schools. One private.  One out of State (after first going to community college - which was the best thing that happened to her educationally).  Somehow both are managing just fine.

And lest you think I’m being  overly harsh - I was one of those that at one time was “embarrassed” at those cocktail parties when my eldest was going to a CC.  SHAME ON ME.

Also, I’m not talking about parents that have kids that truly love the sports they’re playing and sacrifice much so that their kids can play it.

in the Bay Area, and other "elite places around the world", competitive parenting is probably the most intense sport ever....

[82lsju]

“Being who you are is not enough. It might be enough in Kansas. But not here.”

And people wonder why many have nothing but disdain for the “elite”. The problem isn’t sports.  It’s parents that believe if their kid doesn’t go to an elite University they will be a failure.  Not the kids, the parents.  I mean how embarrassing to answer the “where is your son/daughter going to college” with - Foothill.  Is there any wonder that today’s kids suffer more from anxiety and depression. 

I made plenty of mistakes as a parent.  But neurotically pushing my kids to do x,y and Z so they could get into a top tier Univ wasn’t one of them.  Both my kids went to solid schools. One private.  One out of State (after first going to community college - which was the best thing that happened to her educationally).  Somehow both are managing just fine.

And lest you think I’m being  overly harsh - I was one of those that at one time was “embarrassed” at those cocktail parties when my eldest was going to a CC.  SHAME ON ME.

Also, I’m not talking about parents that have kids that truly love the sports they’re playing and sacrifice much so that their kids can play it.

in the Bay Area, and other "elite places around the world", competitive parenting is probably the most intense sport ever....

[Spiny_Norman]

The sport that does not fit this description is wrestling. Since 2006, 44% of Stanford wrestlers have been 1st generation college or low income students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJX7yMTio8

[Spiny_Norman]

The sport that does not fit this description is wrestling. Since 2006, 44% of Stanford wrestlers have been 1st generation college or low income students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJX7yMTio8

[Phogge]

Was a big WCW fan. Not many rocket scientists in the cage.

[Phogge]

Was a big WCW fan. Not many rocket scientists in the cage.

[lex24]

The sport that does not fit this description is wrestling. Since 2006, 44% of Stanford wrestlers have been 1st generation college or low income students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJX7yMTio8

Interesting.  In a way, not surprising.  The ultimate blue collar sport. Man those guys train hard.

[lex24]

The sport that does not fit this description is wrestling. Since 2006, 44% of Stanford wrestlers have been 1st generation college or low income students.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJX7yMTio8

Interesting.  In a way, not surprising.  The ultimate blue collar sport. Man those guys train hard.

[gailtate]

'Parenting is like a lot of activities.  It's really easy to do poorly and really hard to do well.  Finding that perfect blend is a challenge."

Well put. My in-laws raised their two daughters basically the same way. My wife was (and is) a superstar. Her sister? A tragedy on two legs.

[gailtate]

'Parenting is like a lot of activities.  It's really easy to do poorly and really hard to do well.  Finding that perfect blend is a challenge."

Well put. My in-laws raised their two daughters basically the same way. My wife was (and is) a superstar. Her sister? A tragedy on two legs.

[qwerty49]

I'm glad I was applying for college more than 50 years ago and not today.  I would guess the population of the country has doubled since then and how much have spaces in top schools increased in the same period?  The one frequent remark I heard at my last Stanford class reunion was how we didn't think we could be admitted today.

Growing up in the Bay Area back in the day, the academic pecking order was pretty much Stanford, then Berkeley, then the other UC's, the Cal St schools (with SJSU first), then Foothill.  There were some outliers that tended mostly to reflect family or religious ties.  But the Bay Area then was just as provincial as anywhere else.  During my 4 years in HS, we sent at least 12 to Stanford and only 1 to an Ivy. 

Back in the day, I'm sure my Stanford undergraduate degree initially opened a lot more doors, and especially in the Bay Area.  It looked good on a resume applying for a job at Hewlett-Packard, especially when Bill and Dave were still alive and roaming the bullpens on Page Mill Rd.  But as we all know, there's a lot to be done after you get to that open door.  So I look at it as an entry point and not much more.

When my daughter was applying for college, I really did have to pause to think if $200-250K would be worth it for a Stanford degree.  She didn't get in, but she went to Berkeley (as did my dad) and had a great experience there.  

Through the years I've observed a lot of helicopter parents and have a lot of mixed feelings about that.  They all want the best for their kids but so many of them just don't get it.  They see grades as the only metric and forget that top schools have the pick of the litter and that well-rounded students win the tie-breaker every time.  

Being old school, I myself don't get it when I meet a student and they are majoring in "business."  Just always seemed to me that undergrad years are the perfect time and opportunity to expand and explore your knowledge in different directions.  (When I later went back for an MBA, the business majors had a head start in the fundamental accounting and finance courses, but that was about it.)

[qwerty49]

I'm glad I was applying for college more than 50 years ago and not today.  I would guess the population of the country has doubled since then and how much have spaces in top schools increased in the same period?  The one frequent remark I heard at my last Stanford class reunion was how we didn't think we could be admitted today.

Growing up in the Bay Area back in the day, the academic pecking order was pretty much Stanford, then Berkeley, then the other UC's, the Cal St schools (with SJSU first), then Foothill.  There were some outliers that tended mostly to reflect family or religious ties.  But the Bay Area then was just as provincial as anywhere else.  During my 4 years in HS, we sent at least 12 to Stanford and only 1 to an Ivy. 

Back in the day, I'm sure my Stanford undergraduate degree initially opened a lot more doors, and especially in the Bay Area.  It looked good on a resume applying for a job at Hewlett-Packard, especially when Bill and Dave were still alive and roaming the bullpens on Page Mill Rd.  But as we all know, there's a lot to be done after you get to that open door.  So I look at it as an entry point and not much more.

When my daughter was applying for college, I really did have to pause to think if $200-250K would be worth it for a Stanford degree.  She didn't get in, but she went to Berkeley (as did my dad) and had a great experience there.  

Through the years I've observed a lot of helicopter parents and have a lot of mixed feelings about that.  They all want the best for their kids but so many of them just don't get it.  They see grades as the only metric and forget that top schools have the pick of the litter and that well-rounded students win the tie-breaker every time.  

Being old school, I myself don't get it when I meet a student and they are majoring in "business."  Just always seemed to me that undergrad years are the perfect time and opportunity to expand and explore your knowledge in different directions.  (When I later went back for an MBA, the business majors had a head start in the fundamental accounting and finance courses, but that was about it.)

[Nan3cy]

Being old school, I myself don't get it when I meet a student and they are majoring in "business."  Just always seemed to me that undergrad years are the perfect time and opportunity to expand and explore your knowledge in different directions.  (When I later went back for an MBA, the business majors had a head start in the fundamental accounting and finance courses, but that was about it.)

Maybe the high point of my years at the GSB was when I managed to exempt from financial accounting, based on my one financial accounting class at SJSU. A friend of mine, with his CPA, had to take the class...

I’d like to know what the admissions percentages for Stanford and the Ivies would be if kids these days applied to three or four schools (as most of us did back in the day) rather than the dozen or so that seems to be the usual now.

[Nan3cy]

Being old school, I myself don't get it when I meet a student and they are majoring in "business."  Just always seemed to me that undergrad years are the perfect time and opportunity to expand and explore your knowledge in different directions.  (When I later went back for an MBA, the business majors had a head start in the fundamental accounting and finance courses, but that was about it.)

Maybe the high point of my years at the GSB was when I managed to exempt from financial accounting, based on my one financial accounting class at SJSU. A friend of mine, with his CPA, had to take the class...

I’d like to know what the admissions percentages for Stanford and the Ivies would be if kids these days applied to three or four schools (as most of us did back in the day) rather than the dozen or so that seems to be the usual now.

[fullmetal]

In a country where healthcare is tied to jobs/job security, I think it's understandable that parents want their kids to have the best chance to land the best jobs available.  There are stories of top-tier university alumni who don't have jobs or stability, and that's not a good thing in this day and age where the social safety net isn't robust.  

The other motivation for parents shoving their kids upward is bragging rights/status.

Rowing is a strange sport to include here.  Nothing beats hard work in rowing, and rowing is miserable enough on its own that there's no way kids would stay with it if they didn't value the experience.  Squash...that's a game.  Technique, hand-eye coordination, strategy -- all part of their game.  Rowing?  Train hard, row your fastest.  Doesn't matter what the other crew is doing.  Just do your best and let the chips fall where they may.

[fullmetal]

In a country where healthcare is tied to jobs/job security, I think it's understandable that parents want their kids to have the best chance to land the best jobs available.  There are stories of top-tier university alumni who don't have jobs or stability, and that's not a good thing in this day and age where the social safety net isn't robust.  

The other motivation for parents shoving their kids upward is bragging rights/status.

Rowing is a strange sport to include here.  Nothing beats hard work in rowing, and rowing is miserable enough on its own that there's no way kids would stay with it if they didn't value the experience.  Squash...that's a game.  Technique, hand-eye coordination, strategy -- all part of their game.  Rowing?  Train hard, row your fastest.  Doesn't matter what the other crew is doing.  Just do your best and let the chips fall where they may.

[BostonCard]

I don't think it is about what the sport requires for competition so much as how popular the sport is, and whether it is being used by upper middle class to give their kids an advantage in admissions.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't think it is about what the sport requires for competition so much as how popular the sport is, and whether it is being used by upper middle class to give their kids an advantage in admissions.

BC

[fullmetal]

Fair point.  Rowing is not popular at high school level in the USA for many reasons, and it's much more difficult for the upper-middle class to use to their advantage, primarily because evaluating a recruit is fairly easy: fitness scores, eyeball test for technical prowess (plus race results), and coach recommendations + intangibles gleaned from visit.  It's not a game; speed and fitness are measurable for each person. Also, the competition at the top level of recruiting involves going up against junior national team or junior worlds talent from other countries too, so coaches have an easily identifiable recruiting pool that obviates the need to sift through the second quartile of domestic talent, so to speak.

(If your coach is on the take, well that's a different story altogether.)

[fullmetal]

Fair point.  Rowing is not popular at high school level in the USA for many reasons, and it's much more difficult for the upper-middle class to use to their advantage, primarily because evaluating a recruit is fairly easy: fitness scores, eyeball test for technical prowess (plus race results), and coach recommendations + intangibles gleaned from visit.  It's not a game; speed and fitness are measurable for each person. Also, the competition at the top level of recruiting involves going up against junior national team or junior worlds talent from other countries too, so coaches have an easily identifiable recruiting pool that obviates the need to sift through the second quartile of domestic talent, so to speak.

(If your coach is on the take, well that's a different story altogether.)

[needle]

The story linked by BC at the top of this thread has taken a fantastical turn, as you can see in this lengthy Editor's Note:

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.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story....

And this on the backstory of the author, in which The Atlantic expresses regret at hiring her for the assignment:

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.



We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

[needle]

The story linked by BC at the top of this thread has taken a fantastical turn, as you can see in this lengthy Editor's Note:

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.

The original version of this article stated that Sloane has a son. Before publication, Sloane confirmed this detail to be true to The Atlantic’s fact-checking department. After publication, when a Washington Post media critic asked us about the accuracy of portions of the article, our fact-checking department reached out to Sloane to recheck certain details. Through her attorney, Sloane informed us that she does not, in fact, have a son. We have independently corroborated that Sloane does not have a son, and we have corrected the story to remove the reference to her having a son.

In explaining Sloane’s reasoning for telling our fact-checker she had a son, Sloane’s attorney told The Atlantic that she wanted to make herself less readily identifiable. Her attorney also said that according to Sloane, Barrett had first proposed the invention of a son, and encouraged Sloane to deceive The Atlantic as a way to protect her anonymity.

When we asked Barrett about these allegations, she initially denied them, saying that Sloane had told her she had a son, and that she had believed Sloane. The next day, when we questioned her again, she admitted that she was “complicit” in “compounding the deception” and that “it would not be fair to Sloane” to blame her alone for deceiving The Atlantic. Barrett denies that the invention of a son was her idea, and denies advising Sloane to mislead The Atlantic’s fact-checkers, but told us that “on some level I did know that it was BS” and “I do take responsibility.”

Sloane’s attorney claimed that there are several other errors about Sloane in the article but declined to provide The Atlantic with examples. Barrett says that the fabricated son is the only detail about which she deceived our fact-checkers and editors. Our fact-checking department is continuing to thoroughly recheck the article.

We have already corrected and clarified other details in the story....

And this on the backstory of the author, in which The Atlantic expresses regret at hiring her for the assignment:

We are also updating Barrett’s byline. Originally, we referred to her as Ruth S. Barrett. When writing recently for other magazines, Barrett was identified by her full name, Ruth Shalit Barrett. (Barrett is her married name.) In 1999, when she was known by Ruth Shalit, she left The New Republic, where she was an associate editor, after plagiarism and inaccurate reporting were discovered in her work. We typically defer to authors on how their byline appears—some authors use middle initials, for example, or shorter versions of their given name. We referred to Barrett as Ruth S. Barrett at her request, but in the interest of transparency, we should have included the name that she used as her byline in the 1990s, when the plagiarism incidents occurred. We have changed the byline on this article to Ruth Shalit Barrett.



We decided to assign Barrett this freelance story in part because more than two decades separated her from her journalistic malpractice at The New Republic and because in recent years her work has appeared in reputable magazines. We took into consideration the argument that Barrett deserved a second chance to write feature stories such as this one. We were wrong to make this assignment, however. It reflects poor judgment on our part, and we regret our decision.

[Mick]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/atla...38752.html

[Mick]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/atla...38752.html