4 ms·

It reads like these are very wealthy parents who believed that targeting a niche sport associated with wealth and elite institutions would improve the likelihoo

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.

Balgair 6y ago
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.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
  > 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.

Balgair 6y ago

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.

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
> 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.