S/o Sports VS Music Explain it to me

[Χά�ων]

Why is it socially acceptable to put a child in music lessons from a young age but putting a child in sports lessons viewed as a bad thing?

 

Neither are free. 

 

Neither guarantee the child will do it professionally.

 

Neither guarantee a college scholarship.

 

Neither guarantee the child will live a better more fulfilled life as an adult. 

 

Both teach practice skills, patience and persistence.

 

Why are music lessons viewed as a positive to help raise a well rounded child, while sport lessons are slammed as frivolous and edging out of late starters?

 

 

 

[maize]

Maybe because some people view sports as a future scholarship opportunity so "unfair" competition is more threatening? There aren't many kids earning scholarships for music.

 

I'm in the camp of "support the child's passion whatever it may be"; though going into debt to do so is probably where I would draw the line.

[MysteryJen]

Generally, I think it is because you can do music non-competitively. It is very difficult to remove competition from sports. If not impossible.

[maize]

Generally, I think it is because you can do music non-competitively. It is very difficult to remove competition from sports. If not impossible.

I think you are on to something. The neighbor kid who starts violin lessons at age three in no way prevents my child from picking up the instrument at age eleven. In many areas however there is no option for kids who want to play sports but didn't get an early enough start or didn't get on competition teams soon enough.

[Χά�ων]

I think you are on to something. The neighbor kid who starts violin lessons at age three in no way prevents my child from picking up the instrument at age eleven. In many areas however there is no option for kids who want to play sports but didn't get an early enough start or didn't get on competition teams soon enough.

Could be, but there is nothing preventing an 11 year from spending a year taking lesson's and practicing at home on the skills for the sport and then trying out for a team once they are up to the level needed. There is no instant match for either. Maybe with sports it is the rush to join a team ASAP. No one would expect an 11 year old to pick up an instrument and join a youth orchestra at the same time. Most people would understand that the child would need to have a lot of lessons and work hard to get to that level, if that is what they want. Why is the same not a given for sports?

[regentrude]

Could be, but there is nothing preventing an 11 year from spending a year taking lesson's and practicing at home on the skills for the sport and then trying out for a team once they are up to the level needed. There is no instant match for either. Maybe with sports it is the rush to join a team ASAP. No one would expect an 11 year old to pick up an instrument and join a youth orchestra at the same time. Most people would understand that the child would need to have a lot of lessons and work hard to get to that level, if that is what they want. Why is the same not a given for sports?

I think there is a slight difference.

It is possible to play soccer (to take one example of a team sport) recreationally just for fun even if you're a beginner and not very good at it, with a bunch of like minded kids who are also new at it and just want to play a bit. Kids do it at home all.the.time. It is, however, not possible to play in an orchestra of all beginners - it takes a long time before the first pleasant sound comes out of a violin or trumpet, and much longer before playing together is even possible (not to mention enjoyable).

 

I definitely think there should be more opportunities for kids to just play ball without expectations of systematic training, trying out, competing for a spot. And it seems that this country is so focused on competition sports that those low pressure opportunities go away. Which is a shame, because kids benefit from just playing and can have fun doing so even as beginners  with little instruction.

And I think as long as sports is so associated with schools, schools should be inclusive and have opportunities for kids to engage in sports even if they do not want to compete. Just like I would prefer if school had, in addition to their auditioned competition choir another choir open to all kids who want to just sing.

Conversely, it is utterly impossible to play instruments together unless you are at least at intermediate/advanced level. So the two situations do not really compare, IMO.

[wapiti]

Just thinking out loud, which is more socially acceptable seems to depend on the people.

 

Among the people I know, sports are discussed far more often, whereas I only discover that my kids' friends play piano when they happen to be over and some beautiful sounds begin emanating from the living room (as happened the other day with ds12's soccer- and hockey-playing friend - I admit I was pleasantly surprised).  Frankly, I wish my kids still played piano for the intellectual benefits, among others.  If their friends talked about it more, perhaps my boys would have been more inclined.  Unforunately, sports are considered to be much cooler around here.

[MysteryJen]

I also think that many people think sports are easier to pick up later than instruments. I have heard much talk about windows of opportunity for beginning an instrument, learning a foreign language. I think there is one for sports as well.

[Χά�ων]

 

Conversely, it is utterly impossible to play instruments together unless you are at least at intermediate/advanced level. So the two situations do not really compare, IMO.

Going by an old neighbor's garage band I am not sure that is entirely true. They had instruments and were in the same space together. I am not sure they were anywhere near intermediate, let alone advanced!

 

You may have been spared such an experience. 

[mom2att]

Could be, but there is nothing preventing an 11 year from spending a year taking lesson's and practicing at home on the skills for the sport and then trying out for a team once they are up to the level needed. There is no instant match for either. Maybe with sports it is the rush to join a team ASAP. No one would expect an 11 year old to pick up an instrument and join a youth orchestra at the same time. Most people would understand that the child would need to have a lot of lessons and work hard to get to that level, if that is what they want. Why is the same not a given for sports?

 

Well ideally there are recreational level sports leagues that an 11 year old new to the sport IS able to just jump onto a team and play. I think the beef comes for areas or particular sports that don't have a strong rec program and the only option are the competition teams that require tryouts and the like. Only having that type of program available would make it very difficult for a child who did not have either prior experience, access to private lessons, or who was just generally very athletically-inclined to make the team.

 

Similarly, many, many school children start musical instruments in middle school with band or orchestra having nary a lesson prior. No, they might not pass the audition for the city's youth orchestra, but there are still options available for them to perform with a group, even without private lessons.

 

Plus there are instruments that lend themselves to solo performance, like piano, that never require group participation. There are probably more little kids taking piano lessons than any other instrument and yes, nobody bats an eye.  But lessons to learn how to kick a soccer ball better, for a year, just so you're good enough to play on the team? Sports just don't translate as nicely into individual performance, unless it's something like swimming or track.

 

 

[momacacia]

Music training also arguably has other intellectual benefits which haven't been shown with early sports exposure, and probably some parents worry about more injuries or physical development issues with early (especially intense) athletic training.

 

Those would be two of my thoughts on the topic. But, I don't care what other people do with their kids. Little League on! :)

[catz]

I don't know.  My kids are in a large music program and there are certainly are parents (and kids) doing it competitively.  It is possible to get music scholarships for high achieving kids and they are very competitive.   My kid won a $500 scholarship in music once and I could tell some parents were very put off by that fact.  It automatically made me a pushy tiger parent.  Wonder what those same parents would say about the same kid who is kind of a lazy musician at age 14. 

 

I think both are worthwhile.  My kids are both "required" to do music and an athletic activity at this point in their lives.  It's expensive, but I consider it part of "school" here and we chose to budget those things over others.  We are fairly lucky financially.  Honestly, if we weren't, I would not be comfortable homeschooling.  If they weren't, I'd be teaching them at home and during down times we continue to practice music, go on hikes, bike rides, etc.

[Χά�ων]

Well ideally there are recreational level sports leagues that an 11 year old new to the sport IS able to just jump onto a team and play. I think the beef comes for areas or particular sports that don't have a strong rec program and the only option are the competition teams that require tryouts and the like. Only having that type of program available would make it very difficult for a child who did not have either prior experience, access to private lessons, or who was just generally very athletically-inclined to make the team.

 

Similarly, many, many school children start musical instruments in middle school with band or orchestra having nary a lesson prior. No, they might not pass the audition for the city's youth orchestra, but there are still options available for them to perform with a group, even without private lessons.

 

Plus there are instruments that lend themselves to solo performance, like piano, that never require group participation. There are probably more little kids taking piano lessons than any other instrument and yes, nobody bats an eye.  But lessons to learn how to kick a soccer ball better, for a year, just so you're good enough to play on the team? Sports just don't translate as nicely into individual performance, unless it's something like swimming or track.

I have zero experience with soccer, but with the sports my son has been involved with, like hockey, there is more to it than just learning to smack the puck around a bit better. I would assume the same about soccer. Learning to handle the ball, learning to pass, learning to shoot, learning to hit the ball on the right part of the head (see, not a soccer mom!) would benefit the individual player. A good coach (at least in hockey) knows how to challenge a player and build skills that lead to them being able to use it in a game or practice. I would expect a child who only did lessons to do better than a child who had never kicked the ball before. There are some aspects of the game that they would have to learn but they would have the basics.

[SKL]

Our tradition with informal youth sports (pickup games etc.) doesn't have a parallel with instrumental music.  Probably because instruments cost more than traditional sports equipment.

 

I think people can take both kinds of competition too seriously.  All kinds actually.

 

Where I live, there are rec options and travel options.  For those who get ticked that the other 7-8yos aren't as professional as their kids, they can take their kids out and play travel.  Fine and dandy.  Our kids can continue to learn at their own pace, get exercise, and have fun.

 

At least where I live, there are enough non-competitive (or optionally competitive) options to keep all kids active.  While ball teams might expect some experience by age 7-9, other options such as martial arts and swimming are not limited by age.

[Χά�ων]

Music training also arguably has other intellectual benefits which haven't been shown with early sports exposure, and probably some parents worry about more injuries or physical development issues with early (especially intense) athletic training.

 

Those would be two of my thoughts on the topic. But, I don't care what other people do with their kids. Little League on! :)

Hmmm, I have never even thought to look at studies. I do know that there is a current push for kids to be more active and have a longer recess because it has benefits to their learning. :) Not sure if that is in the same category or not and probably has to do with kids just being more active vs sedentary and does not delve into formal sports or instruction. Give it a few more years and I am sure studies will be published. I am actually a bit amazed none have been. Not that I am going to go look. :)

 

I know that my son thrives on being active and even if I were to remove him from all sports he would still "train". This is the child who does planks while watching movies. He has a friend who is the same way about piano and will spend every waking minute on the piano. Some kids are just passionate.

[Paige]

If someone wants to begin learning piano as an adult or teen, they'll be able to find a teacher in almost any city without problems. If someone wants to learn to play baseball as a teenager, it's very difficult. They can't join a team because there's often no beginner teams after age 7 or 8. They can't really practice it alone without a team. They could practice some skills, but it's not the same as playing games. It's not common in our area for older kids to do pickup games anymore- kids aren't free to wander the playground, and it's not often that 10 or so kids will be free and interested at the same time.

 

People don't like the situation because it's kind of new. Parents thought little Sweetie could try gymnastics and then switch to soccer later if they wanted are now finding that if the child doesn't like what they started in, then they are out of luck. In my high school we had a lot of intramural games in different sports for beginners. I think if more high schools, middle schools and communities offered options like that then the situation would be better. 

[Farrar]

One thing that was brought up in the other thread was that it makes the playing field uneven in a potentially unfair way. As in, the kids whose parents have the money to put them into private coaching may then dominate the teams even though they don't have as much longer term potential and natural talent as some of the kids who don't have the resources to do that. And then those kids who might have been able to play are closed out of those teams altogether. They don't keep developing their talents, eventually they're closed out more permanently.

 

I don't know that I fully buy that. I mean, there will always be disadvantages and advantages. A poorer kid may have a parent who practices with them all the time, which could be just as good if not better than a purchased coach and I can't imagine anyone saying that's unfair with the same vehemence.

 

And I think if there is a problem it's not that some people have an advantage, it's that the whole way sports are structured is messed up. There should be more recreational leagues, more chances to start sports "late" (I put late in quotes because, good grief, sometimes as young as 8 or 9 yo is "late"), and less focus on competition and more on skill building, at least before the teen years for the majority of sports.

[Wildiris]

Social acceptability aside, one reason a parent might not put their kids into sports at very young ages is children's bodies are still growing, their coordination is still developing, and with improper coaching a kid could get seriously hurt doing a highly competitive sport at a very young age. 

 

However, I've never experienced a conversation where playing a sport at a young age was considered "bad." Most parents start kids in both music and a sport simultaneously. Other parents get their Kids to hold a golf club and throw a ball at three. And still other parents work with their very young kids developing skills the kid would use playing a sport later in elementary school.

 

For both music and sports: If a kids has not participated by high school age, the possible level of achievement is not as great if the kid started at age 5-7.

[Χά�ων]

Sometimes I think parents look at music as a way to make their kid cultured and they may already have the instrument in the home.

 

Also, do many people even offer sports training for young children?? That sounds like it would be less obtainable.

 

Music in general seems more satisfying solo vs most sports.

Shockingly, yes. As young as 4. Where I used to live a neighbor worked with 4 year olds to help them prepare for the draft for football. Everyone made the team but the kids did a draft every year to make even teams.

 

If you do a search for it there is a franchise in Texas that has a focus on sports training for kids.

[TracyP]

I wonder if this varies by location, but I not familiar with sports lessons. I guess there is gymnastics, dance, and swimming... Those are definitely 100% as socially acceptable as music lessons around here. I get the feeling that isn't what you are asking, though. What thread is this a S/O from?

[wintermom]

Perhaps there is a very different culture across the border, but I've not found any issues at all with music vs sport. Recreational sports are offered for many abilities and at a variety of ages, just as music is. Competitive sports are based on ability, and as long as you have the appropriate skill level you can be on a team. Some sports can get a little more legalistic (e.g., ice hockey), but that's usually because some parents get all crazy about potential scholarships and pro level. Luckily, there isn't big money to be made in music or sport in Canada, so most people support participation for the masses. 

 

Many European countries even more supportive of music and sport for the masses. They offer highly subsidized music training and sport clubs. 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

And I think if there is a problem it's not that some people have an advantage, it's that the whole way sports are structured is messed up. There should be more recreational leagues, more chances to start sports "late" (I put late in quotes because, good grief, sometimes as young as 8 or 9 yo is "late"), and less focus on competition and more on skill building, at least before the teen years for the majority of sports.

 

This is my problem with it. Around here, even the rec leagues are competitive. A friend of mine coaches rec league soccer for 9- to 10-year-olds, and they lose every single game because she's committed to having all of her players play. The other coaches only play their best players (every else may get a few minutes to play in each game but otherwise they warm the bench all season). Outside of these rec leagues, there's nothing...literally nothing...for kids of any age who want to play for the enjoyment of playing. 

 

As other said in the original thread and Farrar implied above, I don't have a problem with kids taking classes/attending camps/paying for private coaches if they're working toward the elite leagues. I do have a problem when this bleeds down into the rec leagues, where the playing field is supposed to be more level. 

 

In this country of all places, where it's often recommended that kids join sports teams to get exercise, combat obesity, etc., it burns me there's no place for your average kid to play on an average team just for the exercise and the enjoyment of the game. 

[Dmmetler]

I think the difference is also "out of the ordinary". If you're in the country club set that plays golf or tennis, having a pro work with your child on their strokes, etc early on really isn't unusual and doesn't bat an eye (and there aren't school teams or community teams for those sports before high school, if then). But if everyone else is playing rec soccer where you practice a couple of times a week and play a game once a week with other 4-6 yr olds, hiring a private coach to help your child 1-1 (unless said private coach is big brother and you're bribing him to spend time with younger sibling) is out of the ordinary, and that raises eyebrows.  Having a child take piano lessons at 6 doesn't raise an eyebrow-a lot of kids do that. If you put them in Suzuki piano or violin at age 2, it does. 

 

 

[wapiti]

A friend of mine coaches rec league soccer for 9- to 10-year-olds, and they lose every single game because she's committed to having all of her players play.

 

FWIW, my ds12 has a lacrosse coach like this.  Every year, this coach's team is the team that gets the beginners to the sport, whereas most of the other teams involve tryouts.  I think their record this year was something like 1-10, as usual, which made that one win extra meaningful for the boys. One game, the other team was about a foot taller than my ds and ds's team lost 14-0 or something; he got whacked in the shins so hard that he had to come out of the game but no penalty was called, etc.  Afterward, I overheard the coach talking to the players about honor, not playing dirty out of frustration, not giving up, that sort of thing, and congratulating them on their sportsmanship.  The coach tries to teach all the important lessons.  Ds doesn't want to play on any other team.  I just hope what the coach says is sinking in!

[MysteryJen]

I have seen some weird dynamics with rec teams. When kids are little, the play for fun attitude is fun for everyone. But as kids get older, even in rec leagues, most want to win. So they become more competitive. Usually with problems on all sides, kids who probably should move to a club level, parents who should back off, and organizations trying to maintain an impossible balance. For example, in my area, volleyball doesn't start at a rec level until middle school. Everyone who wants to play volleyball plays rec for a least a year before clubs will take them. So that includes kids who are brand new to volleyball, brand new to sports in general and kids who have grown up dying to play volleyball and have played with parents (who usually are former players or coaches). So even though it is a beginning rec team, with no experience required, there is a huge skills and experience gap.

Pickup games are really the solution for kids who just want to play and have fun. But between, the long day filled with school and organized activities and parents who won't let kids out of their sight, it is really hard to get kids together to play soccer or baseball. Even basketball with a hoop right outside my front door.

[lllll]

..

[Frances]

Pickup games are really the solution for kids who just want to play and have fun. But between, the long day filled with school and organized activities and parents who won't let kids out of their sight, it is really hard to get kids together to play soccer or baseball. Even basketball with a hoop right outside my front door.

I think this is another reason people have issues with sports coaching and competetive teams starting at younger and younger ages. Kids in the US used to spend many hours everyday playing sports with their friends without any parental involvement. Now much of their sport time is structured and overseen by adults, just like the rest of their lives. Most kids do need instruction to learn an instrument, but some kids used to pick up most of their sports skills by playing pickup games. And I think in some parts of the world they still do. I recently read an article in The Wall Street Journal about one of the players on the US team who has a personal trainer and much of what they work on together is her trying to learn the ball handling and skills that players from other countries where all day pickup games are the norm developed naturally.

[MeAndTheBoys]

Why is it socially acceptable to put a child in music lessons from a young age but putting a child in sports lessons viewed as a bad thing?

 

Neither are free. 

 

Neither guarantee the child will do it professionally.

 

Neither guarantee a college scholarship.

 

Neither guarantee the child will live a better more fulfilled life as an adult. 

 

Both teach practice skills, patience and persistence.

 

Why are music lessons viewed as a positive to help raise a well rounded child, while sport lessons are slammed as frivolous and edging out of late starters?

 

Interesting thought!!  Around here, there are some sports that it is impossible to play for fun after about age 6--BASEBALL gets hot and heavy.  I played softball growing up, and it wasn't as competitive, so I was sad to realize that we would not be jumping on the baseball crazy train.

 

But my boys have played soccer and basketball since kindergarten.  There are city leagues, church leagues, homeschool leagues, highly competitive travel leagues-- They have played for fun, and gotten fairly good at it, but there are most likely no scholarships in their future.

 

But it has been great for them--kept them active, really widened their social circle, given US a lot of family time watching games and practices, learned about how to work with all kinds of different coaches and kids.

 

We have done music also--general music classes and two years of band, playing trumpet and trombone, and that has been fun too, and we try to expose them to different types of music.  And they have made lots of friends there, and I'm sure music is good for brains, etc.

 

But there have been some amazing lessons that they have learned through sports--self-discipline, the importance of training and practicing, being a good winner and a good loser--and I have seen those lessons carry over into their schoolwork and their relationships.

 

One can certainly go a different direction than we have with sports and make it highly competitive; DH and I are not particularly sporty so maybe we've pushed the boys in more of a part-of-life experience with sports rather than their main focus.  But I don't know why it isn't seen as lofty to participate in sports.  There are definitely some really good things that can come out of it--

 

B

 

[KarenC]

Why is it socially acceptable to put a child in music lessons from a young age but putting a child in sports lessons viewed as a bad thing?

 

Neither are free. 

 

Neither guarantee the child will do it professionally.

 

Neither guarantee a college scholarship.

 

Neither guarantee the child will live a better more fulfilled life as an adult. 

 

Both teach practice skills, patience and persistence.

 

Why are music lessons viewed as a positive to help raise a well rounded child, while sport lessons are slammed as frivolous and edging out of late starters?

I have no idea.  I have kids who do both and I see advantages to both.  I don't know why one is viewed negatively and the other not.

[Aelwydd]

Why is it socially acceptable to put a child in music lessons from a young age but putting a child in sports lessons viewed as a bad thing?

 

Neither are free.

 

Neither guarantee the child will do it professionally.

 

Neither guarantee a college scholarship.

 

Neither guarantee the child will live a better more fulfilled life as an adult.

 

Both teach practice skills, patience and persistence.

 

Why are music lessons viewed as a positive to help raise a well rounded child, while sport lessons are slammed as frivolous and edging out of late starters?

Music is great. I took violin lessons and I sang in a choral group in high school.

 

Training for a sport is also great. It builds confidence, it's good for maintaining weight and supporting health.

 

My son plays ice hockey and TKD. TKD is very much about individual discipline, and I don't know of any scholarships for that sport. There are scholarships for hockey, but they are extremely difficult to get. I'd imagine there are far more schools with music conservatories and scholarships than there are D1 ice hockey schools.

[Daria]

I think you are on to something. The neighbor kid who starts violin lessons at age three in no way prevents my child from picking up the instrument at age eleven. In many areas however there is no option for kids who want to play sports but didn't get an early enough start or didn't get on competition teams soon enough.

 

Where I live there are plenty of rec sports teams, travel leagues and HS sports teams that allow kids who have never played before to walk on.  But band and orchestra, at least in the schools, are by audition only and essentially exclude any child who didn't start lessons in elementary school.

[Arcadia]

Here parents are often into both for preschoolers. Plenty of Suzuki teachers around taking kids from 3 years old. Plenty of sports that take kids young for individual lessons too. Nobody in my area thinks it weird about starting kids young in music and/or sports.

 

Also, do many people even offer sports training for young children?? That sounds like it would be less obtainable.

Competitive swim and gymnastics start very young here. Someone could have a personal trainer for gymnastics as young as 3 at the gym club my boys went to for recreational gym.

[poppy]

Music can be a wholly solo project, or frequently instructors have a group performer from their own students. Most sports cannot be done solo and you are always competing for a spot with kids who have fewer advantages.

 

Another one. Learning to play any instrument can help you play different instruments and read music . It opens up a world of music theory that will bear fruit all over the place, like being able to sight read and recognizing the tempo and chord progressions in songs on the radio. In contrast, intensive sport coaching narrows a child's focus.

[I talk to the trees]

I agree with the PP who mentioned the intellectual benefits of musical training.

 

I also think that part of the reason that people might look down on very early sports training could be the attitudes of the sports parents. Parents who are highly competitive themselves may tend to push their children in sports at a much younger age to satisfy their own competitive needs. I'm certain that this is not the case for all "start 'em while they're tiny" parents, and that most sports parents just want their children to learn teamwork and have a good time being active.  In fact, we started dd in ballet when she was 4, and it has been a wonderful experience for her!

 

 But I bet most of us have encountered one of those parents who takes their child's sporting experience too seriously.  I have witnessed grown women arguing and cursing at each other in the middle of a dance studio lobby the day after a competition.  I have yet to see a band/orchestra/choir parent pitch a fit, yell at a director, or pick a fight with another parent because their child didn't get a solo or because someone else's child was playing out of tune.

 

Just a thought, and I'm sure there are other factors, but that's one that popped into my head.

[Tsuga]

1. I do object to the fact that we don't have quality music education in public schools. I think it's very important and it bothers me that not everyone gets the same opportunities.

 

2. I think more people care about sports not just because it's inherently competitive, but because there is a time limitation. So if you're not up to speed at 14 you can't just take that up later, because depending on the sport, you peak between 14 (girls' gymnastics) and 40 (some track events). You don't get to pick it up at 18 and go into the majors. Youth really matters a lot. Only the military cuts people off so early, again because it's so physical. So it seems unfair, in my opinion, that children shouldn't all have the same advantages. It isn't their fault their parents don't prioritize sport, or have the money. Many countries do provide opportunities and scholarships through public schools so that preparation is based on merit and not on parental income or interest. I think that's a better system.

 

3. I don't think that there should be scholarships based on extracurriculars.

 

There is so much I dislike about our educational system. So. Many.

 

FWIW, I do give my kids every advantage I can, including music and sports. 

[Danestress]

 

Almost every sports playing kid alive atm will NOT be an elite athlete. Almost every music playing kid alive atm will NOT be a world class musician.

 

It is OK for 99.9% of kids for these things to be fun hobbies you put some time into, but don't treat with the seriousness of a professional. Most of our kids do not need childhood along with a serve of paid professionals just to service their hobbies!

 

Actual talent and internal motivation will shine through recreational exposure, and those children lucky enough to have the family resources to take it further, can. But they are a distinct minority of children.

 

Most children need more unstructured play time, not less. More exposure to a wide range of life affirming, fun things. More time to teach themselves the things they want to know. Less time as consumers of X, be it music or sport or games or whatever.

 

 

I guess. Around 8 or 9, my boys became very frustrated that a lot of their friends seemed primarily interested in video games, movies, tv etc. My boys were outside boys.

 

Two of the spent a great deal of time on sports. One reduced that after 8th grade and then spent a great deal of time on music.

 

I don't think they missed much. They love to fish, they love to play frisbee golf, they have friends, they read for pleasure. They don't play video games almost ever. They don't watch much tv. We own a tv and an Xbox, but they just have never developed the habit, because they were focused on their sports and music.

 

No, my kids are not going to be professionals in sports or music. Though one of them could have made a respectable attempt. They aren't going to be Classics schoolars either, but they spent a lot of time on Latin and ancient history. They probably will never write another carefully composed essay after they finish schooling, but I still made them do it.

 

I definitely didn't make either of them do sports. I made them learn violin as part of homeschool, but that was a pretty relaxed thing. I never expected on to "take to it" like he did. I don't care much about sports - it's just not my thing. But one of them just loved it with his whole heart, is very competitive, and just wanted to go for it. I am not sure he missed much that we could otherwise have provided him. I don't count the lost electronics hours to be much of a "cost." He is an excellent student. He probably missed some "hang out time" with friends, but he also made other friends through sports. We had a great time together traveling to tournaments. Maybe it's an individual sport thing, but I loved loved loved traveling with him, checking into a hotel, taking him out for dinner, being his "support team." It was great - worth every penny.

 

I think having a kid who is passionate about sports is somewhat like having a picky eater. People assume that a kid is picky because his parents were indulgent. They assume kids devoted to sports have delusional parents who think their kid is going to be a professional and who push them relentlessly. I can honestly say that my son was the captain of that ship. We could afford what we could afford, which is more than some, less than others.

 

No regrets. I know we let our sons do something they really wanted to do and worked very hard at, and I think they had pretty darn good childhoods.

[maize]

I agree with the PP who mentioned the intellectual benefits of musical training.

 

I also think that part of the reason that people might look down on very early sports training could be the attitudes of the sports parents. Parents who are highly competitive themselves may tend to push their children in sports at a much younger age to satisfy their own competitive needs. I'm certain that this is not the case for all "start 'em while they're tiny" parents, and that most sports parents just want their children to learn teamwork and have a good time being active. In fact, we started dd in ballet when she was 4, and it has been a wonderful experience for her!

 

But I bet most of us have encountered one of those parents who takes their child's sporting experience too seriously. I have witnessed grown women arguing and cursing at each other in the middle of a dance studio lobby the day after a competition. I have yet to see a band/orchestra/choir parent pitch a fit, yell at a director, or pick a fight with another parent because their child didn't get a solo or because someone else's child was playing out of tune.

 

Just a thought, and I'm sure there are other factors, but that's one that popped into my head.

I am close friends with the manager of a high level youth orchestra, and I can testify that music parents can indeed pitch fits and pick fights worthy of any sports fanatic parent when their darling doesn't get picked for an elite ensemble or get the seat placement the parent believes they deserve :P

[Danestress]

.

[Danestress]

sorry - good thing I don' get paid to post on WTM because I seem to be terrible the the Double/post thing.

[Guest]

My main issue with childhood sports is injury. I've seen too many kids pushed to developmentally inappropriate levels and they cannot mentally or physically keep up with the demands. Some sports are way more guilty on this front than others.

 

Music - well, my kids can read music almost as fluently as words. That was a goal of mine, and we structured their lessons to best hit that language acquisition stage. It isn't about competition or competence, but their ability to easily pick up more music in the future because they don't have the big hurdle of note fluency and sight reading. They aren't in lessons to compete with other kids, but for their own betterment and skill. If every sport was treated that way, and the kids weren't overstrained and hyper competitive thanks to their crazy parents, I'd have zero objections.

[maize]

I educate my kids about the existing level of advantage they already have. A roof over their heads, family who loves them, running water, heat, good food, good education, a stable democracy for their homeland, the right to vote....

 

Then they choose a hobby for fun. Cheap ones. Ds has more because his are low cost homeschool activities.

 

Giving my child every advantage does not compute. Life is not a competition.

I agree with you that life is not a competition.

 

My attitude towards intensive, competitive activities in childhood has, however, changed significantly as I have watched one of my own children's mental and emotional help improve drastically through her engagement in such an activity.

 

I think the key has to be, always, to adjust our parenting to the needs of our children. My daughter wants to compete at the world championship level in her activity. I have no idea how or if we can make that happen, but I am behind her 100% in pursuing her dreams. Dreams that would never have crossed my mind to envision for my family, but it turns out that the children I am raising are not just carbon copies of myself.

[luuknam]

Giving my child every advantage does not compute. Life is not a competition.

 

Not everyone can be middle class (or above). I'd like for my kids to have the opportunity to be middle class (or above) if they want to be. So, yes, it's a competition. My kids don't have to win 1st place, but I'd rather that they don't end up under the poverty line (or anywhere remotely near the poverty line).

 

I also don't think that giving a child "every advantage" is necessarily giving a child "every advantage". Having some adversity or not getting everything you want can be good for a child.

 

What can I say... parenting is tricky.

 

ETA: my kids don't do competitive anything. They've gone to a few TKD tournaments, but for fun, not to win. That said, I know parents who pay for private TKD lessons before each tournament for their young kids (under 6yo).

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well I don't see it that way.  So what can I say.  Different things are important to different people.  Sports aren't important to me and I come from a long line of physically awkward ppl and I have married into an equally awkward family.  We love music, but we don't view it as something to be forced.  One of our kids is into it and the other is not. 

 

It's all individual.

[Guest]

High five for awkward, uncoordinated kids! My oldest wants to be in sports so badly, but she is hilariously uncoordinated. We put her in ballet this year and it was such a good decision, because she learns very quickly and have become much more aware of her body. Notably more graceful.

 

Every kid and family is different :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

High five for awkward, uncoordinated kids! My oldest wants to be in sports so badly, but she is hilariously uncoordinated. We put her in ballet this year and it was such a good decision, because she learns very quickly and have become much more aware of her body. Notably more graceful.

 

Every kid and family is different :)

 

Dance was helpful for my kids too. 

[I talk to the trees]

I am close friends with the manager of a high level youth orchestra, and I can testify that music parents can indeed pitch fits and pick fights worthy of any sports fanatic parent when their darling doesn't get picked for an elite ensemble or get the seat placement the parent believes they deserve :p

 

Hmm...Our band/youth symphony parents weren't like that......that I saw, anyway. Now the students- Boy, howdy, we fought like grizzly bears. I once had a fellow flutist threaten to shove my flute up one nostril and yank it out the other. (The flute section was particularly cutthroat.) But the parents always behaved like adults- or appeared to. I wonder if I was just so wrapped up in defending myself from the queen bee mean girls of the band that I was unaware of it.

[Rosie_0801]

It would be nice all round if there were a lot more recreation opportunities for kids in all sorts of activities - low cost, so working class kids don't get excluded - all the way up to adulthood.

 

It's really odd, because once you are an adult, there are plenty of rec opportunities - community choir, knitting clubs, book clubs, hiking groups and a zillion others - nobody is getting elite training to rock the book club, so far as I know - it's as if adults are allowed to have hobbies, but kids have to be endlessly exhorted to be better! be the best! 

 

It's childhood as one long preparation for real life, instead of real life itself.

 

Oh yes. Dd wants to play croquet, which is conveniently located no petrol money away and on a weekday (can't do weekend anythings because of custody issues.) She's not allowed to play because she's a kid. A bunch of seniors are too competitive about their croquet to have a member who'd be a liability. I'm waiting to see if any of the less crusty will come down early and have a game with her before their proper game starts.

[mathnerd]

I think that music and sports are both important. My son plays a musical instrument and a sport and he is doing very well in both.

 

 

 A poorer kid may have a parent who practices with them all the time, which could be just as good if not better than a purchased coach and I can't imagine anyone saying that's unfair with the same vehemence.

 

 

I am one such parent who practices with my DS all the time - at his level, in my area, other kids have 2-3 private lessons with the coach per week. I cannot afford it - my son is coached once a week by an elite coach because we are worried that a less experienced coach might mean injuries in the long term.

But, I sit through each class, take detailed notes and make a weekly summary of the coach's requirements, corrections etc and practice with my DS every day of the week. It is as effective as hiring a coach thrice a week. My son gets a lot of positive comments about how he is quick to understand the corrections and follow them immediately. This has been my workaround for not being able to afford expensive coaches several times a week. I also scour youtube and the internet to find coaches giving talks and demos and I am always taking notes.

[unsinkable]

Oh yes. Dd wants to play croquet, which is conveniently located no petrol money away and on a weekday (can't do weekend anythings because of custody issues.) She's not allowed to play because she's a kid. A bunch of seniors are too competitive about their croquet to have a member who'd be a liability. I'm waiting to see if any of the less crusty will come down early and have a game with her before their proper game starts.

Ugh. That is terrible.

 

That reminds me of when DD wanted to volunteer garden at a historic site.

 

I made the first (and it turns out, only) phone call inquiring about the possibility. The head gardener volunteer person said she said they didn't want to hear any young girls carrying on about movie stars while they were trying to garden. I had only told the woman DD's age.

 

:confused:

 

Then she said they garden during the day anyway so it wouldn't be possible bc DD was in school.

 

I said actually, she would be available because we homeschooled and DD could garden during the day.

 

Her response was that she wouldn't be a part of DD not doing her schoolwork.

 

:confused: :confused:

 

And that was that. Buh-bye, crazy gardener person!

[Guest]

What a pill! Crotchety old farts.

 

They'd be lucky to have girls Iike yours or Rosie's to spend time with. Intelligent, energetic, well mannered children are a joy. Their loss.