Huh? Is it a given that we should optimize life for school, particularly tutoring which I assume pertains to high school and below? I think in the absence of a disability, money spent on sports or drama club or 4H or whatever extra curriculars is a way better investment than extra math or something. To me it says they have sensible priorities.
This is a tough call- while I generally think that everybody should get a well-rounded liberal education, it's pretty clear that investing more time into math and science leds to generally better long-term outcomes in terms of money, and that money translates into significantly greater life quality.
Unless the kid is really passionate about it and shows some real potential, I don't think it's worth breaking the bank for the kid to play in a competitive league. There are lots of fun/casual leagues for kids that don't travel and are much more affordable and provide a lot of the same benefits as the travel/competitive teams.
You really hope the kids want to be in these as much as the parents do, otherwise what a terrible waste of money and effort getting your kids to do something they don't want to do.
I absolutely understand what you are saying... but if you let kids do what they want to do they'll sit around and play video games 16 hours a day. In times past, they'd likely be out working the farm. What do they do now? Consume media.
> I sat around and played videogames (namely PC) 16 hours a day and became pretty good at computers.
I feel like this was the normal track for my Internet friends and I in the 90s. We've sold two startups pursuing the dream of making video games - which of course that dream came from playing video games all the time as kids. Though I'm doubtful if that particular path will translate well today, or especially over the next decade. Maybe it didn't translate well from the 90s either, but sure feels like it did. (And now in our 40s we still haven't made a single video game!)
I'm also dubious as to whether competitive extracurricular activities will make a difference. This was the _thing_ in high school from guidance counselors - you must must must must be in a bunch of extracurricular activities so you can write them down on your college application or you will never get to attend a good college!
if you let kids do what they want to do they'll sit around and play video games 16 hours a day
These kind of comments always seem to say more about the writer than the subject. I loved computers and videogames growing up, I was the nerdiest kid in the class. But I also liked cycling, hiking in woods, reading, and a bunch of other things.
That's the excuse all lazy (as in unwilling to put in the effort to understand their kids) helicopter parents have for forcing their kids into things.
My desire to stay indoors and code/game all day was at its peak when that was my only option for socializing besides being dragged around on long drives to see places more interesting to my parents. The most I was allowed to do otherwise was going to the movies with vetted friends for high school graduation.
In comparison, for a few years (in another country) I had the freedom to go relatively far myself to hang out unsupervised with friends. The result was that I typically spent more time outside and participated of my own interest in all sorts of events (public speaking etc).
This also translated to other hobbies, when I had the freedom to choose my routine, I had all sorts of other hobbies like drawing, when this was taken away, all I ever focused on was instant gratification (or problems I could keep in my head) because I couldn't rely on being able to plan or prioritize my day. This did a lot of damage and I've only recently recovered nearly a decade later.
Now, if my parents had put aside the "kids just want to play games/watch TV all day" belief and paid attention to what I was trying to learn and what I was interested in, they might've saved me a lot of frustration AND helped my development by enrolling me in extra classes about the things I was interested in instead of the things they were interested in.
I have several friends who are middle aged and still get together and just chill and jam in the garage.
Not all of them played instruments in youth or had formal training. And if you have a bad experience you may not want to continue. I wouldn't hold that against anyone.
But it's not unheard of among band geeks to play in adult hood.
Ugh, on a related note, I'm a bad friend because I haven't kept in touch with them for a long time. Good fucking people.
The people self-reporting on this survey probably aren't factoring the cost of gas or automotive depreciation in, so that doesn't seem reasonable to include here.
I did youth soccer in an expensive city as a kid (close to 20 years ago now), and I think my shorts and jersey were $30 (and that was for the fancy, custom team one). Double that for inflation now and you still have $40 left over, although I don't think my parents had to pay for anything else (since it was a public field and a volunteer-run league).
> I did youth soccer in an expensive city as a kid (close to 20 years ago now)
I had early kids in lots of activities 20+ years ago. I did not do the same for my later kids because most everything we found was massively more expensive.
Talking to parents who were involved, I learned a lot about how things changed. Modern activities really weren't the same offerings we had had.
What was informal had become formal. Activities required a much larger time commitment. Volunteers had become professionals. Coaching was a world more serious. Transportation was formalized. Things like shared gear seemed to have gone away. Even the designed uniforms where more expensive than coverings we had bought.
It had become cheaper for my younger kids to visit Belize and Alaska than to compete.
It's probably all the "travel teams" pushing up the averages.
In my region travel teams for all sports are out of control. So long as you're willing to pay, your not-really-talented kid can play. And if your kid can't make the original travel team, or the one after that, or the one after that, someone is happy to fund their boat by creating another team.
I think it depends on what level and type of "competitive" they're talking about in the article. When my daughter was in dance, they had a show every 2-3 months and the costumes for each show were $100, plus the dance lesson costs, travel costs (hotel, flights, etc in some cases). No problem for us, but there were other parents who really struggled and it didn't surprise me that it was unaffordable for a lot of people, but it did surprise me that they did it anyway.
Well, here in the Bay Area, baseball and soccer are about $250 each per season (equip not included). So just 1 a season (fall/spring) would run you $500 at Little League and rec (soccer).
Now, having coached a number of seasons, and having played sports at a high level in my youth, I can tell you that if your child is playing one season of rec per year, or honestly, not doing competitive sports, there’s no room to stand out at the HS level, and be considered for a college scholarship.
Now, I didn’t receive a college scholarship for athletics, but I’m certain being a 4y letterman and 2y captain and nominal valedictorian all played a part in my college acceptance letters, and significant reduction of post-collegiate debt at a tier-1 school.
I also had peers who didn’t do club sports in their HS sport until HS (i.e. switching from baseball to swimming) and they were granted scholarships.
The big point being: if you think sports are important (totally subjective and personal; I’m not going to argue for or against), you need to pursue club sports and move beyond rec.
Another (bonus) point: there’s tons of grift in club sports. I can totally see how someone would end up in debt, especially with multiple kids. And, I deeply sympathize with them, and hope that I’d be savvy enough to not get caught up in the game.
The 79% number is dubious. If you ask a population of debtors (people belonging to the lendingtree mailing list) if X contributed to their debt, and they bought X, then yes, X contributed to their debt. Along with Y, Z, etc.
You could also write an article saying home cooked meals lead to debt for 79% of parents with the same mailing list.
Maybe they are part of the 99% of readers who don’t comment, but felt really compelled to do so in this case. Or they have commented before but forgot their account info. They made a new account in a hurry because they just wanted to make the comment.
Less likely oddball theory: maybe they have some relationship with the author or subject, don’t want to mess it up by publicly criticizing under their own name. Or they’re notable enough that people care what they say and they don’t like the loss of freedom that entails.
The comment makes a compelling point and just relies on the linked page as a source, it doesn’t skirt any rules, so the reputation of the commenter is not that important.
My activities cost my mom little to nothing. My first 2 kids activities often bumped up against what we could afford. For my last two, the cost was out of our reach.
We were deep into a trend and it increasingly divided families who could afford extracurriculars from those who can't.
The apparent solution? Adding financing to that formula. In retrospect, it just heaps cruelty upon misfortune.
> Whether it’s envisioning their child while watching the professional sports league drafts on TV or banking on college athletic or talent-based scholarships, 87% of parents with a kid involved in a competitive extracurricular said the activity could lead to income for their child (up from 80% of parents who said the same in the April 2019 survey). Dads are more likely than moms (92% versus 79%) to bet on their kids’ activities becoming lucrative.
This is wild.
Common sense should tell you getting drafted is a ridiculous thing to bank on and a quick google will tell you "Fewer than 2 percent of high school student-athletes are offered athletic scholarships"[0]
For a lot of parents it's as simple as having another extracurricular activity on your college applications which can help you get into a better school. When that's a factor, then it makes the calculus a lot simpler. You don't need to bet on ridiculous odds like getting drafted or an athletic scholarship.
There are about 180,000 athletic scholarships too. There is certainly a lot of competition to win one, but it's not an unreasonable dream for a talented/hardworking youth.
If you can manage good academic progress while also earning an athletic scholarship, that’s fantastic. Shoot for the moon, get into a good school, all sorts of doors will be opened for you.
If your athletic focus comes at the cost of poor academic performance, that’s a disaster. Sure, you can find a university that doesn’t care about whether you’re learning anything in class, but you’re probably going to struggle after you graduate.
Very few students get athletic scholarships, but the article is about competitive activities of all types — not just sports. Those absolutely help with college admissions, and private colleges tend to offer better financial aid packages to the highest rated applicants.
Lots of people coach and referee. It also says "could" which seems like basically just a true statement in that it has a probability built in? It's not clear to me what the question actually asked was.
Extracurriculars are well known to provide an advantage in application processes and even scholarship applications.
You don’t have to get a full athletic scholarship for it to make a difference.
Like it or not, applications are extremely competitive these days. Anything extra you can put down on the application to show your student is dedicated to doing group activities and following through with them helps differentiate them.
> Common sense should tell you getting drafted is a ridiculous thing to bank
Apparently American parents, statistically speaking, are not well versed in basic stats. Maybe they should've got more education instead of trying to be a sport jockey when in school.
My younger brother was a full-time professional athlete (basketball) from his late teens until late thirties, so I saw a lot of his career progression and that of his peers.
I think risky territory is to have children that are good enough to be almost professional athletes but not so bad that they just play socially or drop out. There are a fair few competent athletes who defer or never study because they get training roles that chew up a few vital underpaid years, and then leave them with a "I didn't make it" mindset afterwards. Professional? Great. Play, then leverage the contacts to move into a new career. Social? Great. Fitness and fun, while you're able to study/work with your peers.
Reminds me a tiny bit of the Silver medal in team sports. 3v4 play and the Bronze winners end on a high. 1v2 play, and the Silver medallists finish on a low.
When I was in school I played soccer and pole vaulted, at very little cost (which was good as I was one of seven children raised by a single mom - very modest means). The statistics are pretty clear that non-academic activities aren’t necessarily available to those in similar situations today. That is a shame.
I pay a lot in taxes for education (and activities). I live in a state where it’s a constitutional obligation to provide an education and yet, schools aren’t educating student any better today than back then. And, they seem to be doing less overall. A someone who did volunteer teaching for 4 years I know there are wonderful people involved, but it just doesn’t seem to be functioning well overall.
It’s not a great situation for kids or parents today.
Parent of a kid who has a horse…it is in the $6-7k range annually. It is frankly embarrassing and at times has been nearly crippling financially. My spouse is one who believes in the scholarship thing.
Don’t trust statistics like this from websites that are pushing lending products.
This is a common marketing tactic from payday loan companies and other short term lenders: They concoct biased surveys designed to produce shockingly high numbers like this in order to normalize the use of their services. They want their customer base to see these headlines and conclude that “everyone is doing it” when it comes to short term debt products.
Without seeing the actual questions it’s hard to say what they actually surveyed. Take a look at the key bullet point:
> Nearly 8 in 10 (79%) parents surveyed have been in debt in order to pay for a child’s activities
What does “been in debt” mean? Some of these surveys are deliberately biased toward the debt answer by including, for example, anyone who pays for things with a credit card. If you pay with a credit card you’ve technically “been in debt” so you’re counted. I don’t know if that’s what they’re doing here, but watch out for this trick.
Also, who is answering these surveys? Is it from a list of their lending product customers? A random sampling of people who answered the phone and set aside time for the survey? Whatever it is, I guarantee it’s far from true random sampling.
These are the same techniques and marketers who produce the dubious statistics that make it look like nearly everyone is living “paycheck to paycheck”.
Sports are a relatively plug-and-play way to direct your kids in some pursuit. You don't have to fight the culture nearly as much. And if you want your kids to work hard on their pursuits, you can pay your way into a whole system with professional coaches, regular competition, and 20+ hours per week chasing something hard.
Similar ecosystems around music, ancient languages, math, or anything else seem rare or non-existent. So you may have to build the whole pathway yourself every night after you get home from work and get the kids to bed.
Kids’ competitive activities don't lead to debt by themselves, it is an overall thing. You go in debt when you spend more than you earn.
So what causes the debt? The expensive activities for the kids? The new car? The big house? The latest tech gadgets? You could point at any one of these to be the cause of the debt, but the reality is simply overspending.
Maybe there is a small portion of parents you get in debt for their kids activity because it is an absolute priority and they already did everything they could have done to reduce spending elsewhere, but it is certainly not 8/10.
reply