I remember an undergraduate advisor recommending that I drop my D1 track and field bullet point from my resume (for grad school applications). No way! I don't want to work with anyone who would judge me negatively because of something that I do in my own time; it will be better for both of us if I never get to know you in the first place.
There are very few people* who can work with non-stop dedication on one sort of task for years on end. Everyone else (I've discovered) is faking it. You may be "working" for 12 hours a day -- minus the 2 hour lunch break, and the 3 hours on Facebook, and all the news articles that you're sure are making you smarter. But you can easily tell who these people are because they get less done in 10 hours than I do in two. And then these same people want to make some sort of judgment about those who actually enjoy free time?
People who are always talking about how hard they work and how they're such a martyr for their work rub me the wrong way.
* Some people are legitimately intensely focused on whatever they're interested in (especially start-up culture). But how often do these people whine about how much they're working? If they are that into it, then they're probably really enjoying their job.
If track and field is not relevant to what you are applying for, and is only something you do in your spare time, then what good reason is there to put it on your resume?
I think you missed the point of the article, or are you trolling?
How about: in addition to being a well-rounded person, someone who has been on a Division 1 track and field team knows how to push him or herself beyond the limits and endure discomfort few people can comprehend, is dedicated, disciplined, and knows how to handle competition. Actually, having been on a D1 team in a demanding sport is some of the best proof of these qualities that I can think of and is a stellar thing to put on a resume.
Faculty at universities are notoriously biased on this subject, tho. They hate d1 athletics, for the most part. This is worth knowing, if at least in passing. Its not at all impossible that that might color an application review. Either (a) they think the student expects to get a break/has already benefitted etc; or (b) they just don;t want to listen to another view. TLDR any "too red-blooded"activity (track, foot/basket/ball, etc) is not academic. This kind of petty/banal stuff is pretty typical for academic politics. (Not supporting, just explaining).
Yeah, I realize there's a lot of academics that hate athletics. But it's good for me if they let me know this up front, so we don't end up working together.
I should mention though, they miss out on a lot of good people. On the men's track team, there were about 4 people who had 4.0's (which is very rare at a top 5 engineering school). One of these guys ended up doing some really amazing research in grad school. In fact, the whole track team average GPA was higher than the school average. If you can manage these grades plus 3 hours of practice each day, I would think that would be a positive trait. But to each their own I guess.
If you are applying for a job in (say) mechanical engineering, your experience in track and field should not outweigh greater experience in mechanical engineering. This isn't a bias against track and field, it is simply an observation that track and field has no demonstrable link to being better at mechanical engineering.
There are very few people* who can work with non-stop dedication on one sort of task for years on end. Everyone else (I've discovered) is faking it. You may be "working" for 12 hours a day -- minus the 2 hour lunch break, and the 3 hours on Facebook, and all the news articles that you're sure are making you smarter. But you can easily tell who these people are because they get less done in 10 hours than I do in two. And then these same people want to make some sort of judgment about those who actually enjoy free time?
People who are always talking about how hard they work and how they're such a martyr for their work rub me the wrong way.
* Some people are legitimately intensely focused on whatever they're interested in (especially start-up culture). But how often do these people whine about how much they're working? If they are that into it, then they're probably really enjoying their job.