While eating lunch with friends after a beach volleyball tournament (we won!), I found myself wondering: how good could I have been at volleyball if I’d focused on it exclusively as a kid? I’ve had similar thoughts about lacrosse, which I only started playing in eighth grade but ended up making my main sport in high school and college.
This dilemma extends beyond sports. At work, I feel like I juggle two different roles, and I sometimes wonder: Would I be more successful if I focused on just one? Am I hurting my future by splitting my time into two roles?
This made me want to write about if it is better to go all-in on one thing or diversify? While I’ll mostly refer to sports here, I think this applies to other areas, like playing multiple instruments, exploring different forms of art, or even balancing various interests.
I don’t know if there’s a “right” answer. In sports, playing multiple sports can actually make you better overall. Focusing on one sport can also help you improve fast, but it also carries the risk of burnout. Plus, you might realize later that the sport you chose isn’t what you want to do—or you might hit a natural limit.
For example, a really tall person might have an edge in volleyball but could find it harder to excel in weightlifting or gymnastics. Not that short players can’t succeed in volleyball or tall ones can’t lift—but sometimes our abilities align better with certain activities. So maybe the best approach is to try different things and, once you find something you like and are good at, focus on that.
Even then, interests change over time, so it’s okay to pivot when needed.
This question also applies to education. College core requirements—like history, English, religion, math, and science—serve a similar purpose to trying different sports. If you don’t know what you want to do yet, taking a range of classes can help you discover new interests. Plus, stuff you learn from one subject can help you in others—like how writing skills from English class might improve your lab reports in science.
But what if you already know what you want to do? I knew I wanted to study engineering, so a lot of core classes felt like a waste of time. I can see the argument that they offer a broader perspective, but at the time, I just felt like I was writing papers that matched the teacher’s views instead of learning something useful for my career.
If I could redesign the curriculum, I might make core classes optional or offer students more choices—like taking an extra major-related class instead of a core class.
People’s goals are different, and that probably changes the answer to this question. In sports, not everyone wants to become the best they can at one sport. Some just want to stay active and play lots of sports for fun. Similarly, some people love learning for the sake of learning, even if it’s not useful for their career—you’ll probably become pretty good at trivia, too.
So maybe the answer isn’t about what’s objectively better. It’s about what aligns with your goals. And, like most things, there’s no clear answer that fits everyone.
What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to reach out on social media or by email ([email protected]).