Why can I humiliate you in the sports world, but not the classroom?

[Dob]

In High School I had a 9th grade homeroom, but took all 10th grade classes. One day someone asked me if I thought I was an Einstein and instead of just saying “hell ya”, I chickened out and said “no, it was all my parents idea”. Now aside from the whole “need to belong” every teenager feels in HS, that memory made me wonder some…

Had I been on the court, track, field, whatever… and was clearly better than anyone else, and continually made everyone look foolish on the field despite me only being in the 9th grade, I would have been celebrated. But If I’m smarter than you and embarrass you in the classroom, well damn, I can’t even list the number of names I would have been called or the fights that probably would have ensued. I would like to think this is just HS behavior but when I take a look around today I see the same thing.

Athletes’ are expected to strut, humble, and generally make their opponents look like idiots. Hell, the athletes who do that the best are generally the most famous. However, if we are in a social gathering and you say something stupid and I call you out and make you look even more stupid, I’m a dick. A big dick.

But why?

Is this some evolutionary thing that causes us to celebrate the strong over the “weak”? I know nobody likes to look like an idiot, but hell if I played Michael Jordon in a game of pick-up he would without any doubt make me look like an idiot on the court and he would probably laugh while doing it as would anyone watching. But if we switch the venue and we do an IQ test and I score some 50pts higher (not saying I would) I would be an ass for rubbing it in HIS face and making him feel stupid.

Is this just our social agreement? We can beat you down if we are stronger, but if we are smarter we better be nice? How did we get here? Is there anything we can do to change?

Additionally, I had a track coach in HS that used to curse, insult, and was just generally a rude bastard. This was seen as “okay” since he was motivating us to win, do better, etc… But if a History teacher called me a “lazy slow bastard who needs to study more or buy a dress”, I have a feeling someone is getting fired.

[silenus]

But if a History teacher called me a “lazy slow bastard who needs to study more or buy a dress"...

The AP Euro test is tomorrow, so I'm borrowing this quote if you don't mind.

[Marley23]

But why?
Smart Guy to Strong Guy: "My vast intellect dwarfs yours, you muscle-bound cretin!"
Strong Guy to Smart Guy: "I'm gonna kick your ass!"
[Stage Direction: Strong Guy kicks Smart Guy's ass.]

[msmith537]

I take it you never played sports much?

It is generally considered "poor sportsmanship" to humilate or belittle an opponent on the sports field. Especially one in where the competition is extremely one-sided in your favor. Some degree of "smack talk" is acceptable for the purpose of psyching the other guy out.

If you feel "humiliated" or "look foolish" on the field, then you should practice more and harder. The expectation is that you are engaging in an athletic competition with a similarly skilled opponent and you have spent an appropriate amount of effort preparing.

An athlete who goes around strutting his stuff off the field is often known as a "bully", "dickhead" or "douchebag".


The reason you would be an asshole for rubbing your higher IQ score in someone else's face is that one, you didn't do anything other than inherent a brain. It's like being proud because you are tall. And two, most people are not engaged in a competition for "who has the highest IQ".

If you want to engage in a contest of intellect with someone, I'm sure both are free to talk shit.

[Marley23]

It is generally considered "poor sportsmanship" to humilate or belittle an opponent on the sports field. Especially one in where the competition is extremely one-sided in your favor.
That's mostly true, although a lot of people do love pro athletes who make asses of themselves with excessive celebrating. But it's also true that sports are a competition, and the classroom is essentially not. And people play sports for fun, which makes for a different situation from the classroom. Some trash talk might make football more fun, but it doesn't enhance the learning experience.

[Dob]

It is generally considered "poor sportsmanship" to humilate or belittle an opponent on the sports field. Especially one in where the competition is extremely one-sided in your favor. Some degree of "smack talk" is acceptable for the purpose of psyching the other guy out.


Do you watch sports at all? Of course it's considered poor sportsmanship, but it happens, and it happens alot. How many pictures of Dieon Sanders have you seen showboating into the endzone? Pretty sure nobody called him a bully. Douche maybe, but probably for other reasons.

The reason you would be an asshole for rubbing your higher IQ score in someone else's face is that one, you didn't do anything other than inherent a brain. It's like being proud because you are tall. And two, most people are not engaged in a competition for "who has the highest IQ".

That doesn't make much sense. Shaq didn't "earn" his 7ft plus frame, but he got it anyway and he trained it to play basketball. Having a "brain" doesn't mean anything if it isn't trained. You dont think Hawkins trained his brain? You dont think he worked his ass off? Why shouldn't he be proud of that?

[BlinkingDuck]

I've had a similar conversation with my daughter...

What was/is going is trying to lower your position in the pecking order. You were smart and, therefore, might attain a higher rank in the being-established pecking order. Therefore, they had to try to take you down. They don't need to make YOU think this, but everyone else. Bonus points if they actually cow you as well.

You can't take someone down on the pecking order by making fun of their being good in sports. That sounds stupid because that is the natural order so far. However, if you had a society of all geeks and you had a less than stellar geek thatis good at sports you can bet your bottom dollar that the same thing that happened to the OP would happen in reverse in that situation.

Young Whippersnappers...just be thankful you are growing up today. Geeks are at an all time high with computers, Bill Gates and company etc. Back in my day, this wasn't the case. You wouldn't have a hip Abby on NCIS back when I was gowing up...back then she would have been a hopeless loser. Maybe loveable but a loser nonetheless.

[BlinkingDuck]

Also, back when I used to teach this bugged me as well.

You can praise the HS quarterback...about how great he is. However, you can't do the same academically. This would make less smart people 'feel bad' and so shouldn't be done. Why the same doesn't apply to sports...

Hopefully that is changing. Hell, I still remember one of the main objections to starting gifted classes was that it would make people not in the gifted classes feel bad and that the money should be spent on regular students and not kids that "don't need it". The gifted classes were never approved.

Again, why that argument never seemed to work for sports...

[Two Many Cats]

The reason you would be an asshole for rubbing your higher IQ score in someone else's face is that one, you didn't do anything other than inherent a brain. It's like being proud because you are tall.

Excuse me, no. Intellectual strength requires more than just inheriting a brain. Certainly, there are people who find it easier to learn things than others, just as some people are more athletically gifted than others.

But building up that intelligence takes just as much practice and dicipline in studying, than such practice and discipline does in building up sports prowess. You didn't do anything to get tall. You did quite a lot to get smart. You read, wrote, memorized, observed, criticized, compared, concentrated, explained, deducted, and concluded. You thought, and thought, and thought. It was hard work, this brain work. You could've just said, "Fuck this shit," and become a slacker. But you didn't. And you should be proud of your accomplishments, as much as any athletic star.

The trouble is, many of us are socially taught that it's a shameful thing to be smart. We're laughed at, when some of our thoughts seem hard to comprehend to others. We talk funny, and go on about stuff that nobody else cares about. We're put down by others, perhaps in our own family, and told that all those books we read are filling our head with crap we don't need.

If we correct someone else, no matter how gently, we're the instant target of resentment. So we learn to be quiet, but it still doesn't work. They know we're getting the good grades, the teacher's favor. What they don't see or care about is the work that goes into getting that way. So there's anger and jealousy.

And there's the media's glorification of the idiocy of others: the worship of sports over intellect, the frat boy humor, the stereotype of the ugly, socially-backward nerd who gets shoved into the locker, and deserves it too obviously, because it's just so funny.

No, of course those with intellectual gifts shouldn't rub them in the faces of others. There are those that are like that too. But then, that's more of a defense mechanism.

[jayjay]

I'd also like to note that I've seen cases where coaches, just in the last year or so, were lambasted for running up the score in an already lopsided game. It's really no more acceptable in sports than it is in academia, in an idealized sense.

[Hodiggity1]

There are also a lot of smart people that are worshiped and glorified by the media. To name a few obvious examples: Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc. You could also say that Gates and Jobs "bullied" their competitors by out hustling and outsmarting them during the PC revolution. Even though they took hits for individual actions (the squashing of Netscape, Apple's rejection of Flash, etc.) they are still admired for their intelligence, much like pro athletes are admired for their physical abilities.

[athelas]

Think in evolutionary terms. People (and animals) have been kicking each other's asses for the longest time; we are therefore innately accepting of physical competition. (Any revolutionary who bravely challenged the brawny status quo would, as Marley23 shows, get weeded out of the gene pool posthaste.) Intellectual competition in the classroom sense is of much more recent vintage, and our brains have not adapted to it yet. So, our attitude towards it is mostly based on general inequality-aversion (the part of us that sympathizes with the underdog in any non-merit-based competition) rather than acceptance of this as an important way of competing and sorting folks by social status.

Note that cleverness competition is more widely accepted. The rapper who can humiliate his opponent in a rap battle, or a general who can fool his adversary through cunning tactics, is accepted and celebrated. We did evolve big brains partly to fool each other, and the "primitive" intelligence that influences social relations and physical tactics is probably treated about the same as athleticism. What we don't celebrate is evolutionarily novel abstract thinking, like the chem nerd or the bombastic classicist.

[athelas]

Note that when popularizers talk about intellectual disputes, they use physical terms ("the battle between quantum and Newtonian mechanics) or portray it as a competition for social status ("The vendetta between Newton and Liebniz").

When you want to make something interesting, you relate it to ancestral forms of competition - and nobody gets excited over "which model fits noisy data with a slightly lower p-value."

[Oredigger77]

Do you watch sports at all? Of course it's considered poor sportsmanship, but it happens, and it happens alot. How many pictures of Dieon Sanders have you seen showboating into the endzone? Pretty sure nobody called him a bully. Douche maybe, but probably for other reasons.

There is a difference between celebrating in the endzone and calling someone out for being stupid. the endzone celebration is for how well he did something. It's much more on par with celebrating an A on a test.

On the other hand calling out someone for being stupid is much closer to the running up the score example given above. You're not being happy for your success but are rather making someone else feel bad for their failures.

While people may not appreciate the first it is no where near as bad as the second and in most situations people look down on the people that do either one. In sports though most people strive to make the playing field level, different divisions and such, while in school most of the time the dumb kids and smart kids are at the same school and are 'competing' against each other on a daily basis so intellectual embarrassment happens much more frequently and is called out more often.

[carm]

There's an easy solution.

Just be smart and good at sports.:)

[Hodiggity1]

There's an easy solution.

Just be smart and good at sports.:)

I think that's a great thing to aspire to, and is something that I work towards in my own life.

[alphaboi867]

...But if a History teacher called me a “lazy slow bastard who needs to study more or buy a dress”, I have a feeling someone is getting fired.

Add in "fat" and you've just described every male gym "teacher" I had in middle & high school. :mad: Boy did they love attacking their students' masculinity. Not too mention they got away with using other, "less savoury", language that never came out of the mouth of any other teacher (well, other than the home ec teacher). Or playing grab ass with their students.

[lekatt]

No one can humiliate you, and no one can make you look like a fool, anywhere. Only you can do that to yourself. Just do your best and let the chips fall where they may.

[msmith537]

Do you watch sports at all? Of course it's considered poor sportsmanship, but it happens, and it happens alot. How many pictures of Dieon Sanders have you seen showboating into the endzone? Pretty sure nobody called him a bully. Douche maybe, but probably for other reasons.

I was thinking more in terms of high school sports. Professional athletes are entertainers and much of their antics are part of the entertainment. And his competetion is presumed to be tough enough to take it (even if they do suck).




That doesn't make much sense.


Then I suggest if you want to step into my intellectual dojo, you bring your A-game and not some weak-ass shit!:D



Shaq didn't "earn" his 7ft plus frame, but he got it anyway and he trained it to play basketball. Having a "brain" doesn't mean anything if it isn't trained. You dont think Hawkins trained his brain? You dont think he worked his ass off? Why shouldn't he be proud of that?


My point is that you can talk shit when you are engaged in a competition (athletic or intellectual) with a willing challenger. If you are just making fun of someone intellectually or physically weaker than you, it just makes you a bully (or a pompous ass).




The trouble is, many of us are socially taught that it's a shameful thing to be smart. We're laughed at, when some of our thoughts seem hard to comprehend to others. We talk funny, and go on about stuff that nobody else cares about. We're put down by others, perhaps in our own family, and told that all those books we read are filling our head with crap we don't need.

If we correct someone else, no matter how gently, we're the instant target of resentment. So we learn to be quiet, but it still doesn't work. They know we're getting the good grades, the teacher's favor. What they don't see or care about is the work that goes into getting that way. So there's anger and jealousy.


Fortunately, I grew up in a household where intelligence and education (as well as sports) were encouraged.


There are a lot of class issues too with respect to intelligence and education. The little-brains pretty much know that if you are intelligent and academically successful, you will have opportunities that they will never have.

[Jules Andre]

I think the obvious answer, and I'm sure it has been mentioned in this thread, is that it is never okay to try to humiliate people, in any arena. The people who get celebrated (and this is true in sports as well as academics, or anywhere else) are the humble ones who do what they can to use their talents to help others. The people who showboat and humiliate are merely tolerated. I don't hear a lot of support for Barry Bonds now that he isn't useful as an athlete. Once these showboats grow old, that's when they find out what their attitudes cost. Meanwhile, the class acts are still the toast of the town years after they retire.

I think I had a very atypical high school experience, reading threads like these.

[Incubus]

Some people are just pushovers, and it is readily detected in more aggressive individuals. The more someone rolls over and takes the abuse, the more it emboldens others because now they know they can get away with it.

Honestly I don't think this neccessarily has to do with being smart because I knew bullies that were straight-A students. It has to do with being assertive/dominant vs passive/submissive.

I think that in school, there is this social pressure to be defined in some way. Sometimes when someone is picked on, its just easy for them to settle into that role and accept it. The more time that goes by, the harder it is for them to change.

[alphaboi867]

...In sports though most people strive to make the playing field level, different divisions and such, while in school most of the time the dumb kids and smart kids are at the same school and are 'competing' against each other on a daily basis so intellectual embarrassment happens much more frequently and is called out more often.

My school did have seperate academic classes like math or English based on ability/grade level and regular and AP classes for English, social studies, and science, but no effort at all was made to seperate gym classes (other than by sex). Every class contain a random mixture of freshmen, sophmores, & seniors (ranging from 13-19 yrs) with no seperation by ability. Now the extracuricullar sports were seperated by age & ability; varsity & junior varsity plus the fact that students had to try out just to get on them.

[Oredigger77]

My school did have seperate academic classes like math or English based on ability/grade level and regular and AP classes for English, social studies, and science, but no effort at all was made to seperate gym classes (other than by sex). Every class contain a random mixture of freshmen, sophmores, & seniors (ranging from 13-19 yrs) with no seperation by ability. Now the extracuricullar sports were seperated by age & ability; varsity & junior varsity plus the fact that students had to try out just to get on them.

Our classes were separated as well but there were still cases where I was talking to a friend in the hallways about their difficulties in Algebra II while I was taking Pre-calc. On the other hand, while I was playing DII football I never talked to someone who was playing DI A ball. Academically there is only so much separation possible while in sports people are separated by talent level.

P.E. is a different issue, art classes are separated by talent either all of the minor classes people are lumped together without distinction and teachers do their best to teach to the middle. It is only the personality of the people who are drawn to teach each that makes P.E. more competitive. I got to watch talented artist get complimented every day while the teachers ignored my crap. I also got to take Spanish I with several native speakers and it was only my inability to continue on to harder classes that separated me from them it didn't stop there from being chuckles as I tried to pronounce words in class.

[MovieMogul]

The risk of humliating an opponent is an inherent one in competitive arenas, which is why there are protocols around sportsmanship and common courtesy.

But virtually all sports are naturally competitive. Nobody really participates in sports in a vacuum. Even practice (rallying in tennis, practicing shooting hoops, playing catch) will usually eventually evolve into something more because most people practice because they want to be good for competitive encounters.

But the number of competitive venues for academics are much fewer and far between. Debate competitions. Academic Leagues. Vying for valedictorian. They do happen, but they are still largely the exception and not the rule--most people don't try for good grades to best someone else, but because they recognize the importance of education and self-improvement.

That's why it's far douchier to rub people's faces in your "brainy" achievements--because most people who are doing homework or trying to graduate or earn an advanced degree don't see it as a competition. They simply see it as a sign of individual achievement, using their own set of standards for "success".

Sports (not just P.E.) is always voluntary. School is not. Some people are natural grade-earners and some people aren't, but everyone still has to comply with a standardized system of evaluation. But outside of jerkwad teachers and overzealous parents, few adults try to pit students against each other in competition based on those scores; the emphasis is on doing well, not being "the best".

Of course, that doesn't stop some of the more immodest smartypants from making it their goal in life to lord over their "inferiors" in those departments. But unlike a sports league or game tournament, most students don't see their academic efforts through that prism of competition. Which is why turning it into one makes you that bigger of a jerk for doing so.

[figure9]

There are also a lot of smart people that are worshiped and glorified by the media. To name a few obvious examples: Buffett, Gates, Jobs, etc.
I think your examples are worshiped more for their wealth than their smarts.

[Creole Tomato]

I think your examples are worshiped more for their wealth than their smarts.

Agreed.

I think the OP is correct. Academic all-stars and star athletes are both born AND made. In other words, the natural gift is there and is nurtured. No matter how much I practice, I'll never be Serena Williams. She's a natural athlete; I'm not. There are several theories of giftedness which also recognize that genius is inherent, yet nurtured. I think we can all agree to this?

Athletic giftedness, however, is more socially acceptable than intellectual giftedness. In fact, I'd say that athletic giftedness is the ONLY form of giftedness that is truly supported and admired. In our schools, athletic programs are probably the ideal gifted program: special teachers (coaches) are hired, expensive equipment is purchased, and sufficient campus space is devoted. The gifted students (athletes) are given individualized attention and training, they're able to spend large amounts of time with peers who are similarly gifted, they are encouraged and rewarded to do their very best, and they are given the opportunity to travel to other schools to complete with other talented individuals.


Wouldn't it be wonderful if we devoted that much money, resources, and time to our intellectually gifted students?

[Hodiggity1]

I think your examples are worshiped more for their wealth than their smarts.

What do you base your assertion on?

Buffett, Gates, and Jobs are all highly sought after for their opinions - on the economy, the evolution on computing, the financial climate of the US, etc. You don't hear people asking Paris Hilton about the same things (at least, not in any serious in-depth way).

For a rough illustration, I typed in Bill Gates under Google news. Some of the articles that pop up are:

Some interesting interviews with three of the greatest businessmen in history conducted by Fox Business New’s correspondent liz claiborne. They discuss a variety of topics including derivatives, railroads and BNI, the auto industry, financial regulation and more. (http://www.dailymarkets.com/stocks/2010/05/03/five-great-interviews-with-bill-gates-warren-buffett-and-charlie-munger/)

Bill Gates: Microsoft is Working On 'a Lot of Tablets' (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Tablet-Courier-Apple-iPad-HP-Slate,10336.html)

Those aren't articles about the latest cars Gates is buying with his wealth. They are seeking his knowledge on some of the current macro topics facing our nation.

[even sven]

Teacher here...

One factor is that learning really requires an atmosphere of trust. In order to really push your brain into places it has never been before, you need to be willing to open yourself up to new ideas and question that assumptions that you have been making your entire life. This makes you vulnerable- which is not a state you are going to let yourself enter if you are being heckled.

Students will certainly harass each other if the opportunity presents itself. One of the jobs of a teacher is to diffuse that energy and direct it towards learning.

[Hodiggity1]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we devoted that much money, resources, and time to our intellectually gifted students?

We do. It's called academic decathalon. Model UN. Advanced placement courses. Merit-based scholarships. Fellowships. Research grants. Nobel prizes. Pulitzer prizes. Etc.

[Hodiggity1]

We do. It's called academic decathalon. Model UN. Advanced placement courses. Merit-based scholarships. Fellowships. Research grants. Nobel prizes. Pulitzer prizes. Etc.

I might have overshot with my examples of the prizes if we are limiting it to students, but the point still stands. There are plenty of resources for the intellectually gifted among us.

[Magiver]

Smart Guy to Strong Guy: "My vast intellect dwarfs yours, you muscle-bound cretin!"
Strong Guy to Smart Guy: "I'm gonna kick your ass!"
[Stage Direction: Strong Guy kicks Smart Guy's ass.] which is why Smart Guy is smart enough to wait it out until he/she becomes Strong Guy's boss.

[Random Design]

I suppose you could also ask why a guy throwing or kicking a ball around a field gets a stadium full of cheering support, but a student completing an essay or thesis gets no interest from anyone.
Or why, if both of them follow on to relatively successful careers (i.e. sports star and academic) there will be such a huge disparity between salaries and general social recognition.

[Lust4Life]

I think, to answer the O.P., that the reason is that intelligence is inherent whereas fitness comes as a result of training.

But of course everyone is supposed to be equal, so we get all the little balancers such as A is "better educated "then B, the inference from this being if only B had been given the same educational opportunities as A then he/she would be as intellecuatley developed as A.

Of course, laziness and motivation aside this doesn't explain why those identically educated are often not identical when it comes to intellectual performance.

The other balancers are that everyone is differently abilitied.
i.e. C may be functionally illiterate but he makes up for it by being a brilliant carpenter.

Unfortunately this theory doesn't prove to be true in the real world either, inspite of the triumphalism of those who when they actually discover someone of high intelligence who is lacking in some other field.

When I and others passed the competative entry exam to attend a Grammar school rather then less academic institutions, there were a lot of hurt feelings and a sense of unfairness amongst not just the kids who failed but, their adult families.

The reason being that if you were funtionally literate, numerate and scored high on I.Q. tests then you should be at the very least, wimps, and easy to beat up.

But this was nowhere near the case.

But that said, we're still all equal aren't we.

Aren't we?

I'll bet this post makes me popular.

[Creole Tomato]

We do. It's called academic decathalon. Model UN. Advanced placement courses. Merit-based scholarships. Fellowships. Research grants. Nobel prizes. Pulitzer prizes. Etc.

We spend less than pennies to the dollar, if you're comparing school athletics and programs for academically high achieving students.

[Creole Tomato]

I think, to answer the O.P., that the reason is that intelligence is inherent whereas fitness comes as a result of training.

I'll bet this post makes me popular.


The OP's example was the star school athlete, whose ability is as inherent as intelligence.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I suppose you could also ask why a guy throwing or kicking a ball around a field gets a stadium full of cheering support, but a student completing an essay or thesis gets no interest from anyone.
Or why, if both of them follow on to relatively successful careers (i.e. sports star and academic) there will be such a huge disparity between salaries and general social recognition.

Is this really that hard to figure out? Sports are vastly more interesting to watch than a guy writing an essay.

Similarly, the pay disparity is easily explained: Wayne Rooney brings in millions in sponsorhip, TV rights and other fan monies for his club. His playing career will last approximately 15-18 years, in which time there's a small chance that it could be ended early by a "horror tackle", or some other injury. Finally, once his career is up, what is he supposed to do? His whole life has been centred on sport, at the expense of other forms of education. He's virtually unemployable in any other capacity, apart from going on to coach a football team, or commentate on TV, both professions which only a few ex-footballers can enter each year.

If you want to attract talent, you have to pay well. Especially so when the average working career of a sportsman is twenty years at the most.

[Marley23]

That's why it's far douchier to rub people's faces in your "brainy" achievements--because most people who are doing homework or trying to graduate or earn an advanced degree don't see it as a competition. They simply see it as a sign of individual achievement, using their own set of standards for "success".
Well put.

I suppose you could also ask why a guy throwing or kicking a ball around a field gets a stadium full of cheering support, but a student completing an essay or thesis gets no interest from anyone.
Yes, and then we could discuss which one is more interesting to watch. Not that I'm denying the fact that athletic achievement does get more social recognition. It does. Sports is a lot more likely to be part of father-son bonding from an early age than research is, and it's easier for more people to relate to athletic achievement.

[RTFirefly]

Additionally, I had a track coach in HS that used to curse, insult, and was just generally a rude bastard. This was seen as “okay” since he was motivating us to win, do better, etc… But if a History teacher called me a “lazy slow bastard who needs to study more or buy a dress”, I have a feeling someone is getting fired.I'd like to run with just this one part of the OP. There clearly ARE different standards of behavior at the high school and college levels for teachers vis-a-vis coaches towards their students/"student-athletes."

The question is, why? I remember one time when my (college) students had collectively sucked on a test that I felt I'd prepared them well for. A football or basketball coach could have thrown a chair in a locker room after his team embarrassed itself on the playing field; that one particular morning, I wished that, after handing out the tests, I could have thrown a chair in the classroom. Instead, I told them that if I had the freedom that a coach did, I would be throwing a chair right about then.

Makes me wonder, if a teacher did throw a chair in a classroom at a high school or college where the coaches occasionally did the same thing, and the administration tried to sanction him because of it, would he be able to make any hay out of the uneven enforcement of that standard?

[JThunder]

I think, to answer the O.P., that the reason is that intelligence is inherent ....As others have already pointed out, it's not entirely inherent. Just as athletic ability isn't, either.

[Hodiggity1]

We spend less than pennies to the dollar, if you're comparing school athletics and programs for academically high achieving students.

Do you have numbers on spending per student-athlete vs. spending per high-achieving student to back this up?

[Damuri Ajashi]

... I know nobody likes to look like an idiot, but hell if I played Michael Jordon in a game of pick-up he would without any doubt make me look like an idiot on the court and he would probably laugh while doing it as would anyone watching. But if we switch the venue and we do an IQ test and I score some 50pts higher (not saying I would) I would be an ass for rubbing it in HIS face and making him feel stupid.

Is this just our social agreement? We can beat you down if we are stronger, but if we are smarter we better be nice? How did we get here? Is there anything we can do to change?

Additionally, I had a track coach in HS that used to curse, insult, and was just generally a rude bastard. This was seen as “okay” since he was motivating us to win, do better, etc… But if a History teacher called me a “lazy slow bastard who needs to study more or buy a dress”, I have a feeling someone is getting fired.

I love the last line.

Generally speaking this sort of intellectual humiliation is only allowed with consent. Debates often come down to making your opponent look like an idiot.

Lawyers try to make each other look stupid all the time.

Businessmen do the same thing.

But making someone look stupid at a cocktail party is about as appropriate as putting someone in a headlock and giving them noogies and a wedgie during a cocktail party.

[Creole Tomato]

Do you have numbers on spending per student-athlete vs. spending per high-achieving student to back this up?

I can dig up some articles this evening, but federal spending for gifted education isn't pennies to the dollar--it's two cents of every hundred dollars. Neither is gifted education mandated federally, leaving the decision strictly up to states or districts. Only about half the states mandate ANY services for gifted education, and only five or six fully fund a mandate. About 1/4 of states provide no money at all to districts for gifted services.

There's one federal grant available for gifted education, and the moneys are cut nearly every year. I believe it was nearly $12 million a few years ago, but now it's something like $7 million (of a total budget of more than $68 billion.) This grant money may not be used by states to support their gifted programs. It goes to research, mostly.

Gifted programs are, therefore, hit or miss. In wealthier districts, services are typically good to excellent. Unfortunately, even in these districts, in times of budget shortfall, gifted programs are usually considered expendable. In poor districts, services are usually an afterthought or nonexistent. To run, these programs need staffing (it's recommended that there be one teacher for every 10-12 students), classroom space (although gifted classrooms often share space with other ancillary classes), and classroom resources that are hopefully similar to other classrooms, but often less. On average, in states that DO fund gifted ed, states spend about $200 year per gifted student. In states that do not, of course, they spend nothing.

Athletic programs pay coaches more than teachers (sometimes $20k more), have costs that include insurance, facility maintenance, equipment and supplies, travel and meals, scouting stipends, a district athletic director salary, sport facility maintenance, and you could even put a dollar amount on the value of the land needed for those stadiums and fields, not to mention utility costs during games, band travel costs (and perhaps make a case that marching bands exist for athletic events), and cheerleading costs. Yet not once, during a time of financial shortfall will you hear a district say "Let's cut out athletics." Yes, the athletics (especially football) do bring in some money via boosters and game admission, but the earnings are typically not enough to support the athletic department as a whole. It isn't unheard of for high schools to build multimillion dollar sporting facilities. In one of the schools I did dissertation research (not on this topic) in, the budget for gifted services was less than the budget for the girl's softball team.

I love sports, and I do not advocate dropping athletics. My point is that it would be nice if we valued our intellectually gifted students as much as we value our athletically gifted.

[Tom Tildrum]

One's intellectual ability has more universal consequences than one's athletic ability. Being called a bad athlete means you're going to be a failure at sports, which for most people, in the end, is just a game. Being called stupid means you're going to be a failure at life, so it's a bigger insult. With some exceptions, of course.

[athelas]

One's intellectual ability has more universal consequences than one's athletic ability. Being called a bad athlete means you're going to be a failure at sports, which for most people, in the end, is just a game. Being called stupid means you're going to be a failure at life, so it's a bigger insult. With some exceptions, of course.Not necessarily. Athleticism is correlated with (though by no means guarantees) health, good physique, and social dominance, all of which are huge advantages in life.

[Justin_Bailey]

We spend less than pennies to the dollar, if you're comparing school athletics and programs for academically high achieving students.

I very much doubt this.

I went to a pretty typical public high school in the 90s and the textbooks for the gifted classes (called Honors at this school) were likely comparable to sports teams.

Of course, my school did not have dedicated coaches for any sports, they were coached by regular teachers earning a coaching bonus in their paycheck every week.

Ironically, the girls soccer coach taught Honors math.

[Hodiggity1]

Thanks Creole, I'm definitely interested in taking a look at these articles, but I also have issues with the numbers you state right now. The first thing you say a few posts ago is:

We spend less than pennies to the dollar, if you're comparing school athletics and programs for academically high achieving students.


So you are saying that for every $1 of athletic spending, we spend pennies on high achieving students. Then, you state:

I can dig up some articles this evening, but federal spending for gifted education isn't pennies to the dollar--it's two cents of every hundred dollars.


Now you are talking about federal gov't spending for gifted programs (a subset of high achieving students), and when you say they spend two cents of every hundred dollars, are you comparing it to total government spending? If so, you are changing the comparison points. I'm interested in comparing high achieving student spending (NOT just gifted - we need to include AP and honor courses, extra curricular activities like model UN, debate, academic decathlon, etc.) vs. student-athlete spending. We also have to look at comparable spending - you switch from federal gifted program funding to individual school athletic spending, which isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

[SecretaryofEvil]

Wait, we don't make fun of people for being stupid or ignorant? It's not my best character trait, but I make fun of people for being stupid all the time. I think insults like retard of moron are more common than insults like nerd or egghead. And nerd is generally used to imply lack of social skills more than just "you're intelligent and that's bad." Aside from that awesome feeling one gets from picking on someone physically or socially weaker, isn't it likely that these guys who made fun of you did so because they were embarrassed or intimidated or whatever by your superior academic success? Even the comment "What, you think you're Einstein?" doesn't really imply that being smart is bad, but rather that you think you're smarter than you are. I mean the rough equivalent would be saying something like "Oh yeah, you're totally gonna have a career in the NFL," real sarcastically to the star football player.

I have more to say on this subject, especially about how I don't understand the obsession some people have with sports, but I have to go. I shall return, more verbose than before.

[figure9]

I think humiliating people is a symptom of insecurity. If someone feels inferior in one aspect they can make themselves feel better by flaunting there superiority in another aspect. Humiliating someone is done by insecure people of all stripes. I have seen "smart" people deliberately talk over the head of someone just to show that they are smarter. Confident people do not need to humiliate someone in order to feel better about themselves. Our high-school's star athlete was one of the nicest people I have ever met. He never tried to humiliate anyone.
BTW I would have answered the question, "Do you think you're some kind of Einstein?" by saying, "Einstein, no way! Oppenheimer maybe or Sagan, but not Einstein."
Gives you both a chance to laugh and shows you're not too full of yourself.

[Trepa Mayfield]

But of course everyone is supposed to be equal, so we get all the little balancers such as A is "better educated "then B...

Of course, laziness and motivation aside this doesn't explain why those identically educated are often not identical when it comes to intellectual performance.

I don't think you can just sweep laziness aside. There are many people who, if it weren't for laziness and lack of motivation, could become star athletes. Granted, you'd need a lot of motivation, but you need a lot of motivation to get a Ph.D. People don't just skate through graduate school--at least, the vast, vast majority don't.

And similarly, oftentimes it is just laziness separating the "A" students from the "B" students. One group bothered to study and refresh themselves on the material, the other couldn't be bothered. Heck, the idea of 'smart but lazy' is an entire archetype.

[msmith537]

which is why Smart Guy is smart enough to wait it out until he/she becomes Strong Guy's boss.

A smart boss knows he doesn't know everything and hires people even smarter than.;)


It takes more to be successful than just being a smug little bookworm. Some of the best colleges have a long tradition of "scholar / athletes". They look for people who are accomplished not just in the classroom but on the athletic field as well. One can learn a lot about stuff like teamwork, dedication and competition from sports.



BTW I would have answered the question, "Do you think you're some kind of Einstein?" by saying, "Einstein, no way! Oppenheimer maybe or Sagan, but not Einstein."
Gives you both a chance to laugh and shows you're not too full of yourself.

Or to see the inside of a locker.

[figure9]

Or to see the inside of a locker.
True. I guess humor can break the ice, but it can also backfire.

[Hold Fast]

In High School I had a 9th grade homeroom, but took all 10th grade classes. One day someone asked me if I thought I was an Einstein and instead of just saying “hell ya”, I chickened out and said “no, it was all my parents idea”. Now aside from the whole “need to belong” every teenager feels in HS, that memory made me wonder some…

Had I been on the court, track, field, whatever… and was clearly better than anyone else, and continually made everyone look foolish on the field despite me only being in the 9th grade, I would have been celebrated. But If I’m smarter than you and embarrass you in the classroom, well damn, I can’t even list the number of names I would have been called or the fights that probably would have ensued. I would like to think this is just HS behavior but when I take a look around today I see the same thing.

Athletes’ are expected to strut, humble, and generally make their opponents look like idiots. Hell, the athletes who do that the best are generally the most famous. However, if we are in a social gathering and you say something stupid and I call you out and make you look even more stupid, I’m a dick. A big dick.

But why?

Is this some evolutionary thing that causes us to celebrate the strong over the “weak”? I know nobody likes to look like an idiot, but hell if I played Michael Jordon in a game of pick-up he would without any doubt make me look like an idiot on the court and he would probably laugh while doing it as would anyone watching. But if we switch the venue and we do an IQ test and I score some 50pts higher (not saying I would) I would be an ass for rubbing it in HIS face and making him feel stupid.

Is this just our social agreement? We can beat you down if we are stronger, but if we are smarter we better be nice? How did we get here? Is there anything we can do to change?

Additionally, I had a track coach in HS that used to curse, insult, and was just generally a rude bastard. This was seen as “okay” since he was motivating us to win, do better, etc… But if a History teacher called me a “lazy slow bastard who needs to study more or buy a dress”, I have a feeling someone is getting fired.

I think people give a little more wiggle room for athletes, because when your doing somthing physical, your adrenaline in pumping and what not, and a celebration in on the field would be much different from getting an A in the classroom.

I have to say though, I completely disagree with your statement, " Athletes’ are expected to strut, humble, and generally make their opponents look like idiots. Hell, the athletes who do that the best are generally the most famous." No doubt someone on television is praised for doing such acts, because lets face it, it makes good TV. That does not, however, make them any less of a douche then the guy who calls out someone in a classroom and says how stupid the kid is.

"But if we switch the venue and we do an IQ test and I score some 50pts higher (not saying I would) I would be an ass for rubbing it in HIS face and making him feel stupid." Yea, you would...and so would he for doing the same thing. I think your confusing what people like to see and enjoy watching, and what is actually the right thing to do.

[Creole Tomato]

We also have to look at comparable spending - you switch from federal gifted program funding to individual school athletic spending, which isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

No, I didn't mean that it was. Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear. I was just using a figure that I think is indicative of the general lack of importance placed on services for the gifted overall.

I think you're wanting me to use an operational definition of gifted spending to include devoted programming as well as AP, IB, and even extracurricular activities that might mostly be of interest to students of high intelligence. Those would be hard to quantify (as I'm sure you realized) but I don't think it matters. By even the most generous numbers, there's not much of a comparison to spending on high school athletics. We just don't spend that much. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html) This article estimates a total of $800 million, but that's the most generous I've seen. Most estimates are about $600 million. This includes state and local outlays, and is estimated periodically by the NAGC and CEC. The last published federal government estimate that I can think of was in this (http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/part2.html) report, which put a $395m figure (1990). The article concedes that this was likely a high point for funding, and budget cuts likely had had an effect since the study was conducted (as gifted programs are often the first to be cut from schools, as a cursory search on Google will demonstrate.) So although I think the $800 million is likely an overestimate, I'm happy to use it.

Now to athletic funding. These numbers, also, are difficult to extrapolate (as I'm sure you also realized) but not impossible. No organization that I can find estimates the total outlay on high-school sports in the US, but I didn't really have to look that far to see astounding numbers. For example, in the Charlotte-Mecklenberg school district alone, the middle school athletic budget is 1.3 million (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/03/23/1331251/fees-considered-for-middle-school.html) dollars. The state of New Jersey spends about 200 million dollars (http://www.gscschools.org/gsc/News%20Articles/10-26-09%20'High%20school%20sports%20spending%20grows%20as%20budgets%20get%20tighter%20inNew%20Jersey'.htm l/_body) on high school athletics. This district (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-07-13/story/high_school_football_makes_money_but_not_enough) spends nearly $4 million on just coaches' pay supplements and game security. Boston public schools are angry because they only receive four million, (http://www.sportsfan4.com/football/show-them-the-money-sports-strapped-for-cash-at-boston-public-high-schools/) when according to state averages, their district should be allocating $30 million dollars.
If I'm able to use a middle school program, one district's staff and security costs alone, a metropolitan district that is "underfunded," and the outlay of one state to equal nearly one-third of the entire gifted funding of the nation, I think that's significant. I'm sure I could find more; these were the first that came up.

And since we're talking about what we spend on high-school athletics versus academic programs for high-achieving students, we can't leave out donations. Many states are cutting athletic budgets, unfortunately. Some have even zeroed out athletic spending (and gifted spending as well, for that matter.) But there is an astounding amount of private money that is poured into high school athletics. I found several articles documenting the big business that high school sports has become. I thought the Allen, Texas decision to spend 59.6 million dollars (http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20100416_Texas_high_school_opens__59_M_football_stadium.html) on a football stadium was an anomaly (it's Texas, after all) but nope. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaqG21AIhLvM&refer=us) I have trouble believe that the chess club or debate team boosters are lining up to procure millions or even hundreds of thousands in donations. As a sort of humorous example of the disparity, The Center for Reinventing Public Education found (in a study of how public schools allocate funds) that one school spent $328 per student for advanced math courses and $1,348 per cheerleader for cheerleading activities. They've published an interesting book (http://www.urban.org/books/educationaleconomics/index.cfm) on their overall findings.

So yeah, we put far more money into school athletics than we do into programs for the academically gifted. Truthfully, after doing a bit of research to give you some numbers, it's worse than I thought.

[Justin_Bailey]

Now to athletic funding. These numbers, also, are difficult to extrapolate (as I'm sure you also realized) but not impossible. No organization that I can find estimates the total outlay on high-school sports in the US, but I didn't really have to look that far to see astounding numbers. For example, in the Charlotte-Mecklenberg school district alone, the middle school athletic budget is 1.3 million (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/03/23/1331251/fees-considered-for-middle-school.html) dollars.

Did you read that entire article? The $1.3 million number is the sports budget for all 32 middle schools in the district. Also as noted in the article, the total budget for all of the schools in the entire district is $1 billion.

You're not playing fair with the numbers and not proving your point at all.

[Creole Tomato]

Did you read that entire article? The $1.3 million number is the sports budget for all 32 middle schools in the district. Also as noted in the article, the total budget for all of the schools in the entire district is $1 billion.

You're not playing fair with the numbers and not proving your point at all.

:confused:

Explain to me how the overall district budget is relevant, and how spending 1.4 million on sports in a single middle school versus 1,000 middle schools in the district undermines my point.

We spend 800 million dollars TOTAL, IN THE NATION on gifted ed. I was able to make up nearly a third of that using one state and a few districts in other states.
Wanting to argue about how many schools that is pointless, unless you believe that a greater number of schools in the US offer gifted services than athletic programs. Which would also be wrong. :rolleyes:

[Justin_Bailey]

:confused:

Explain to me how the overall district budget is relevant, and how spending 1.4 million on sports in a single middle school versus 1,000 middle schools in the district undermines my point.

First of all, it's 1.3 million.

Second of all, that $1.3 million is spread across 32 schools, meaning each school spends about $40,000 on sports. When you factor in all the equipment and pay for coaches, that is an incredibly tiny number.

And the total budget is important because $1.3 million out of $1 billion is just slightly higher than 0.1%. How can that small percentage be too much?

We spend 800 million dollars TOTAL, IN THE NATION on gifted ed. I was able to make up nearly a third of that using one state and a few districts in other states.
Wanting to argue about how many schools that is pointless, unless you believe that a greater number of schools in the US offer gifted services than athletic programs. Which would also be wrong. :rolleyes:

The $800 million in the Time article does not cite any study where the number came from. It also doesn't define what "gifted programs" actually entail. Is it Honors classes? Is it putting an 8th grader in 9th grade classes for certain subjects? Is it AP classes? Is it the IB program?

At this point, you're just flinging numbers around. Numbers that don't prove anything. But what do I know, I'm not "gifted", I just took part in the Honors program during high school.

[Creole Tomato]

First of all, it's 1.3 million.

Second of all, that $1.3 million is spread across 32 schools, meaning each school spends about $40,000 on sports. When you factor in all the equipment and pay for coaches, that is an incredibly tiny number.

And the total budget is important because $1.3 million out of $1 billion is just slightly higher than 0.1%. How can that small percentage be too much?


I didn't say it was too much. You're overreaching if you're accusing me of undervaluing school athletics. That's not what this is about. We're trying to establish actual spending, not what it should be.

The $800 million in the Time article does not cite any study where the number came from. It also doesn't define what "gifted programs" actually entail. Is it Honors classes? Is it putting an 8th grader in 9th grade classes for certain subjects? Is it AP classes? Is it the IB program?

At this point, you're just flinging numbers around. Numbers that don't prove anything. But what do I know, I'm not "gifted", I just took part in the Honors program during high school.

True, it IS hard to know what each district judges "gifted spending" largely because there is no standard set by either the US or even by most states. Districts are often left to decide who is "gifted," what gifted is, and which programs will fall under that umbrella, and whether or not they'll provide any services to those students at all. It may be possible that in some districts, honors classes are counted into the total. It's just as possible that in other districts, honors classes are funded as part of the general instructional fund.

It's also hard to know what schools actually spend on "athletics." I didn't think it was fair to count general physical education classes and intramurals in that mix, but I think I could make a case that those would qualify as "athletics." I also could have combed through budgets and tried to figure out facility fees, money spend on marching bands prorated for athletic events, pep squads and cheerleading, etc. etc. That would add a lot to the total outlay, though, so I decided to use a few examples of what districts spend on athletic teams only.

In other words, for both categories, I chose the operational definition that was less favorable to my position. For advanced students, I used the broadest number I could find (and which even the reporter thinks might be an overestimation) that is reported by districts. If that doesn't work for you, feel free to tell me what you think it should be. For "school athletics" I used the narrowest example I could think of--athletic teams (I'm sure that will work fine for you, though.)

Regardless, even adjusting for per student spending (there are about 7 million students on athletic teams, and an estimated 3 million gifted students--probably more under the definition you've set, but again I'll use the least favorable one) I think the numbers are compelling.

So yeah, you're right. I did manipulate numbers a bit--I chose the available data that were most favorable to your argument. If you wish to use different data, please tell me which you prefer. Otherwise, simply yelling that you don't agree with my categorizations is moot.

[Justin_Bailey]

True, it IS hard to know what each district judges "gifted spending" largely because there is no standard set by either the US or even by most states. Districts are often left to decide who is "gifted," what gifted is, and which programs will fall under that umbrella, and whether or not they'll provide any services to those students at all. It may be possible that in some districts, honors classes are counted into the total. It's just as possible that in other districts, honors classes are funded as part of the general instructional fund.

But see, this is the crux of why your argument fails. I just looked at the annual budget for my local school district. Nothing is separated out in any meaningful way. Teacher salaries for multiple schools are lumped together. But then, teacher salaries for special ed kids are separated out, but again, multiple schools are lumped together. Then, the computer teacher staff are separated out. "Supervision" is considered separate from teachers, but no explanation of what Supervision is is given.

They only thing that can be easily counted is the line for Athletics, which comes to a little less than 1% of the budget for all schools in the district. And 25% of that amount is raised through ticket sales, clothing sales and straight up fundraising.

However, with this number I can do some quick and dirty calculations on how that relates to the gifted students because the budget also includes graduation numbers and class sizes.

Later in the budget, it showed that in the last three years, the school had 74 graduates. Of those 704, 235 graduated as part of the Honors program.

The math shows us that 33% of the student population took part in the Honors program, meaning that even if you limit "Honors program spending" to 33% of the general teacher salaries, you come up with a number much, much larger than the Athletics budget.

[Creole Tomato]

The math shows us that 33% of the student population took part in the Honors program.

No. It doesn't.

[Justin_Bailey]

No. It doesn't.

Yes, it does. There are 704 total graduates and 235 graduate from the Honors program.

Now, I'm no math supergenius, but that most certainly comes to 33%.

[Creole Tomato]

But see, this is the crux of why your argument fails. I just looked at the annual budget for my local school district. Nothing is separated out in any meaningful way. Teacher salaries for multiple schools are lumped together. But then, teacher salaries for special ed kids are separated out, but again, multiple schools are lumped together. Then, the computer teacher staff are separated out. "Supervision" is considered separate from teachers, but no explanation of what Supervision is is given.

However, with this number I can do some quick and dirty calculations on how that relates to the gifted students because the budget also includes graduation numbers and class sizes.

Later in the budget, it showed that in the last three years, the school had 74 graduates. Of those 704, 235 graduated as part of the Honors program.

The math shows us that 33% of the student population took part in the Honors program, meaning that even if you limit "Honors program spending" to 33% of the general teacher salaries, you come up with a number much, much larger than the Athletics budget.

Yes, it does. There are 704 total graduates and 235 graduate from the Honors program.

Now, I'm no math supergenius, but that most certainly comes to 33%.

Yes, ok. One-third of the students in last year's graduating class took at least one Honors class. From that, we can deduce that one-third of the total students in your school district, grades K-12 (and probably including Early Childhood programming) were enrolled in the Honors program, and therefore it makes perfect sense that fully one-third of all the teachers in your district, grades K-12 (and again, probably including Early Childhood) taught Honors classes full-time.

No problem with your logic at all. Carry on.

Just for jollies, how many of the 704 students that graduated last year played sports, or were at least enrolled in P.E.? What? Nearly all of them?! But that would mean..... :rolleyes:

[Justin_Bailey]

Yes, ok. One-third of the students in last year's graduating class took at least one Honors class. From that, we can deduce that one-third of the total students in your school district, grades K-12 (and probably including Early Childhood programming) were enrolled in the Honors program, and therefore it makes perfect sense that fully one-third of all the teachers in your district, grades K-12 (and again, probably including Early Childhood) taught Honors classes full-time.

No problem with your logic at all. Carry on.

Alright fine. We'll do it your way.

235 students graduated from the Honors program, this is a New York state program that requires a certain number of Honor classes to graduate with an Honors diploma. It's a lot more than 1, I think closer to 12.

And I never said 1/3 of all teachers K-12 taught Honors classes. I said 1/3 of the teacher salaries (the closest breakdown is 7-12) is still way, way above the Athletics budget.

[Zoe]

As strange as it may sound, gifted students are special education students. Yet out of every $100 set aside for special education, only $1 goes to gifted programs. The rest goes to programs for students with learning disabilities. That has never seemed fair at all.

(These are statistics from about five years ago.)

[Creole Tomato]

Alright fine. We'll do it your way.

235 students graduated from the Honors program, this is a New York state program that requires a certain number of Honor classes to graduate with an Honors diploma. It's a lot more than 1, I think closer to 12.

And I never said 1/3 of all teachers K-12 taught Honors classes. I said 1/3 of the teacher salaries (the closest breakdown is 7-12) is still way, way above the Athletics budget.

:smack:
Please stop. Seriously.

[Justin_Bailey]

:smack:
Please stop. Seriously.

How about, instead of being all know-it-ally, you tell me exactly how my numbers and calculations are wrong.

[Creole Tomato]

How about, instead of being all know-it-ally, you tell me exactly how my numbers and calculations are wrong.

Because, frankly, I'm tired of you, and I find I have little time to spend on this kind of bullshit. In addition, there are so many problems that it will be a pain in the ass to list and address them all. Finally, I think that even after I've done that, you'll still want to be a smartass about how you're "not gifted, just an Honors student." (Although, one-third of the students in your district are--according to your uncited information--Honors students. Where the hell do you live? Lake Woebegone?)

Did you read that entire article? The $1.3 million number is the sports budget for all 32 middle schools in the district. Also as noted in the article, the total budget for all of the schools in the entire district is $1 billion.

You're not playing fair with the numbers and not proving your point at all.

(snip)

Second of all, that $1.3 million is spread across 32 schools, meaning each school spends about $40,000 on sports. When you factor in all the equipment and pay for coaches, that is an incredibly tiny number.

And the total budget is important because $1.3 million out of $1 billion is just slightly higher than 0.1%. How can that small percentage be too much?

(snip)

At this point, you're just flinging numbers around. Numbers that don't prove anything. But what do I know, I'm not "gifted", I just took part in the Honors program during high school.

You missed the point from the very beginning. The breakdown on individual schools' budgets (or districts) by percentage has fuck all to do with anything. The point was to get an idea of TOTAL national spending in real numbers. It doesn't matter if the budgeting for any program is 95% of spending or .00001% of spending. Only the total amount spent matters. If you spent 40% of your paycheck on hamsters, and your friend spent 1% of his paycheck on hamsters, but you each bought one hamster for $3.96, does that mean you spent more money? If your friend says that states spent 4 million dollars on sidewalk cement, and was able to prove that Florida alone spent 3.96 million, would you be yelling that he was just "flinging numbers around" because that 3.96 million made up only .0000000001% of the state budget, so how could it be too much?


But see, this is the crux of why your argument fails. I just looked at the annual budget for my local school district. Nothing is separated out in any meaningful way. Teacher salaries for multiple schools are lumped together. But then, teacher salaries for special ed kids are separated out, but again, multiple schools are lumped together. Then, the computer teacher staff are separated out. "Supervision" is considered separate from teachers, but no explanation of what Supervision is is given.

You give an uncited reference to a school budget, in which you say that "nothing is separated out in any meaningful way. Teacher salaries for multiple schools are lumped together." But that didn't stop you from counting Athletics, which you say was only 1% of the budget, again missing the point.


However, with this number I can do some quick and dirty calculations on how that relates to the gifted students because the budget also includes graduation numbers and class sizes.

Later in the budget, it showed that in the last three years, the school had 74 graduates. Of those 704, 235 graduated as part of the Honors program.


Then from this budget in which "nothing was separated out in a meaningful way" with "teacher salaries lumped together" you decide two amazing things. First of all, since 33% of graduates graduated as part of the Honors program,

The math shows us that 33% of the student population took part in the Honors program.

No. It shows that 33% of the last few graduating classes took part in the Honors program. And second,
meaning that even if you limit "Honors program spending" to 33% of the general teacher salaries, you come up with a number much, much larger than the Athletics budget.

How you assumed that 33% of the general teachers salaries should be charged to the Honors program is beyond me. What if we found out that all the students learned a foreign language at the high school. Could we then say that 100% of the general teacher salaries were spent on foreign languages? Add in a meaningless comparison to your athletics budget (which again, means fuckall coming from an uncited source that has no indication of being representative of national spending), and you're completely off the rails.

Alright fine. We'll do it your way.

235 students graduated from the Honors program, this is a New York state program that requires a certain number of Honor classes to graduate with an Honors diploma. It's a lot more than 1, I think closer to 12.

And I never said 1/3 of all teachers K-12 taught Honors classes. I said 1/3 of the teacher salaries (the closest breakdown is 7-12) is still way, way above the Athletics budget.

Suddenly, you were able to break down the school salary spending to elementary versus middle/high school. It's like a miracle happened since the first time you looked at that budget! Then you "think" the number of classes needed to be an Honor graduate is "closer to 12." Not that it matters at this point.

My own high school spent zero on athletics and all their curricular and instructional funding on gifted students--it was a residential high school for gifted kids. Who cares?? What exactly does that mean when we're talking about the overall school funding of the entire country in real numbers? We could argue about budget percentages until we're both grandparents, and it makes a rat's ass bit of difference.

See?

[A Dodgy Dude]

You're not supposed to be humiliating your opponent in sports. In baseball, most teams have something called a "seven and seven" rule: if we are winning by seven runs or more and the game in the seventh inning or later, we stop trying so hard. Call it "professional courtesy."

The idea is to beat your opponent, not belittle them.

[Random Design]

Is this really that hard to figure out? Sports are vastly more interesting to watch than a guy writing an essay.


To you perhaps. There is a large population of people that would strongly disagree, and I would be one of them despite not being female.

Finally, once his career is up, what is he supposed to do?

Cry crocodile tears while lamenting his poor life decisions?

He's virtually unemployable in any other capacity, apart from going on to coach a football team,

I suppose you missed the irony of what you just wrote here, so I'll outline it: sports stars are economically useless once their starriness fades. The fact they spent countless hours on a field dedicating themselves to being so empirically useless - KNOWing they will have no other place in society if they do - does not warrant paying them exorbitant amounts while all their limbs and joints are still functional.


If you want to attract talent, you have to pay well.

Indeed. So you tell me why you wouldn't want educators to be among the most well-paid of professions.

[Hodiggity1]

To you perhaps. There is a large population of people that would strongly disagree, and I would be one of them despite not being female.

Cry crocodile tears while lamenting his poor life decisions?

I suppose you missed the irony of what you just wrote here, so I'll outline it: sports stars are economically useless once their starriness fades. The fact they spent countless hours on a field dedicating themselves to being so empirically useless - KNOWing they will have no other place in society if they do - does not warrant paying them exorbitant amounts while all their limbs and joints are still functional.


You sound really bitter. Do you feel the same way about musicians, actors, writers? If not, what makes a sports star "empirically useless" compared to other entertainers?

You try to highlight the ridiculousness of sports stars' high pay based on their economic "uselessness" after their career, but you actually make the case for their high pay. They engage in a profession that has a short career span, is highly valued by the consumer, and demands highly specialized skills that only a minuscule percentage of the population has. That sounds like great leverage in salary negotiations.




Indeed. So you tell me why you wouldn't want educators to be among the most well-paid of professions.

Supply and demand. It doesn't take a math major to teach high school math. This opens the position to a wider pool of applicants, shifting the supply curve right (vs. requiring math teachers to major in math) and putting downward pressure on wages.

On the other hand, college professors make good money - average salary is $108,749 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm#earnings) That puts them in around the 90th to 95th percentile of household income in the US, I believe.

[Mince]

I take it you never played sports much?

It is generally considered "poor sportsmanship" to humilate or belittle an opponent on the sports field. Especially one in where the competition is extremely one-sided in your favor. Some degree of "smack talk" is acceptable for the purpose of psyching the other guy out.

If you feel "humiliated" or "look foolish" on the field, then you should practice more and harder. The expectation is that you are engaging in an athletic competition with a similarly skilled opponent and you have spent an appropriate amount of effort preparing.

An athlete who goes around strutting his stuff off the field is often known as a "bully", "dickhead" or "douchebag".


The reason you would be an asshole for rubbing your higher IQ score in someone else's face is that one, you didn't do anything other than inherent a brain. It's like being proud because you are tall. And two, most people are not engaged in a competition for "who has the highest IQ".

If you want to engage in a contest of intellect with someone, I'm sure both are free to talk shit.


"http://www.hulu.com/watch/2331/saturday-night-live-update---bennett-brauer"