Well they do have to learn how to cooperate with their teammates if they want to win.
Guys, have you ever PLAYED sports? There is a lot of value in coaching and instruction.
I was made to, yes.
Probably there can be; at least, for some people. But there often isn’t.
Why is that? Do the games clash? In the UK, serious young players will often play for a club as well as their school to increase their experience. I assume there must be some recognition that as schools normally play matches on Saturday mornings, club games are played on Sundays.
Because you can’t “give it your all” if you are also giving it to another team.
Is it the attitude of the team being more important than the individual? That’s understandable, if that’s your focus - I guess here team sports at school level are more about individual development than school glory. That and what you do in your own time is none of the school’s business.
Kids get plenty of opportunities to experience competition without organized institutional sports. But what they especially don’t need is institutional competition that teaches that other people should be regarded as rivals in competition because of their membership in groups, such as what schools they attend.
I can’t find it now but I recall hearing about a study that found a correlation between institutional sports and unethical behavior. Suggesting that an emphasis on the importance of winning taught a disregard for ethics and compassion.
[quote=“Acsenray, post:207, topic:921037”]But what they especially don’t need is institutional competition that teaches that other people should be regarded as rivals in competition because of their membership in groups, such as what schools they attend.
[/quote]
Oh my God. Nobody is “taught” that anyone should be “regarded” as anything. They’re the other team. You play against them. That’s it. It’s not like the coach hands out little voodoo dolls in the shape of the other school’s players. Nobody thinks that the guys from the other school are subhuman or something just because they go to another school.
Hell, in my adult life I’m always meeting people who tell me they went to one of the schools in my state that my high school competed against, and we’re just like, “when did you graduate?” “2004”. “Oh, yeah, did you play any sports?” “Wrestling.” “Oh hey, I did too, we must have wrestled against you at some point.” “Yeah, we did [hey, cool!] /I can’t remember [whatever…right on, man”] And that’s it.
Of course they’re taught that. The lesson is in the structure. The teams are drawn up according to membership in a group. They are egged on by banners to “beat East High!” There are coaches who discourage “fraternization with the enemy.” The particular rivalry against East High might not remain, but the conditioning to see members of other groups of people as “others” and potential rivals and threats remains. The conditioning is supporting the notion of uses and thems.
This is not an instinct that should be encouraged.
When one says “competition” must be learned, I disagree. It may be good to learn to want to excel. It is not good to learn that someone else must be defeated in order for one to be successful. Competition, if it can be, should be encouraged in win-win format, not win-lose. It’s not good for society to encourage taking pleasure in defeating someone else.
At their absolute best, sports and other youth competitions teach students how to develop and manage their competitive instincts in healthy ways, with good boundaries and contextual understanding. There IS a lot to be said for wanting to be the best, to improve yourself beyond what you thought you could do. Sometimes using others as a yardstick is appropriate, because it keeps you from setting your own standards too low. It can provide an important drive.
On the other hand, it can also be toxic beyond imagining, and it can be perpetuated by high school communities that have lost all sense of proportion. I have seen awful things done. Things like rich kids who show up at games against poor schools with signs that say “your mom cleans my house” or “white power”, and they get a slap on the wrist or even tacit support. I’ve heard incredibly violent language used against rival teams. I’ve seen losing a game treated as real failure, as shameful, by trusted and respectful adults.
So yes, it can be really positive, but it’s often not, and there’s not a lot of top-level guidance on how to do it well, or even that that is the point. Parents will have a fit if the team is losing games, and be down in the principal’s office, demanding the coach be fired. Coach gets the message and comes down hard on the kids, makes them think winning is a matter of life or death. No one complains the kids are getting a bad attitude toward competition.
I disagree with the last bit, as learning and respecting established rules has a value of its own.
As to the rest, I find that the stated benefits of sports are gleaned not by excellence at the sport, but by enthusiastic participation in the sport. The good things kids learn through athletics have little or nothing to do with their ability to throw a ball, kick a ball, or the like. The focus on winning brings in outside factors that blemish the developmental benefits of sport.
Obviously you have watched little sports. After the game is over players from both teams mingle on the field giving hugs and high fives.
Your win/win scenario is silly. Competition is part of everyones life at school. Do you favor doing away with grading on the curve? Dating? Fashion?
They’re in school. They have to learn to show up on time, to go to the room(s) they’re expected to be in and not to go to other rooms, to sit down and get up according to formal schedules, to pay attention to teachers, to talk when they’re told to, to not talk when they’re told not to, even to take a piss only when it’s allowed. They already spend lots of time learning to respect, or at least obey, other people’s rules.
Developing rules, and working out with others which ones work well and which don’t, is something most schools seem to provide very little practice in, and often instead discourage. But it’s also a really important human skill.
And it means that those whose strength and/or coordination aren’t as good as those of other students are unlikely to be enthusiastic about participating, and unlikely to benefit from doing so.
Yup. And do we want to further encourage that mindset, to the point of saying that everything has to be competitive?
I find it disturbing that you appear to consider dating as being properly a competitive activity. I agree that it sometimes is; but I don’t think considering it that way is conducive to healthy relationships.
– I’ve never been happy with grading on the curve, either; except perhaps as an emergency response to realizing that a particular test was screwed up. If straightforward grading leads to a high percentage of failures, either the grading system or the instruction is faulty, and should be improved. If everyone in the class, or nearly everyone, has actually learned the material, why shouldn’t they all be able to get a good grade for it? If nobody in the class, or hardly anyone, has learned the material, what good does it do to hand them a grade as if they had?
The question isn’t supposed to be, ‘did the student learn more about subject X than another student?’ but ‘did the student learn enough about subject X to have the information and degree of understanding that (at this stage) they need to have about it?’
[quote=“madsircool, post:212, topic:921037, full:true”]Do you favor doing away with grading on the curve? Dating? Fashion?
[/quote]
Grading on the curve? Yes, get rid of it. Grading itself is a questionable practice.
Dating? It should not be taught as competition with winners and losers. What a toxic concept.
Fashion? Ditto. Kids should be discouraged as viewing it as a competition.
In all cases, societal institutions should not be encouraging people to see each other as rivals or opponents to be defeated.
Yes, but those are features, not bugs. My university has a 105,000 seat stadium
Do people take things too far from time to time, with anything and everything? Most assuredly.
But thus is life.
I think Physical education is important but also hold that sports themselves are not for the masses.
Weight Training, Martial Arts and Rock Climbing come to mind as alternatives, as does running on a treadmill. My own experience on it is that PE was something I had to do, never really enjoyed doing because the guys who were good at it bullied others, and I was quite happy to never engage in sports ever again.
Most athletes starve; perhaps there’s one golden guy in the masses but it takes superior talent and effort to make it into professional sports. Instead, sports should be self-selected sponsored programs instead of compulsory everyone has to play sort of dumbness. It’s taken awhile for me to figure out that physical activity is important and sports has crap all to do with it.
So I believe the answer is yes, with the caveat that schools don’t abandon physical wellness. Kids that want to play sports will self-select, and should be given the opportunity, but the masses will benefit more from healthy habits instead of the cult of the golden guy.
This is understood by the overwhelming majority of kids and parents, in my experience. Yes, there are the occasional delusional parents who think their kid is the next Wayne Gretzky, but that is a very small minority and very quickly corrected. The purpose of high school sports isn’t to groom professional athletes.
Isn’t that the current system? I went to public high school, and extracurricular sports were 100% voluntary.
Even as one who doesn’t play them, I disagree with this; at least, unless you’re talking only about sports as a profession. Lots of people play baseball or basketball or volleyball or other games for the fun of it, very often in teams of mixed ages and mixed abilities whose membership may shift around with every game. If schools emphasized this form of the games more, instead of the what’s-most-important-is-that-we-win form, that would be far better both for socialization and for exercise.
One problem with organized sports at almost any level, and I don’t know if there is a solution, is that there is almost always huge discrepancy levels between not only individual participants but also between teams as well. Nobody on either side enjoys playing in a mismatch. I could be wrong about this as there could be a certain few who love nothing better than pure domination over an overmatched opponent. (I once asked on another board, “what’s it like being a fan of a college football team that wins 11 games every year, six of them by complete blowouts?” and was told “it’s awesome.” Sorry, I don’t get that at all.)
At the small college I attended, intramural sports were pretty popular and, even with a limited number of teams entering the season, the sports were almost always broken into two divisions, one for the more serious and skilled players and then a lower division for those less competitive in nature. I liked having the choice and sometimes picked one, other times the other.
But that’s not always possible to do in reality. Too bad, too, because we’d probably see a lot more participation by the population at large if so many of us just didn’t get tired of getting our brains beat in on the fields or courts.
That depends.
Your right in that for example in football for I think every 1000 HS players only 1 on average makes the pros.
However many people go on to sports careers as coaches, trainers, sports management, sports promotions, athletics gear sales, trainers, or work in sports medicine.
Check out this site: 10 Best Sports Careers for Non Athletes.