Certainly my recollection is of sports being treated as Serious Business where the goal was to win, not have fun.
Speaking of men and women playing sports together, while I can’t find a link to it (linkrot ate my old one), I recall years ago reading an interesting article on the subject including research indicating that one subtle issue is that men and women are in effect playing different sports, even on an identical field with identical equipment. That even in as something as commonly casual and co-ed as volleyball, when an analysis is done it turns out that men and women are consistently doing different things, making different moves and playing with different styles.
As for why, the hypothesis was that while a sports field and equipment may be the same for both genders in an objective sense, relative to the players it’s different in many little ways. Since men and women differ in size and proportions and so on, that means that even with identical fields and equipment, their effective circumstances are different enough to produce different playstyles.
Whether that’s how it ought to be in elementary and secondary schools is another question altogether. If the goal is for the kids to get exercise and to form habits of doing so, then for most of us that attitude is going to backfire; in school we’ll mostly be sitting on the sidelines, not moving; and we won’t want to go near anything as adults which we had to deal with that way in school.
Oh, I agree. It’s very counterproductive but seems to derive from the common attitude that the point of school sports is to produce prospects for professional sports.
In Texas, we had physical education courses and then we had athletics. If you played football, basketball, volleyball, wrestled, ran track, etc., etc. then 9/10 times you were enrolled in an athletics course. Most commonly those courses were either scheduled for 1st period or the last period of the day. Even in Texas, the vast majority of most student athletes aren’t going on to a professional athletic career. Most of them probably aren’t even going to play for a college.
Years ago, I read a stat (quite possibly made up, or estimated) that only about 1 in 100 high school athletes go on to play in college, and only about -
1 in 100 college athletes wind up playing professionally (and most of those don’t play professionally for very long).
Even so, in a sports-mad place like Texas, there are likely a lot of parents who overestimate their kids’ talent level, and likelihood of making it to higher levels.
Wow, that must have been a tough change. Did you find you were way ahead when you went to the bad school, or were they both more or less following the national curriculum?
I went to a fairly average comprehensive; some of the teachers were checked-out, and some of the kids were disruptive, but there wasn’t really violence or anything like that.
Yeah, that’s true. It’s good to have kids try different sports and activities, but team sports really suck if you’re bad at them. They should let kids do some other kind of exercise if that’s what they prefer.
You’re probably right.
Sure, identifying people visually is mostly going on secondary sexual characteristics. But I bet if you did the same multidimensional plotting of less visible characteristics, you’d again end up with two mostly-distinct clusters.
They’re cultural to some extent; however, there are underlying patterns that are more likely to be innate. The fact men are more willing to take risks, for example.
It’s interesting that in sports the kids who are doing best get the coaching, and the ones doing badly are mostly ignored, while in academic classes it’s the other way around and the kids who fall behind get the focus and extra tutoring. Apparently we care more as a society about developing future sportsmen (mostly men) than future scientists, doctors or engineers.
I think such people are just throwing an academic tantrum. If someone actually called their bluff and did away with gender segregation in sports, they’d suddenly be like “Wait no, no…”
I almost agree, but there’s no chance of their ideas ever being applied to themselves. They’ll be applied to people who have zero choice in the matter (like high school students). And when the social experiment fails, they’ll say that the experiment just wasn’t tried hard enough.
Why do you think so? It seems to me that there’s lots of evidence to the contrary.
But just about any behavior you can name as coded female is coded male in some society. To the extent that there may be some underlying differences: they’re not in at least most cases deciding what the societal-coded behaviors are.
And to whatever extent risk-taking behavior does vary on average: there’s clearly a whole lot of overlap in the middle. Especially when we include such things as willingly taking the risk of becoming pregnant; which is still somewhat risky and used to be a good deal more so. (And may in some places be becoming more so again.)
So should we give high school students their choice in the matter, and have the girls’ teams let boys play on them and against them if they wish, and vice versa?
No, because that would just turn (almost) every “girls” team into an all-boys team. Just like if steroids were optional.
Instead, if it isn’t already the case, let the boys teams be open. Maybe a few girls will be able to compete on the merits. They would be extremely impressive athletes even if they were below average when compared to boys, and worth celebrating.
Why? Are you assuming – we’re talking about elementary and high schools, remember – that only the strongest few students will be allowed to play?
And what if the girls – like the ones quoted in the article – want the boy(s) on the team?
Definitely some girls will be able to compete on the merits; that happens now, when the adults will allow it.
But again, you seem to be assuming that the point of sports in schools is to let only a few students play them. That does seem to be the assumption in a lot of schools in the USA; but I think it’s a bad idea.
Also – what about the boy whose sport is hockey, but who lives in an area in which hockey is coded female and the school only has a girls’ team?
First you said “high school”, but now you’re including elementary. That’s a very significant difference. Not only is puberty a major factor, but high school teams have greater expectations for competitiveness.
Again, it’s like making steroids optional. Almost literally: testosterone is a hell of a drug. If the teams have any interest in being competitive, they’ll be forced to take boys on their teams or simply lose every time. And there will be an arms race where the only winning teams will be all-boys.
I’m assuming high school sports teams exist to compete with other schools and win. Of course they have to be selective.
If you’re just trying to get kids to exercise, sure, do whatever, though there are still some downsides to being co-ed.
Yup. You’re assuming that high school sports are only for the few who are most competitive.
I think that’s a very bad idea. That it’s a common idea in the USA doesn’t make it better – maybe makes it worse. There’s certainly a place for competitive sports in society; but I don’t think undergraduate schools should be that place.
Fine, but that’s the same as saying these teams shouldn’t exist at all. The whole point to them is competition. If they aren’t competitive, then you can do ad-hoc matchups, co-ed or not. Or just stick to individual sports.
ETA: Plus, this is an extreme re-imagining of American society. Almost at the level of “what if nobody in America owned their own car?” It’s just not going to happen.
Yeah, that seems to be how it works. We appear to have a drive to establish “male and female behaviors”; but what those behaviors are is mostly up in the air. And changes over time to boot.
Not for everybody to get as good at the game as they individually can? Not for everyone, or anyone, to enjoy moving their bodies in various ways, and to enjoy learning various ways of doing so? Not, I suppose, to have fun?
America society in, say, 2024 was in many ways unrecognizable to somebody from, say, 1824 or even 1924. Where it’s headed now I have no idea whatsoever. But “societies can’t change” is not a winning argument with me.
For the Arkansas State High School record for the 100 meter dash the boy’s record is 10.52 seconds and the girl’s record is 12.40 seconds. The 20th ranked boy on the list comes in at 11.40 seconds, so the top girl doesn’t even crack the boy’s top 20. The numbers for the 1600 meter is a bit closer, but the girl’s #1 of 5:47.46 doesn’t crack the boy’s top 10.
What you’ll see in coed competition is the boys will dominate. Few girls will place let alone win, and I think this would have a deleterious affect on girl’s sports as they drift away to do something else they might have a better chance of winning.
You don’t need a team for that. You can just play games, with rules or without, taking score or not, with whoever you want. But a high school sports team is a specific thing that necessarily includes competition.
High school football teams playing each other date back to at least 1900. Not that unrecognizable.
Societies can change, but when it happens via ideological compulsion rather than natural drift, bad things usually result.
I was talking about multiple aspects of society, not solely about sports.
Like the end of slavery, or the official end of Jim Crow?
– but I’m not actually recommending laws commanding the end of considering high school sports purely from the point of view of competitiveness, no matter how bad an idea I think it is. I think that impetus does need to come from the students.
That’s what gym classes during the school day are for. Those classes might include team sports, where the teams are formed ad hoc and there isn’t much serious competition.
But on “the track team”, “the football team”, etc., that meet outside of regular school hours, everyone is there to compete. The competition starts before they even join the team, because they have to try out for one of the limited spots.