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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
So you are saying that for every $1 of athletic spending, we spend pennies on high achieving students. Then, you state:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or to see the inside of a locker.
True. I guess humor can break the ice, but it can also backfire.
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.
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. 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 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 dollars. The state of New Jersey spends about 200 million dollars on high school athletics. This district spends nearly $4 million on just coaches’ pay supplements and game security. Boston public schools are angry because they only receive four million, 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 on a football stadium was an anomaly (it’s Texas, after all) but nope. 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 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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.