Should all high school sports be banned?

[Gucumatz]

Honestly if some people think some Asian parents are bad [Only thing that matters is accomplishing something], you should see some Hispanic Parents.

Admittedly I may carry over some of those beliefs

 

[illram]

No real discussion of high school sports can be had without discussing the influence professional minor league syste--ahem, excuse me, "college" sports have on high school athletes.

The huge magnetic pull and importance of some NCAA college programs warps high school sports, certainly. The continuing commodification of NCAA athletes in general is a problem. But, that shouldn't be an indictment of high school sports in general, as they are valuable for all the reasons everyone has already talked about here.

 

[lovett]

We produce too much sports/arts related material in my opinion - but again, just my opinion.

Postscripting a statement with 'just my opinion' does not an argument make.

But perhaps that is just something one learns in dispensable 'arts' subjects.

 

[caketastydelish]

Like I said, I'm quite possibly a fan of 'the arts'. I'm not even saying get rid of it, I'm just saying it needs form.

I've already expressed my opinions on that matter for English on the previous page. As for history, we could be teaching students to think critically about the future from the past rather than just memorization of random facts and dates.

In 'music' class students could learn audio engineering/production skills and maybe even graduate with a trade skill. Of course, music theory/composition would have to be a part of it as well.

These are the sorts of things I'm talking about.

 

[Gucumatz]

Like I said, I'm quite possibly a fan of 'the arts'. I'm not even saying get rid of it, I'm just saying it needs form.

I've already expressed my opinions on that matter for English on the previous page. As for history, we could be teaching students to think critically about the future from the past rather than just memorization of random facts and dates.

In 'music' class students could learn audio engineering/production skills and maybe even graduate with a trade skill. Of course, music theory/composition would have to be a part of it as well.

These are the sorts of things I'm talking about.

That would be more beneficial in my opinion than the system we have now. Incorporating trade school curriculum into both the arts and sports could help ensure some real world relevance and provide a stronger structural integrity for graduates. The problem is trade schools oftentimes have a higher degree of stigma here in the US than say... Latin America or Europe. In Guatemala there are several trade schools that incorporate certain liberal arts and "arts" pathways as part of technical school pathways and those universities end up being fairly competitive

Not sure how something like that would translate to the US though

 

[madviking]

It's good to see that Formaldehyde has knocked some sense into this thread.

The number of "demi-god-like coaches" is not as high as everyone thinks; the vast majority, the silent majority, of coaches aren't "demi-god". To condemn all of high school sports because of a few ****oos is dangerous at best.

Moreover, I've only heard of football coaches, not any other sport, being classified as these "demi-god". What do you think all the basketball, cheerleading, crew, cross country, dance, field hockey, golf, gymnastics, indoor track, lacrosse, softball, swim and dive, tennis, track and field, and wrestling coaches do? Nothing wrong. Removing the sports they coach so passionately would be an utter disgrace.

And all the countless students who do/did those sports I listed? What would they think? What would I think? I would be appalled by any decision of removing of any sort of high school sports.

As for extravagantly expensive football stadiums, they were funded with bonds. Those bonds were approved by voters. That is democracy.

 

[downtown]

Learning proper grammar/how to write a letter/ how to sound professional on paper, a very important underrated skill. Shakespearian literature? Not so much.

Perhaps

But if I were in a position of power I would never attempt to eliminate the arts/sports simply because it would be impossible, but its how I feel.

And things like English and grammar I would keep, because they do correlate to later necessities for work.

The point of an American high school education is not for vocational development. That is what post-secondary education is for. The point of HS is to give students a broad and basic set of skills which enrich their lives and serve as a basic foundation for further development.

We don't have HS brand to train professional trumpet players. We don't really have high school cross country or basketball to train professional athletes either. We have those opportunities for kids to develop leadership, teamwork, the ability to overcome adversity, long term planning, and personal growth...all things, for you vocational-centric folks, are more important than having a glittering resume.

Removing those opportunities just closes more doors for students to get the motivation and structure they need to succeed academically and personally.

For what it's worth (and this isn't much), I learned more of the professional skills that I use every day from my time as president of a high school marching band than most of what I learned, content wise, from college.

Admittedly I don't get to express this particular (what even I consider) a fairly extremist position... but I think both are largely irrelevant. If sports clubs want athletes, they would build up scouting programs and academies to develop youth like in Europe and elsewhere. For the arts its relatively a similar process. Plenty of universities already churn out too many "Sports studies related majors" and certain "arts" majors that fail to find any work

First, we're not talking about universities. We're talking about high schools. Kids do not have majors in high schools.

Second, with the exception of college football, every single out of those sports has a legitimate and strong outside of school training program. If you're wanting to play college basketball, you're not just playing for your school, you're playing AAU. If you're a strong baseball prospect, you're being developed in fallball and summer wood bat leagues, etc.

As for extravagantly expensive football stadiums, they were funded with bonds. Those bonds were approved by voters. That is democracy.

Bingo. The huge example that Forma cited, btw, comes from a wealthy and academically very strong school district as well. Not very many legitimately struggling districts are building 10,000+ seat plus facilities, although there are some exceptions (hello Stubenville!)

 

[Gucumatz]

The point of an American high school education is not for vocational development. That is what post-secondary education is for. The point of HS is to give students a broad and basic set of skills which enrich their lives and serve as a basic foundation for further development.

We don't have HS brand to train professional trumpet players. We don't really have high school cross country or basketball to train professional athletes either. We have those opportunities for kids to develop leadership, teamwork, the ability to overcome adversity, long term planning, and personal growth...all things, for you vocational-centric folks, are more important than having a glittering resume.

Removing those opportunities just closes more doors for students to get the motivation and structure they need to succeed academically and personally.

For what it's worth (and this isn't much), I learned more of the professional skills that I use every day from my time as president of a high school marching band than most of what I learned, content wise, from college.

Which is why in this theoretical scenario, banning "the arts" and "high school sports" I would rather have community centers where the focus would be primarily dedicated to this.

As for removal for motivation, I realize a lot of these opportunities would otherwise be denied to many students. I just don't think it maximizes education returns to have these "things" together and there are too many bussing issues and internal factors in school that prevent these resources from reaching students largely because they are coupled to school (whether it be middle school or middle school)
====

As for the Italics... no offense but I think this is an outdated way of looking at things. The NMSI has cited several times students are too distracted at school particular with the nature of "extra-curricular" and its administration to be fully able to compete globally.

I remember one of our exchange programs back in High School was with some agricultural town in Germany (Trying to remember where it was. At first my mind was telling me Rostock, but I know that's wrong since the school switched it sometime after I left to Rostock - I believe it was on the border of Saarland). They didn't have any sports, music, or arts classes. They ranked as the top public school in their state and near the top in Germany. [Although this wasn't the only thing different they had, kids had no homework all work was given and done in school, there was a hour and a half break for lunch, school went up until 6 P.M., and several other things most schools here would consider quite weird] It was a public school and the kids sure as hell didn't hate it, in fact they loved it.

A separate athletic/arts center was established across the other side of the bay for them to use on weekends where they had to participate in some sort of arts or sports program, but it was part of the wider community.

I just think schools here in the US breed too much complacency and I put a degree of blame on both sports and the arts. I never did anything band related, but friends I had who did would always tell the craziest stuff that happened in our school band. Honestly our marching band did more drugs, binge drinking, had more out of hand military enlistees, than probably any other extracurricular did at our school [Our band was pretty big here, its been to the Rose Bowl many times and I think in the last couple of years has gone consecutively now for the last what 5 years?]

 

[caketastydelish]

I was in the marching band my first two years of highschool and my experience was similar to Gucumatz's. I never did drugs/sex myself, but boy it existed. Everybody knew of the make outs and even (supposedly) sex going on at the back of the school bus. The baseball players (not all of which were even in the band) would use chewing tobacco in the boys restroom. One of those boys that was both in the baseball team and the band got busted for doing weed in one of the main restroom's of the school. He actually got jail time because he was 18 and he'd distributed weed to a student who was a minor.

Marching band is just a joke that caters to football, and is not really all that it's set out to be...

 

[madviking]

That just sounds like any high school.

 

[Gucumatz]

That just sounds like any American high school.

Yup and that's a problem in my view. But hey still just my opinion. Plenty of people here are still satisfied with the school system here [I think its a mess compared to many European standards and systems, but hey, whatever floats our boats]

 

[madviking]

err, yea, well I'm American so, naturally, it would be American high school.

 

[Gucumatz]

So am I [Although I have lived in Europe at different points in my life and being half Guatemalan/German I have friends and family from both countries], just wanted to make the distinction though that there is a difference between "any" high school and American High School, but I still got your point madviking

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Organized sports teams should no place in schools at any level, or at least in schools that get any funding from tax money. It is fine for kids to join amateur sports leagues, but these should not be related to school. There should certainly never be any sports related pep rallies during school hours.

Tax money should never fund athletic arenas, at any level.

I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky when it comes to sports. They are largely about fostering tribal instincts and instilling irrational attitudes of submission to arbitrary authority.


I've heard arguments that an emphasis on organized sports and sports cultures tend to lead to a significant reduction in average physical fitness. When you emphasize exercise that must be done in groups, you de-emphasize exercise can be done as individuals. Those involved in team sports in their youth often become more sedentary as adults (when they no longer live near friends interesting in team competition) than those who were never athletes. Also, spectator sports create far more passive spectators than active participants.

Really serious athletes tend to be rather unhealthy anyway. Physical Exercise is a hormetic activity. It is healthy in moderate dosages but dangerous in excess. Competitive sports do not favor the golden mean, but push the young hard enough that they often get injuries which can cause problems latter in life. Recently it has become pretty clear that football in particular causes brain injuries that lead to dementia later in life.


"Muscular Christianity" seems somewhat insulting to me. I do not like the faith being associated with dumb jocks rather than scholars, or the way in which it tends to further the idea of faith and reason as opposites. The tendency of Christians to automatically become huge fans of celebrity athletes based on a few simple statements of faith without a deeper analysis of his character is annoying. Associating Christianity with those most bound to favoring the petty factions of the favored sports teams rather than focusing on more universal concerns is pretty annoying too. At its heart Christianity is largely about egalitarian sharing, not hierarchical competition. The whole "Muscular Christianity" idea seems to be based on a very shallow stereotype of what masculinity is, reinforcing social norms rather than seeking any true virtue. I recall reading a study a while back that pretty clearly refuted the idea that competitive sports help build better moral character; it found that athletes tend to be considerably less honest and less empathetic than non-athletes. Teacher-Coaches who show favoritism to athletes certainly do not help.




Right-wing Authoritarian Personality types (like the "law and order" crowd Formaldehyde mentioned) are defined largely by their tendency to insist on harsh punishments for the sins of those seen as lower status, while also favoring clemency for those of very high status. (This is the personality type of those who support traditional authority, but not necessarily of the authorities themselves. The minority who meet the criteria for the personality type plus also want to be in power tend to be actual sociopaths.) It seems to be associated with traditional parenting styles, where the child is expected to submit to the parents without question rather than being encouraged to reason together. Children tend to start out more authoritarian, and then grow up increasingly more libertarian until they are responsible for their own children, grandchildren, etc., at which point they revert or become more conservative still. (Age by itself is not associated with a move to the right.) It has also been shown that everyone moves more towards this type when experiencing fear.

It is quite regrettable that such personality types tend (in the US at least, not so much in former Soviet countries) to be so strongly correlated with socially conservative Christians. Christ himself was rather explicit in condemning such tendencies. He attacked hypocrisy more than any other sin, was definitely "no respecter of persons," and was clear that we are to be judged by how we treat the least among us. Also, a Christian is not supposed to have a spirit of fear, for perfect love drives out fear.

 

[MobBoss]

Thread delivers from showing who was an athlete and who was a nerd.

And fwiw, Noam Chomsky is a dweeb. Also, its fascinating to see some even politicize high school sports in order to bash the right and Christians. Quite revealing.

 

[Leifmk]

Really serious athletes tend to be rather unhealthy anyway. Physical Exercise is a hormetic activity. It is healthy in moderate dosages but dangerous in excess.

It is true that, for many and probably most sports, if you want to be competitive at the higher levels you must push your body's development pretty close to the extreme fringes of what is humanly possible (in whatever direction demanded by that particular sport). For most sports this is probably not conducive to true long-term health. Some clever guy once said that if your main motivation is health and longevity, you should never aim to reach elite levels in any one sport, but rather try to become mediocre at several different ones.

 

[downtown]

"Muscular Christianity" seems somewhat insulting to me. I do not like the faith being associated with dumb jocks rather than scholars, or the way in which it tends to further the idea of faith and reason as opposites. T

Muscular Christianity wasn't born out of dumb jocks, it was born out of the Ivy League.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally Posted by caketastydelish
It's good to see that Formaldehyde has knocked some sense into this thread.

The number of "demi-god-like coaches" is not as high as everyone thinks; the vast majority, the silent majority, of coaches aren't "demi-god". To condemn all of high school sports because of a few ****oos is dangerous at best.

Moreover, I've only heard of football coaches, not any other sport, being classified as these "demi-god". What do you think all the basketball, cheerleading, crew, cross country, dance, field hockey, golf, gymnastics, indoor track, lacrosse, softball, swim and dive, tennis, track and field, and wrestling coaches do? Nothing wrong. Removing the sports they coach so passionately would be an utter disgrace.

And all the countless students who do/did those sports I listed? What would they think? What would I think? I would be appalled by any decision of removing of any sort of high school sports.

As for extravagantly expensive football stadiums, they were funded with bonds. Those bonds were approved by voters. That is democracy.

I find it interesting that you decided to use that one statement of all the posts that Gucumatz has made in this thread to try to link me to all this. Again, I am in no way in favor of eliminating reasonable sports programs at any level.

But I do take exception with a few of your comments.

If you think "demigod" football coaches, and even many high school basketball coaches, are all that rare, you either have an extremely limited understanding of many small town cultures, or you are being deliberately disingenuous by trying to hide them among all the other coaches who really have no power or prestige at all.

There is much that is great about public school sports in this country. But sadly, there is much that isn't as well. Here is an example from a classic high school sports movie about the former:


Link to video.

Instead of the latter:


Link to video.

Everybody knows that the $60M football stadium was floated by a bond issue. But bringing that up as though it makes it completely irrelevant is just as disingenuous as downtown's attempt to obfuscate matters by mentioning operational budgets versus facilities improvement when they are both controlled by the same process and have essentially the same effect on the taxes.

It is a simple matter of priorities. Building such structures just shows how pervasive this problem actually is. It sends exactly the wrong message in regard to the appalling state of public education in this country, and it will likely spawn even more similar projects from school districts where the "demigods" you claim are so rare are obviously being deified.

Muscular Christianity wasn't born out of dumb jocks, it was born out of the Ivy League.

That's odd. I don't see a single word about the Ivy League in this article.

Muscular Christianity is a Christian commitment to piety and physical health, basing itself on the New Testament, which sanctions the concepts of character (Philippians 3:14) and well-being (1Corinthians 6:19-20).[1][2][3]

The movement came into vogue during the Victorian era and stressed the need for energetic Christian evangelism in combination with an ideal of vigorous masculinity. Historically, it is most associated with the English writers Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes, and in Canada with Ralph Connor, though the name was bestowed by others. Kingsley and Hughes promoted physical strength and health as well as an active pursuit of Christian ideals in personal life and politics. Muscular Christianity has continued itself through organisations that combine physical and Christian spiritual development.[4] It is influential within both Catholicism and Protestantism.[5][6]

By 1901, muscular Christianity was influential enough in England that one author could praise "the Englishman going through the world with rifle in one hand and Bible in the other" and add, "If asked what our muscular Christianity has done, we point to the British Empire."[19]

Muscular Christianity spread to other countries in the 19th century. It was well entrenched in Australian society by 1860, though not always with much recognition of the religious element.[22] In the United States it appeared first in private schools and then in the YMCA and in the preaching of evangelists such as Dwight L. Moody.[23] (The addition of athletics to the YMCA led to, among other things, the invention of basketball and volleyball.) Parodied by Sinclair Lewis in Elmer Gantry (though he had praised the Oberlin College YMCA for its "positive earnest muscular Christianity") and out of step with theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr, its influence declined in American mainline Protestantism. Nonetheless it was felt in such evangelical organizations as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Athletes in Action, and the Promise Keepers.[24]

In the 21st century, the push for a more masculine Christianity has been made by New Calvinist pastors such as John Piper, who claims, "God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother. Second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male." Because of this, Piper contends "that God has given Christianity a masculine feel."[25]

In 2012, athletes such as Tim Tebow, Manny Pacquiao, Josh Hamilton, and Jeremy Lin have also exemplified Muscular Christianity through sharing their faith with their fans.[26][27]

 

[downtown]

Which is why in this theoretical scenario, banning "the arts" and "high school sports" I would rather have community centers where the focus would be primarily dedicated to this.
.....

I think once you start looking too much at Europe you start to get into some real apples and oranges situations. The HS level population is totally different (the US is somewhat unique in that it actually tries to educate all of their students), their funding situations are different, their social net situations are different...in my opinion, looking at sports as the key variable sort of misses the point. The social situation that allows US students to really benefit from sports/extras does not really exist as much in Europe.

Now, this is approach IS being tried in lots of places in the US, typically in the poorest communities. When I taught in New Orleans, my students did not have any sports (or even recess), and had only 1 extracurricular, provided by a local church. I taught a rock band class at one of Chicago's most popular charter networks for a while, but the majority of the new schools either do not sponsor sports (or have hyper limited offerings), or offer very few extracurriculars. I don't think this has been very successful so far...you can't just drill and drill a kid and expect him to stay engaged, especially if he's already behind.

My concern would be that if schools removed those offerings, the community would only step up in places where the kids don't really need it (i.e, wealthy suburban areas). In places where kids need the extra enrichment opportunities, pickings will be few and far between.

If you think "demigod" football coaches, and even many high school basketball coaches, are all that rare, you either have an extremely limited understanding of many small town cultures, or you are being deliberately disingenuous by trying to hide them among all the other coaches who really have no power or prestige at all.

lolol so let me make my case in a movie! YOU GUYS I SAW VARSITY BLUES TOO EVERYTHING IS CORRUPT

Everybody knows that the $60M football stadium was floated by a bond issue. But bringing that up as though it makes it completely irrelevant is just as disingenuous as downtown's attempt to obfuscate matters by mentioning operational budgets versus facilities improvement when they are both controlled by the same process and have essentially the same effect on the taxes.

Sure, they're both decided by voters, but the accounting difference is *really important*.

Remember, that 60M football stadium was built in *an excellent school district*. They weren't going to get better results if they built a 60M library. I know that's hard for you to understand because it's in Texas, and every Texan must be a mouth-breathing idiot, but it's true!

That's odd. I don't see a single word about the Ivy League

I'm sorry, you're right, it stared outside the US, but I meant in terms of the approach to sports and school administration. U Chicago was started by muscular Christians from Yale, and that ideology was the dominant reason for a focus on phs ed at the Ivies and leading private schools along the East Coast. Stagg's University, which covered the founding of U Chicago and the early days of HS football, explained it really well.

 

[Azale]

Like I said, I'm quite possibly a fan of 'the arts'. I'm not even saying get rid of it, I'm just saying it needs form.

I've already expressed my opinions on that matter for English on the previous page. As for history, we could be teaching students to think critically about the future from the past rather than just memorization of random facts and dates.

In 'music' class students could learn audio engineering/production skills and maybe even graduate with a trade skill. Of course, music theory/composition would have to be a part of it as well.

These are the sorts of things I'm talking about.

So how would you think critically about the future from the past in a history class? What method would you employ? Is there a pseudo-scientific technique like in economics that would allow us to say "well WW1 happened therefore"?

What makes this "form" superior to what it is (or strives to be) now? What is your end goal? I'm curious because I don't know what perceived problem you're trying to fix. Maybe it is your own inability to find the "utility" (ugh) in subjects that don't spell it out for you in big bright letters.

Yes, this makes me testy. The smartest people I have ever met were philosophy majors, and I have absolutely no doubts they could learn circles around the people who take "useful" subjects.