Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case Against High-School Sports

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#61

Post by dnr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #34
JPKab wrote: post #12

I was a high school athlete. I wrestled on a top-tier team, played football, and ran cross-country after a knee-injury temporarily disallowed me from football. The financial impact of high school sports aren't the issue. The real issue is their impact on high school culture. School sports, especially the big, spectator friendly, fast-twitch muscle oriented sports of football, basketball, and baseball, send a big mess…

When I was in middle school, some friends and I won grand prize at a national robotics competition. That included middle school through university level teams. We got a brief mention in the end-of-year assembly and the person announcing it apparently wasn't told we'd won anything. Meanwhile, the basketball team making the state's Final Four game got three pep rallies, excused absences to attend, huge accolades from t…

As a counter-anecdote, my high school quiz bowl team participated in a local TV game show thing and ended up winning (in our first year!). We had to recruit a cheering section for all five rounds, and we all got excused absences. Toward the end when it looked like we had a chance of winning, we were sort of minor celebrities around school, and I got an inkling of what it might have felt like to be on a successful football team or similar. I even got compliments from people who would be grouped into the "dumb jock" social class, who I'd barely ever exchanged words with.

I also participated in a bunch of math and science competitions, and got basically no recognition for those (though I did get excused absences to attend).

I think the difference was the cheering section: We got to invite a bunch of friends and acquaintances to get an afternoon off from school and come make noise on a TV set. What high school student wouldn't want that? Then they went back and told their friends that it was pretty fun, and so each round we had a whole bunch more people who wanted to come. So there was a way for people who weren't on the four-person team to participate in some way and feel like they were connected to our success.

Was this a better use of school time and funds than athletics? That's unclear. I think glorifying an academic contest in the same way as an athletic one sends a better message to other students, that if you're looking for that kind of recognition, there are multiple paths that are possible.

[Edit: this was a public high school]

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#62

Post by Zimahl »

Retric wrote: post #53
skizm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is total speculation and I would guess totally false since standardized testing scores are higher for athletes also.

Athletes are by definition reasonably healthy and healthy people are as a rule both more intelligent and do better at work / school than non healthy people. Further, athletes are required to have a minimum GPA which has both a positive and dramatic impact on testing scores. AKA compare everyone with everyone with a 2.0+ GPA and you will see a positive correlation. PS: You can correct for these factors, but it's far l…

Completely anecdotal but I played two sports seasons out of three in high school and my grades were always better during those seasons. While I did see some students who weren't exactly killing it academically during those seasons, they probably wouldn't have done any better without.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#63

Post by tokenadult »

ameoba wrote: post #57
tokenadult wrote: post #3

The author notes about herself, "When I was growing up in New Jersey, not far from where Jenny now lives, I played soccer from age 7 to 17. I was relieved to find a place where girls were not expected to sit quietly or look pretty, and I still love the game. Like most other Americans, I can rattle off the many benefits of high-school sports: exercise, lessons in sportsmanship and perseverance, school spirit, and just…

> having decided to have all four of my children involved in competitive, organized team sports through local "travel" soccer programs There's a reason that "soccer mom" has become synonymous with out of touch, privileged, upper-middle-class, stay at home mothers. Being able to afford this shit, especially for four separate children, puts you well to the right side of the socioeconomic bell curve. If these things are…

I can tell you are new here. My reputation in this community as involved DAD who homeschools[1] his four children (my wife and I have adjusted our careers to trade off time for our children's education) is well established here. But I empathize with your point that families even poorer than mine (my family was quite poor when my dad was slowly dying after a catastrophic injury that left him a quadriplegic for the last six years of his life) should have opportunity to learn everything that is useful for good development. One of my children received a "scholarship" (fee waiver) based on financial need from our local travel soccer program. I return the favor by being an active volunteer (team manager) in the program.

But I'm going to put it to you that you are criticizing the wrong person if you think I don't care about good education for poor people. The FINE SUBMITTED ARTICLE talks about a poor neighborhood in Texas where academic achievement rose, and thus future opportunity for the students rose, after the high school recalibrated from an emphasis on sports to an emphasize on care school academic subjects. My big-time pet issue on HN, as is easily verifiable by looking at my user profile and my submission history and comment history, is better quality K-12 education for all learners all around the world. Children in poor neighborhoods in the United States ought to enjoy better instruction in reading, in mathematics, in writing, in history, in science, and in all academic subjects in school. I've posted numerous links to authoritative publications about that crucial issue. Along the way, if all young people can also learn a competitive team sport if they like, I will be glad about that. But I will be especially glad if all high school students in the United States grow up to be numerate, literate, and able to support themselves in the changing economy of the twenty-first century.

[1] Oddly, even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool, take-no-prisoners advocate of homeschooling, my three children who are still at home (my oldest son has grown up and is supporting himself) are this week all in their third week of full-time enrollment in public schools--the first time in twenty-one years of parenting that I've ever had all my children at home in public school. My second son plays JV soccer and runs track on the teams of our friendly local high school.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#64

Post by russellsprouts »

nitrogen wrote: post #43
skizm wrote: post #28

Athletics and after-school programs are probably some of the best thing schools can spend their money on (apart from good teachers). I agree maybe they get in the way of studies when students are forced to attend pep-rallies or something similar but that is just bad school administration and needs to be dealt with on an individual school level. Apart from all the soft skills that are tough to test for like leadership…

Athletes get better grades in high school because they are encouraged by GPA requirements to take easier classes, and because teachers are pressured to inflate athletes' grades to keep them playing. Local sports can be good; I played soccer in a non-school league. School-sponsored teams only divide students and create perverse incentives.

At my high school, just about every AP student participated in sports.

School sports are good because their cost is only around $100 for a season, with generous financial aid for those who cannot pay, vs. local teams which can be thousands. Only upper middle class families can really afford to put their kids into those programs. School sports allow people of all socio-economic status to participate, which brings students on the team together more than it brings them apart.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#65

Post by twoodfin »

brudgers wrote: post #39
twoodfin wrote: post #2

Every dollar spent on art classes or chess club is also a dollar not spent on math, but few are suggesting those endeavors aren't worthwhile. Sports are a big target, but they're a big target because they're wildly popular and a huge part of the culture in many U.S. locales. Do you think youth football, soccer or baseball would go away if schools stopped funding them? Public schools are, for better and worse, one of…

Public schools in the US are egalitarian and as public institutions ultimately subject to the will of voters via elected representatives. However, they tend not to be democratic in a sense which would support your thesis in regard to sport. The standard model for eligibility for scholastically sponsored sports at the high school level is wholly dependent upon were the child lives. Thus High School athletes typically…

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, so let me briefly restate my thesis:

Schools spend a lot of money on athletic programs because school boards approve budgets that allocate those funds. The school boards do this because the voters who elect school board members like athletic programs. Further, those same voters and parents often contribute funds for athletics above and beyond those being contributed by the taxpayer.

Voters want school athletics, voters get school athletics. The degree of "freedom" that students enjoy within the school athletic system wasn't what I meant by "democratic".

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#66

Post by kaa2102 »

mcguire wrote: post #45
kaa2102 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made an excellent counterpoint. The improvements in performance were not solely due to dropping sports programs. It may be difficult to tease out the impact that each of the major changes had on performance. I did participate extensively in high school sports. I think that the benefits far outweigh the costs. In evaluating solutions like dropping sports programs, I believe that other options for performance impro…

Out of curiosity, how many of your teachers were hired primarily as coaches in the sports programs? "minimum GPA for sports participation" You wouldn't believe the kerfluffle that caused in Texas[1]. As I recall, the result was rather predictable grade inflation. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pass_No_Play

I hear you. My mother enforced a minimum GPA for sports participation. I took mostly Honors and AP courses. I had a C midyear on my report card in a math course and my parents told me there would be no more sports until I had only As and Bs.

Yes, some teachers are hired primarily to be coaches. Some, not all of coaches teach gym class. However, my best teacher ever was a guy called Coach K because he and his father coached football for years. Coach K taught AP physics and engineering courses in high school. He was an Army guy and previously worked at McDonald-Douglass. He made learning fun and exciting. Perhaps Coach K is the exception. Student athletes are there to learn first and a teaching coaches' primary job is to teach.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#67

Post by w1ntermute »

tokenadult wrote: post #19
jcampbell1 wrote: post #17

The obsession with math education in East Asian countries is not without its cost. These countries all have a terrible gender gap in educational attainment and economic earnings. Women get marginalized before they even graduate high school. Given that female per capita earnings in the US are higher than all countries except Norway and Luxembourg, I can't help but think our system is doing something right. I am not su…

These countries all have a terrible gender gap in educational attainment and economic earnings. I call b___s___ on that, having lived in one of those countries, and invite you to produce statistics backing up your statement. The East Asian country I know best, Taiwan, has had more female than male participation in higher education for at least a generation, and generally has equal pay for equal work and plenty of fem…

I think that Chinese culture is less patriarchal than Korean and Japanese culture, which is the reason for Taiwan being like you say. In South Korea and Japan, the situation is very different.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#68

Post by skizm »

Retric wrote: post #53
skizm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is total speculation and I would guess totally false since standardized testing scores are higher for athletes also.

Athletes are by definition reasonably healthy and healthy people are as a rule both more intelligent and do better at work / school than non healthy people. Further, athletes are required to have a minimum GPA which has both a positive and dramatic impact on testing scores. AKA compare everyone with everyone with a 2.0+ GPA and you will see a positive correlation. PS: You can correct for these factors, but it's far l…

> by definition reasonably healthy and healthy people are as a rule both more intelligent and do better at work / school than non healthy people

Playing sports will make you healthier.

Edit: also the whole holding student athletes to a higher standard (need to get a 2.0) makes them get better grades and do better on tests is kinda my point. School sports helps people do better in school and in life. Isn't that what people who are against sports want?

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#69

Post by vinceguidry »

I didn't read the article. The entire idea is a non-starter. Killing high school sports will kill the entire professional sports industry. Professional athletes have been getting better and better and the reason is that kids are starting younger and younger, programs get better and better. Professional sports depends on this in the same way that market investing depends on growth. Without it, the whole scheme falls apart.

Try to do this and you'll invoke the wrath of the most powerful entertainment sector on the planet. They will shut you down faster than the Falcons get owned at the playoffs.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#70

Post by russellsprouts »

JPKab wrote: post #12

I was a high school athlete. I wrestled on a top-tier team, played football, and ran cross-country after a knee-injury temporarily disallowed me from football. The financial impact of high school sports aren't the issue. The real issue is their impact on high school culture. School sports, especially the big, spectator friendly, fast-twitch muscle oriented sports of football, basketball, and baseball, send a big mess…

At my high school, there were definite groups, like the athletes, and the top students, and skaters, stoners, band kids, choir kids, etc., but there was a huge amount of overlap between them. You could find someone with any combination. My AP government class was like a cross-section of the entire school, with someone from every group, except all of us were serious about education.

The varsity cross country team had an average GPA of 3.8. Some might think it would be grade-inflation, but several people went to private schools (they can participate in public school sports, because their school doesn't have a team), others took dual-credit classes at the community college. Running helped me focus, relieved stress, and gave me energy to do my homework. My grades always slipped in mid November, the only time I wasn't running.

ASB, our student government, was very diverse also. We rarely put on pep-rallies. Instead, each season we held an assembly that honored every team and club's accomplishments.

The point is, in my experience, the people that only participated in sports were likely to only see sports as valuable. The people that only participated in extra academics were likely to only see academics as valuable. Someone that just attended school, without doing anything else, probably wasn't doing well in school. But, someone that participated in sports and choir saw both of those as valuable, but saw academic achievement and the competitive welding team as valuable also, because they had a different perspective.

It might only be the way my high school worked, but the people that participated in several different things, no matter what they were, got along better and appreciated other people's achievements much more than those who didn't participate in extra-curricular activities.

I think that everyone should try a sport, try music, try drama, compete in poetry reading, or take an AP class, etc. I know my parents required us children to always do something extra. One sister is in choir, band, and drama. One is in cross country and reads a lot. Another sister plays volleyball. You won't be good at everything, but you will probably find something you are good at, and have a greater appreciation for what others do.

It's important that these all take place in schools, and are well-funded, because schools are a place where a whole community comes together, and everyone can participate, no matter their socio-economic background. Sports are valuable, but most people can't afford to do them outside of school.

Post reply on HN