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

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#71

Post by JPKab »

mathattack wrote: post #52
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…

"Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions. They have no place there." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "Sports and physical fitness are good and should be encouraged for every student"? I hear you about the problems of excess focus on a few athletes, but some schools go too far and eliminate PE and fitness activities. And on a side note - how is it possible to run long dist…

The state high school sports authority would not allow someone with specific categories of knee injuries to play certain sports (football included) that involved fast lateral movements until 12 months had passed from date of injury. The knee felt healed to me, and I was able to run no problem after 6 months.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#72

Post by scott_s »

barranger wrote: post #5
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…

The problem is that multiple changes we made at the same time in that school: 1) Giving Teaches more time for training and planing 2) Making students wear uniforms 3) Aligning the curriculum with more rigorous state standards 4) Drop the sports program Then spends the rest of the article giving all the credit for the improved test scores to a lack of sports.

My understanding was that the lack of sports lead to more money, which enabled those things.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#73

Post by jtheory »

lumberjack wrote: post #44
rayiner wrote: post #26

I find it amusing that in a country where so many people are obese, diabetic, etc, people are characterizing sports as the problem. If anything, there is too much "learning" in school and not enough sports! All over the country, physical education programs are being cut to make way for more instruction on native Americans, as if that's really what society needs.

Sports and physical activity are not the same. The way sports is done in high school, alienates anyone who does not care to compete athletically and dedicate a good chuck of their time towards that goal. Sports is also not the healthiest option around. I have many friends who still suffer from injuries that they relate back to their days of football practice and such. What high schools should have is a continuum of t…

Yes - I ran cross country and track in HS, and it was very much not a jogging club for people to get in better shape and have fun. We were training for races against other schools. Our coach was pretty laid back, but still, everyone knew everyone else's times, everyone had to compete in public in skimpy uniforms,etc.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#74

Post by xahrepap »

fusiongyro wrote: post #10
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…

Probably because those endeavors (art, math, chess) are cheap compared to football. When looking at the budget, the most expensive items are going to get more scrutiny.

football (and other sports) also brings in more income (ticket sales, team shirts, etc) for the school than art, math, and chess do.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#75

Post by jtheory »

jtheory wrote: post #73
lumberjack wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports and physical activity are not the same. The way sports is done in high school, alienates anyone who does not care to compete athletically and dedicate a good chuck of their time towards that goal. Sports is also not the healthiest option around. I have many friends who still suffer from injuries that they relate back to their days of football practice and such. What high schools should have is a continuum of t…

Yes - I ran cross country and track in HS, and it was very much not a jogging club for people to get in better shape and have fun. We were training for races against other schools. Our coach was pretty laid back, but still, everyone knew everyone else's times, everyone had to compete in public in skimpy uniforms,etc.

[Self-replying because I can't seem to write more than a few lines in the mobile interface...] I personally did get a lot out of HS sport; I was a shy kid who could run fast, so I became a mini hero/authority in my small fish pond - but I have to agree with the article's point that the majority of the students were not benefiting.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#76

Post by mp01 »

Too many people here seem to be missing the point of the article. The title is "The Case Against High-School Sports" not "The Case Against Sports". The argument is whether an academic institution should be spending so much of its (potentially tight) budget on athletics and whether it should be glorifying athletic accomplishments so much more than it does academic accomplishments.

I've played sports, both in-school and out-of-school, almost my entire life and I love sports as much as anyone else, and I think the article makes a valid argument. Sports are great and kids can learn a lot from them, but I don't think school-affiliated sports over many benefits over club-affiliated sports, and even if they did, I question whether those benefits outweigh the costs of schools putting so many resources into them.

edit: I was missing a word

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#77

Post by bhewes »

I played HS Baseball in Oklahoma. One year we lost to Jenks in the state finals. Only thing I wish, is I was better. HS baseball was my outlet from the physical prison that is modern suburbia. Now my outlet is weight lifting and sparing, and I probably spend 20 hours a week on 'worthless' physical activity. Just because the author wants to live in her head all the time does not mean the rest of us do.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#78

Post by JPKab »

001sky wrote: post #25
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…

Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions. They have no place there. The counter example is that sports are linked (hitstorically) with (very) successful Academic Institutions. The notion that "they have no place there" is historically way off the mark. [Edit: Examples] [1] In 1815, Eton College documented its football [soccer] rules, the first football code to be written down anywh…

Your causation is completely backwards. By your logic, since sports = great academics, University of Alabama is a vastly superior school to Harvard.

You act as if the root of these schools success is sports, as if the sports did ANYTHING to make these schools more successful.

They didn't.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#79

Post by mathattack »

JPKab wrote: post #71
mathattack wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions. They have no place there." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "Sports and physical fitness are good and should be encouraged for every student"? I hear you about the problems of excess focus on a few athletes, but some schools go too far and eliminate PE and fitness activities. And on a side note - how is it possible to run long dist…

The state high school sports authority would not allow someone with specific categories of knee injuries to play certain sports (football included) that involved fast lateral movements until 12 months had passed from date of injury. The knee felt healed to me, and I was able to run no problem after 6 months.

Wow, so it definitely knocks you out of a full season. Glad to hear that it worked out for you.

Re: The Case Against High-School Sports

#80

Post by 001sky »

JPKab wrote: post #78
001sky wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions. They have no place there. The counter example is that sports are linked (hitstorically) with (very) successful Academic Institutions. The notion that "they have no place there" is historically way off the mark. [Edit: Examples] [1] In 1815, Eton College documented its football [soccer] rules, the first football code to be written down anywh…

Your causation is completely backwards. By your logic, since sports = great academics, University of Alabama is a vastly superior school to Harvard. You act as if the root of these schools success is sports, as if the sports did ANYTHING to make these schools more successful. They didn't.

The causation is that sports originated in "elite" schools with "elite" academics. Other schools imitated the elite schools, and introduced sports as a result. If the quality of schools associated with sports has declined, that is a function of this second-order process. It would be interesting if sports made the originating schools were performers academically, but that is not the case. The British Public schools that made sport central to their programs remained among the most elite academically for 150 years after there introduction.

Sports are good, but I agree: get them the fuck out of academic institutions. They have no place there.

To simplify this point, sports were created by students. That is the origin of their place in schools.

These schools, were british colleges (ie, high schools), not universities.

Your contention that they have "no place" in high school is historically mis-guided.

The theory that sports are only identified with sub-par academic performance is also mis-guided.

Sports originated in the highest-tier of Academic performance institutions.

The reputations of those institutions onlly increased, as did those of their graduates, for a long time after the introduction of sports.

Under your theory, their performance should have declined.

Post reply on HN