<p>“Publicly speaking this brought out a huge backlash from brain-washed sports enthusiasts who crazily and systematically wreck their own and their kids lives.”</p>
<p>Wow… Not sure how to respond to such a obviously biased statement. I get it. You don’t like organized sports. Your statement is incredibly ridiculous to suggest sports enthusiasts are wrecking their kids lives. The great majority of HS athletes have very positive experiences and their participation adds tremendous value to their HS experience. They are able to maintain a balance and develop skills and values that help them develop as people.</p>
<p>"Meanwhile the kids who have been quietly winning academic or other extra-curricular laurels- debate, math & science competitions, Model UN’s etc. go on to top colleges. These kids hardly get any acclaim except at the time of college admissions. "</p>
<p>Sounds like you don’t like the fact athletes are given a lot of attention for their athletic achievement and others are not recognized for strong academic achievement. Should kids choose their activities based on how much praise and acclaim they get? How about they participate in activities they enjoy and excel in - academic, athletic, musical, service oriented, etc.? Does every HS activity have to be a building block to something in the future or some Tier 1 college? Sorry, really sounds like you have an ax to grind.</p>
<p>I didnt notice that the groups of kids at my daughters schools were called offensive names except by themselves in a self deprecating way.
Oftentimes the same kids that had won orchestral competitions for example also played on school sports teams which were noted to have high gpas.
Mine played on school teams throughout high school, but also on rec league teams, always no cut. Coaches were often volunteers.</p>
<p>I can’t remember a thread where the people with opposing positions so consistently overplay their arguments as in this one. Did Matmaven really just suggest that teens are not influenced by praise and acclaim? Yes, he* did. Perhaps Matmaven should have used more head-protective gear during his high school sports career.</p>
<p>In my experience, and by my analysis, there are myriad benefits to youth sports, including (and maybe especially) team sports. Health AND character AND giving recognition and outlet to qualities that are not intellectual. But are there dangers, too, and a risk of over-emphasis? Of course there are. And the risks compound the better a kid’s performance gets. High-level sports in high school and college involve huge gambles – with health, safety, education, and often money as well – and there are plenty of net losers in the process. Maybe not so many massive net losers, I hope – people with permanent brain injuries or liver damage from steroids. But people who fall short of their academic potential, or engage in behaviors that are destructive to themselves or others, or have a hard time emotionally when their careers end. And sports culture does send crazy, mixed-up signals to young people, especially the 90% of sports-management majors for whom there will be no job in the world of sports business. I wish we could ratchet the risks down some.</p>
<p>Not all high schools are sports-obsessed, though. At my kids’ public school, academics came first, second, and third. My son had a close friend in high school who was in and out of our house for four years. I probably spoke with her a couple of times a week. I found out from their yearbook that she had been an all-City athlete in a team sport I never heard her or any of their other friends mention. I heard plenty about her class rank (#2) and academic awards.</p>
<p>*(I am assuming “Matmaven” is a he, because it sounds like a wrestler’s moniker, and there aren’t so many female wrestlers in our generation, at least not who admit it. Also, “maven” is masculine, not that anybody who uses it in English really cares.)</p>
<p>Not sure it makes sense to blame lack of high scores in international math tests on HS sports. Certainly, academics should come first. Certainly, schools should not cut teachers to keep football or overlook academic failure in sports stars. There are kids that keep their grades up and actually come to school so they can keep playing their sport. There are kids that step up to a leadership position on the field, because someone finally believe in them. Sports can show kids a path to success - not necessarily through their sport but through the hard work and dedication they learn there.</p>
<p>That being said, I find it frustrating that the local paper had 3-4 pages each week dedicated to sports - both HS varsity and recreational/travel teams. Yet almost none to other high school pursuits. Part of that is the fault of the teachers, kids and parents involved in those activities that don’t submit articles - the local paper is not going to cover every marching band competition but would probably publish a few articles about how well the band is doing. Other students do not come out and support the quiz bowl team at the state championship - which never makes the paper. The only pep rally is for sports - and really just for football. Most support for non-athletic pursuits would make a nice balance.</p>
<p>Also, there needs to be more realism at a younger age about playing in college. It is not going to happen for the vast majority of HS athletes. And going to a college that is otherwise a poor fit just for a sport, is usually not a good idea. Most of the varsity boys in my son’s sport figure that out and very few go on to play after HS - or play Club or intramurals in college. </p>
<p>In our district, games are generally at 4pm during the week and kids do not leave school early - expect on rare occasions. My kids miss a day of school for Model UN or other events, so missing 9th period once in a season would seem to have a minimal impact.</p>
<p>“Did Matmaven really just suggest that teens are not influenced by praise and acclaim? Yes, he* did. Perhaps Matmaven should have used more head-protective gear during his high school sports career.”</p>
<p>1) Yes I did wear protective headgear - however, if I remember correctly, back in the 70’s and early 80’s they were constructed from leather and rocks. </p>
<p>2) Not sure how you inferred from my comment that I don’t believe HS kids are influenced by praise and acclaim. My point was that the poster seemed to be bothered by a perceived or real discrepancy between attention given to academic and athletic accomplishments. And, in fact, that parents best serve their kids by supporting their decisions on what activities to participate in whether or not there is acclaim from others of not. That kids are best served by participating in activities that they enjoy, whatever they are. </p>
<p>"High-level sports in high school and college involve huge gambles – with health, safety, education, and often money as well – and there are plenty of net losers in the process. "</p>
<p>For someone who decried the fact that several posters had “overplayed their argument” this statement seems to be along the same vein if not worse. The overwhelming majority of HS and college athletes are not even remotely close to net losers from their participation. If you have data to support the opposite view, I would love to see it.</p>
<p>"But people who fall short of their academic potential, or engage in behaviors that are destructive to themselves or others, or have a hard time emotionally when their careers end. "</p>
<p>If you think underachievement and unhealthy behaviors are more prevalent in athletes that the general population, the data just doesn’t back up your claims. Not even close. Sorry, not buying it.</p>
<p>I am a “he” by the way. My sons did wrestle more than a few females over the last 15 years or so. I think they all wore headgear BTW.</p>
<p>" Maybe not so many massive net losers, I hope – people with permanent brain injuries or liver damage from steroids."</p>
<p>Far, far more than ever previously imagined. Want proof? Have a high school try to get long-term disability insurance for their players. What is it that insurance companies know that parents and high schools don’t want to admit?</p>
<p>“Far, far more than ever previously imagined. Want proof? Have a high school try to get long-term disability insurance for their players. What is it that insurance companies know that parents and high schools don’t want to admit?”</p>
<p>I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting schools should buy LTD insurance for their athletes? Schools are not being turned away by insurance companies. They don’t buy insurance. Parents provide insurance for their children. And then when those children become adults, they purchase their own insurance. I played HS sports, including contact sports. I purchased my own LTD insurance. Maybe I’m missing something.</p>
<p>Sounds like more alarmist rhetoric to justify your bias.</p>
This came out strong. I had football in mind when I wrote this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct about this. Kids come with different abilities. To some athletics come easily, to others academics. Why eulogize one, not the other. Recognition of any achievement builds self-confidence. All kids need to have that built-up, not just sports superstars. The math/computer superstars who compete on AMC’s etc. are labeled nerds or geeks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point exactly. They should chose the activity based on what they enjoy and their abilities. Majority of them start by playing sports because the culture promoted is that sports are cool, not necessarily because the kids enjoy it. Some of them want to be part of the group. Are you telling me that all kids play sports for the fun of it and do not have athletic recruiting in mind?</p>
<p>The excessive competitiveness of the school sports gives the athletes a sub-par academic experience. They tend to pick easy subjects- hardly any math or science as majors when they go to college. HS has become a hard place- a giant juggling activity for kids and parents. This is true not just for athletes but also who are into other EC’s. My daughter had to deal not only with her music practices, other EC’s, the 10 AP classes over 3 years, but also the football season as the Band was expected to play at the games. </p>
<p>
.
I did play sports in HS. Ours was a poor school. We only had PE teachers. They focused on 4 or 5 promising athletes. The rest, we organized our own teams and competed with each other. (During school hours). It was great fun and great HS experience. Even the the so-called nerdy kids got to have fun playing sports, except they were not called NERDS. School was a happy place.. My brother who was a bigger sports enthusiast, formed his own team with the neighborhood boys. Again no parents, no funding, no uniforms. Sports was for fun and recreation.
I am all for sports in schools but it has been taken to a new level in US. These happen to be my views. Focus on academics helped my kids just as focus on sports helped some of your families. As I said, each family should decide what will work for them.</p>
<p>“Are you suggesting schools should buy LTD insurance for their athletes? Are you suggesting schools should buy LTD insurance for their athletes?”</p>
<p>You bet. Specifically for football players. The impact of football injuries - specifically brain injuries - 20, 30, 40 years down the road is devastating, and it seems, by an order of magnitude greater than previously believed.</p>
<p>I’m all for school sports. My gripe with my children’s HS is that too much emphasis is placed on sports as competition, and very little on sports just for fun. Not all kids can (or want to) be district champions or whatever. Some would like the fields/courts to be available often for those who just want to knock a ball about with friends.</p>
<p>Friends of mine who are first generation from India were surprised that the school sports teams are not as educational in nature as what they were used to back home. They thought that if they sent their son or daughter out for the soccer team (wearing sneakers and jeans LOL), the kid would be taught how to play soccer just like he is taught math or English at school. But in reality, while any student could of course try out for the team, participation on the actual team requires significant prior knowledge and experience. So in this way, I don’t completely buy the claim that sports are part of the educational mission of the school. For that to ring true, there would have to be an intramural program, which many schools don’t seem to have anymore.</p>
<p>That said, my kids have certainly enjoyed and benefitted from athletics a great deal, but they were privileged enough to have had the chance to learn the game in advance of tryouts. There is little offered for the disadvantaged or unskilled child, because even though there are mandated no-cut sports, the student without a certain level of ability will not participate to the same extent as a bench warmer as he would if he were first or second string varsity.</p>
<p>We need AP or honors level soccer, normal academic track soccer, and remedial/special ed. soccer. Obviously, we are never going to have the space and resources to make that happen, but some people have an issue with how the athletic program works now. While we have three levels–freshman, jv, and varsity–none are for the remedial or average player.</p>
<p>PS–The system probably worked well in our parents’ generation. Kids learned a game in the back yard or gym class, played it a recess, and then anyone who wanted, went on play on the team in junior high and high school. But that was when rural and suburban schools were relatively small (don’t know about city schools), so there were spots available for anyone who wanted to be on the team. Even when I was in high school, they never needed to cut more than 4 or 5 kids from girls’ teams. Now some 30 or 40 get cut after tryouts, depending on the sport. The system also probably worked in a more educational way before people got so crazy with developing an EC resume, and before there were so many expensive youth leagues with pro coaches which kids can join at age 4.</p>
<p>^^^depends on the school. Where my kids go, JV is considerably below Varsity. Some JV teams have kids with no experience at all. Last year, our school had two JV lacrosse teams to accommodate all the boys. Our JV hockey team has five girls on it. In both cases, these kids are getting a high school sports experience.</p>
<p>I also wish there were more opportunities for kids to play on a high school team. </p>
<p>At our high school, football is no cuts. Doesn’t mean everyone gets to play, just anyone could be on the team if he does the work. Cross country is the same. Anyone, and this means girls, too, and xc is the only no cuts girls sport, can be a part of the team if she is willing to come to the (extremely early) practices, and do the work. There is a series of speed thresholds that must be crossed to run in a meet, however. I have encouraged kids who want to try a sport and have no athletic background to try cross country and have been pleasantly surprised by the results. Some complete non athletes have found a home in xc. We don’t have a set of spring sports that are so open. Track is mostly football players looking to get faster or stronger, so the vibe is different. </p>
<p>Our school does have layers of teams graded by ability from freshman to JV to varsity. Unfortunately most teams are competitive to make and require some prior experience. I wish there were a few sports in which a freshman could just learn the sport for the first time. And then try to work his way up to varsity or even JV.</p>
<p>Depending on the day, I can very easily switch sides on this issue. For example, after a number of recent goof-off “practices,” during which my serious kid had to train alone, I can do a Jekyll and Hyde.</p>
<p>One frustrating problem with our cross country team is precisely the no-cut policy. In order to be prepared to compete well in Sept, the kids need to train all summer and progressively add mileage. Some kids do everything on the training schedule, some kids do just some of the training, and quite a few, because it is no-cut, do absolutely nothing. Even when the school year begins, these kids want to give minimal to no effort. Yet the school still needs to issue the latter group uniforms, bus them to meets and off-site practices, and the coach needs to pay them at least minimal attention. It is a drain on resources which, IMO, gets wasted on unmotivated students who just want an easy line for their college resume. When people envision who is helped by no-cut sports, they think of the hard-working kid who just isn’t very athletic, or the student whose parents had neither time nor money to spend on youth sports and couldn’t make a competitive team, or the overweight kid who is trying to get in shape and needs the motivation of a group. We want to help THEM. But unfortunately, in our experience, the policy mostly benefits the lazy or the posers, and that aggravates me.</p>
<p>Around here, plenty of athletes are near the top of the academic heap. It’s the ones with the sunken chests who can’t do a pull-up that get labeled nerds and geeks, and has little to do with academics.</p>
<p>My youngest is a freshman at a new STEM HS that has no sports, no PE, no lockers and no lunchroom. We’ll see how things work compared to my older two kids.</p>