"Jocks on average have more capable brains than the rest of the public.."

Parents Forum
1

<p>A Newsweek article provides scientific evidence that exercise and athletics makes you smarter:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662246/site/newsweek/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662246/site/newsweek/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
March 26, 2007 issue - The stereotype of the "dumb jock" has never sounded right to Charles Hillman. A jock himself, he plays hockey four times a week, but when he isn't body-checking his opponents on the ice, he's giving his mind a comparable workout in his neuroscience and kinesiology lab at the University of Illinois. Nearly every semester in his classroom, he says, students on the women's cross-country team set the curve on his exams. So recently he started wondering if there was a vital and overlooked link between brawn and brains?if long hours at the gym could somehow build up not just muscles, but minds. With colleagues, he rounded up 259 Illinois third and fifth graders, measured their body-mass index and put them through classic PE routines: the "sit-and-reach," a brisk run and timed push-ups and sit-ups. Then he checked their physical abilities against their math and reading scores on a statewide standardized test. Sure enough, on the whole, the kids with the fittest bodies were the ones with the fittest brains, even when factors such as socioeconomic status were taken into account. Sports, Hillman concluded, might indeed be boosting the students' intellect...</p>

<pre><code> . . .
</code></pre>

<p>...Scientists have always suspected as much, although they have not been able to prove it. The idea of the "scholar-athlete" isn't just a marketing ploy dreamed up by the NCAA; it goes back to the culture of ancient Greece, in which "fitness was almost as important as learning itself," says Harvard psychiatrist John Ratey. The Greeks, he adds, were clued into "the mind-body connection....</p>

<pre><code> . . .
</code></pre>

<p>...Finally, there's the question that's been dogging Charles Hillman since he first picked up a hockey stick: why, if jocks on average have more capable brains than the rest of the public, do they have an unfair reputation for being dumb? Why does a term like "scholar-athlete," which would have made so much sense to the ancient Greeks, get snickered at today? The reason, says Hillman, is found not in science but in common sense: some of our schools have failed young athletes by cutting them too much slack. "A lot of it comes from schools' giving them an easy road," he says. "Kids get this wholly inaccurate label because they're good at sports, and then too much emphasis is placed on their physical abilities at the expense of their mental abilities.""

[/quote]
</p>

2

<p>That's a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.</p>

3

<p>what is the most jockish high school athlete? a football player.</p>

<p>Also usually has the worst grades.</p>

4

<p>The problem with the study is that it shows correlation not causality. Are fit kids smarter or are smarter kids fitter? You can't tell on the basis of the test conducted.</p>

5

<p>There are some definitional issues ... are all athletes jocks?</p>

6

<p>If I can add my .02:
My two sons could not be more different. S1 is smart, intensely academic, and excels in school. He can read a big novel in a few hours, is a political junkie, wants to be a lawyer and built his own computer. He worked hard at his one weakness, writing, to become a very good student. He was on Varsity baseball for 2 years, and Cross Country for 2 (got into the states) but does not live for athletics. Grades are extremely important to him. He reads voraciously for fun.</p>

<p>S2, while much younger, has always thrived on activity. Also a very bright boy, he ran ever since he could walk and hates to sit down. He has played Pop Warner football since age 5 (is now 11) and is much less bookish. He really doesn't read much for fun (despite my best efforts!), although he enjoys reading together with me and once in a while gets into a book like Harry Potter or Artemis Fowl. He learns best in a hands on, practical kind of situation. He can memorize numerous football plays, knows the stats of every NFL prospect and most of the NFL roster players. He gets decent grades in elementary school, but works hard for them. Sitting in a chair listening to someone talk is like death for him. Last year, his wonderful teacher had the kids learning everything from reptiles to ecology to history in a very hands on way, and he got all As.</p>

<p>I think that those who are drawn to sports tend to be very active people, that don't shine in the sit-down-and-listen-to-the-lecture type environment. They will work incredibly hard to excell in athletics, but it can be torture for them to learn in a static environment.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, most of our public schools don't know how to educate students who don't learn in the traditional way.</p>

7

<p>Interesting. I am a little skeptical, though, because you can control for SES, but I don't see how you can control for diet or for hands-on parental involvement. Giving your kid a Twinkie to shut him up and parking him in front of the TV is bad for both his body and his mind.</p>

8

<p>Actually, I think there are a number of studies that show that physical activity does improve peoples ability to learn and also slows down cognitive decline with age. My problem with the study you cite is that it doesn't really make your point.</p>

9

<p>MoonMaid, My Jr. S is just like your youngest, been playing football since 11 years old. Hates discussing novels in English class but loves watching the Chem teacher blow someting up to illustrate a point! And that is what he remembers and comes home talking about.</p>

10

<p>Packmom, slightly OT (sorry to others!) I once watched a documentary about the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman. Although far from a jock, he was one of those always on the go types. Don't think that he liked to sit still much. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Known for his insatiable curiosity, wit, brilliant mind and playful temperament,[2] he is equally famous for his many adventures, detailed in his books Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! and What Do You Care What Other People Think?, and in books about him, such as Tuva or Bust!. As well as being an inspirational lecturer, bongo player, notorious practical joker, and decipherer of Maya hieroglyphs, Richard Feynman was regarded as an eccentric and a free spirit. He liked to pursue multiple seemingly independent paths, such as biology, art, percussion, and lock picking. Freeman Dyson once wrote that Feynman was "half-genius, half-buffoon", but later revised this to "all-genius, all-buffoon".

[/quote]
</p>

11

<p>I wasn't a 'jock' in high school, but I was a three-sport athlete. I found that during season, I was MUCH better with time management, and was able to prioritize my school work. just an anecdote.
Also, I'd say that out of the top 30 students in my class, I'd guess that at least 20 were on some sports team (and of course being overachievers, they excelled on the field too)</p>

12

<p>Busy people are generally better at time management than those who are not busy. There is a saying: "If you want something done, give it to someone whose already busy." I don't think this is specifically a sports issue, anything will do.</p>

13

<p>It depends on what your definition of 'jock' is. Football players are the most 'jockish' in high school? Not surewhat that meant! Sorry to be so 'Clinton-esque'! Still, I find the topic interesting. There are other studies that illustrate the relationship between exercise and mental capacity as related to aging. The technology involved with actually studying mental effects of exercise is fascinating.</p>

14

<p>I don't think sports make you smarter. I think some smart people just tend toward sports, the same way other smart people might gear themselves towards music or art. I say this because, yes, I know very smart jocks (2400s on SATs and the like). But aside from said smart jocks, the rest all entirely fit the "dumb jock" stereotype.</p>

<p>There is nothing to suggest, since I have known these people, some since elementary school, that sports made the intelligent exactly that... they've always been intelligent and stayed intelligent all these years! Their intelligence is probably what makes them excel at sports, whether it's a factor on their determination, motivation, approach to playing sports, etc. Alternatively, the "dumb jocks" have always been exactly that, too; sports haven't made any of them smarter. In fact, many seem to be making more immature decisions the more mature they get.</p>

<p>There is also something to be said about how people who do not take care of their bodies are not very smart either. I exercise under the idea that, if I am healthy, I'm at a reduced risk of developing anything from diabetes to heart disease. Plus, exercise is fun! I think this is a smart approach, so wouldn't some very smart people not only have the same philosophy but possibly be able excel at sports they play for exercise?</p>

<p>Why wouldn't the converse of what the article states be true? "The kids with the fittest brains are the ones with the fittest bodies."</p>

15

<p>My son's val is the star football player. I think #2 in his class is a state ranked basketball player and soccer player. Good grief AZN don't make generalizations, it's ignorant and troll-ish...</p>

16

<p>This is actually not new information. There is a famous longitudinal study, I think called the Terman Study, that followed smart, jocks over many years. It disproved the nerd vs athlete idea and found that the kids who were smart also excelled in sports. I learned about this in school more than 30 years ago.</p>

17

<p>Overall, jocks recruited for the big revenue sports are signficantly behind their peers (in the general student body) with regard to academic achievement (not to say that there aren't cases of high academic achievement among big revenue sports athletes, but they tend to be the exception).</p>

<p>And even among more obscure sports like lax or soccer, the academic achievements (particularly in HS) lag a bit behind their peers at the most selective universities/colleges.</p>

18

<p>The best write-up on the Terman study (which is probably NOT the study for the point mentioned) is </p>

<p>Terman's</a> Kids by Joel Shurkin, which should be available in any good public or academic library and is a great read.</p>

19

<p>Ok, cool. So stop giving athletes preferential treatment in admissions, free tutoring/answers, and a million excused absences.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Overall, jocks recruited for the big revenue sports are signficantly behind their peers (in the general student body) with regard to academic achievement (not to say that there aren't cases of high academic achievement among big revenue sports athletes, but they tend to be the exception).</p>

<p>And even among more obscure sports like lax or soccer, the academic achievements (particularly in HS) lag a bit behind their peers at the most selective universities/colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>All very true, and exactly the reasons why jocks have a reputation for being academically challenged. But in case 1 (mainly large, D-I schools), many people accept that a few superbly talented athletes can be admitted, not change the culture of the school, and bring all sort of other benefits to the college.</p>

<p>In case 2 (mostly selectiive, small D-III schools) the problem is almost the reverse. Once a college commits to fielding a football team, or lacrosse team, it takes a disproportionate % of the student body to field a team that's competitive and doesn't put the players in danger of physical harm. That often involves an academic compromise for a few position players, who, in turn, contribute to a program that can attract top scholar-athletes. </p>

<p>In other words, there's no contradiction in beliveing that athletes, in general, perform at or above the level of their non-athletic peers, and recognizing that colleges, for other reasons, admit some athletes who are well below their peers academically.</p>