<p>If you compared the grade point averages of all the varsity athletes and the rest of the student body the athletes would have a higher average at most decent schools.</p>
<p>Banker88,</p>
<p>A couple of problems with that statistic, assuming it's true. First a student whose grades fall loses eligibility and is not counted as an athlete after a while. (This is the same problem with a similar statistic used to promote fraternities.) These failing students are always counted in the general population. The second problem is the coure load: most athletes are not in Engineering or Pre-Med, so even a higher grade point average for athletes does not prove much.</p>
<p>I doubt that the average GPA of varsity athletes is higher than the rest of the student body. The one study I have seen shows that for a few sports like sailing, the GPA is slightly higher than the average, but for most other sports, the GPA is definitely lower. Even if we assume the athletes are just as capable academically as the rest, the very high time commitment to sports would reduce the GPA.</p>
<p>As Thomas Jefferson said, "Give about two of them [hours], every day, to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong."</p>
<p>While the average recruited jock may be less capable than the average student at his or her respected university, also remember, the average American hasn't completed college.</p>
<p>I've always been a firm believer that being on a sports team will teach you more than any class ever will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you compared the grade point averages of all the varsity athletes and the rest of the student body the athletes would have a higher average at most decent schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Easier majors, easier courses, fewer courses, access to special resources when needed (tutoring, postponements of coursework) all boost the GPA.</p>
<p>For the same reason, the SAT-to-grade correlation looks weaker than it really is, because lower-scoring students populate the grade-inflated classes and majors.</p>
<p>Interesting. Not a single val or sal at our school since the school was founded 6 years ago has been a jock, until this year. Oh, there have been a few who were in the top ten, but underrepresented at our competetive HS. Perhaps it isn't jock that should be discussed here, but individuals. Many very bright people do athletics. Many not so bright people do athletics. Jock does not necessarily mean less than bright, nor does athlete equate to bright. There are both. Athletics attracts a mix. As a teacher, I have seen both. Remember, the Rhodes Scholarship origianlly went to an athlete - that is no longer as important. But there has been a large group of jocks who did not perform well in the classroom, but performed well on the playing field. That's why we have "no pass, no play" in TX. The legislature wouldn't have had to pass such a law if all athletes did well in school, or if only a small percentage didn't. Whether we CC parents want to admit it or not, there are many locales in the US where brawn is applauded, but brain power is not. Many years ago, I taught in a rural school in IL, where only 1% went on to college, but the football stadium was standing room only. It hasn't changed to this day. Perhaps the author should look around and see that perhaps the people who are athletes would have done well in school even if they didn't become active in athletics.</p>
<p>often the players who are most athletic are the runners- the track team, the cross country team. Swimming is also an aerobic sport with bi lateral movement-
The average GPA of my daughters track team was 3.50</p>
<p>I posted on this issue a few months ago, after Dr Ratey spoke a bit on his research at my daughters elementary school. I thought it was very interesting, particulary as I and my daughter have ADD, and have found a great deal of help in becoming much more active.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.johnratey.com/articles.asp%5B/url%5D">http://www.johnratey.com/articles.asp</a></p>
<p>The correlation reported in this study only links cardiovascular exercise with increased brainpower, which excludes athletes who bulk up by lifting weights, etc.</p>
<p>However, I think exercising both the mind and the body is evidence of wisdom, if not book smarts.</p>
<p>Moonmaid, to further your observations. People learn in different ways and senses. Traditional learning is done through sight and sound and some people are better learners through one than the other. For some people, their other senses are what help them process information. The 'hands on" experience is a matter of a different neurological way of processing information. Kineasthetic (spelling?) movement is one way to put information into the neurological system. My wife is a pediatric occupational therapist and deals with this kind of issue all the time. Her specialty is Sensory Integration. It is only when kids are assessed is it known which way they process (or don't process) information and are given the appropriate therapy to aid in their development. It is unfortunate that only those with diagnosed problems begin to understand the issues and get appropriate. Many are never tested due to issues of "labeling", etc. I'll stop here as it gets much more socially complicated.</p>
<p>My wife is a pediatric occupational therapist and deals with this kind of issue all the time. Her specialty is Sensory Integration.</p>
<p>I have posted on this before- but I think it is pretty interesting.
My oldest was born 30 weeks SGA- and suffered hemmorrages, including in her brain. She stayed in the hospital 8 weeks, and when she came home she weighed 3 lbs 10oz.
Since she had gross motor delay, which became more apparent as she got older, I was determined to help her develop those skills. I not only encouraged her to be active when her inclination was to sit or be carried, but I had her participate in baby gym classes etc.</p>
<p>Because of her prematurity, she participated in a followup study of high risk children at the Univ of WA. She underwent lots of testing, including IQ tests.
The researchers were astounded when she topped out the IQ tests at 160.
I attribute her brain development, despite her intercranial hemmorages to the emphasis on cross body stimulus.</p>
<p>It also seems to have helped a great deal with her sister, who for all intents and purposes is "on the spectrum" and had a lot of sensory issues when very young. ( couldn't stand to be touched, even when nursing etc)</p>
<p>Studies have also shown that exercise even light exercise prevents dementia in seniors. I wonder if that is why our neighbor who still goes hiking at 93, is still with it.</p>
<p>I don't know any science about this but it seems that the most unmotivated students are those lost souls in hs who participate in nothing. It seems that in our hs district the varsity athletes represent a good cross section of the student body academically althought the sports differ. The fencing team definites are the "brainest" while the football and wrestling teams were less so.</p>
<p>My son, a junior in high school, is a jock and a scholar. He has been on all sorts of travel, AAU, american legion, etc. teams for multiple sports since he was a small boy, playing all over the region. He has always excelled athletically. A bright young man, he is now loaded, by his own choice, with all advanced classes in high school where he is doing very well gradewise and competes in two sports on a varsity level (GPA about a 3.8). Up until high school, some of his teachers held his athleticism against him, and I first noticed it when he was in elementary school. We always ignored this attitude...but now, one of his high school coaches has told him he must choose between his athletics and school work. Is this just "coach speak" to get him off the team? or is this really the way coaches feel a smart kid will succeed? BTW, if he keeps on the present track with his grades, he will probably get an academic scholarship. I know this attitude may be prevalent but unspoken but am I just incredibly naive in thinking there is something terribly wrong about a teacher saying this to a scholar athlete? His grades actually go up when he is in season.</p>
<p>From personal experience, sports definitely improves intelligence, but more importantly it gives an mental edge that couldn't be attained without such a competitive atmosphere. That's not to say however, that GPA/academics correlates with how much of a jock a person is, because to a certain point the sport takes priority and will interfere with a person's studies. Sports differ in what it teaches; ones that emphasize mentality and thinking more so than brawns for instance, should enhance intelligence more. </p>
<p>Bosslinda: the coach probably underestimated your son's abilities. If he can prove to the coach that he's perfectly fine handling both I certainly don't see where the problem lies.</p>
<p>Key word in the title is "jocks have more CAPABLE brains". While they may have more capable brains, that does not mean they apply themselves to school work.</p>
<p>Nothing against jocks, I myself play many sports and am very athletic, but most of them don't apply themselves. That's why they don't get good grades, and that's where the stereotype comes from.</p>
<p>What doesn't help are articles like this in the NYTimes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What Binghamton officials did not know, and what few have talked about amid this feel-good week here, is that Thompson and Broadus recruited a player to Georgetown who in four years of public high school in Delaware compiled final grades of F in 12 courses.</p>
<p>That player was Marc Egerson, who had a grade-point average of 1.33 in core courses like math, science and English. He passed nine such courses without receiving a grade higher than a C. As a freshman, he even failed physical education.</p>
<p>Georgetown plucked Egerson from the underbelly of big-time college basketball, where some top players have boosted their academic standing at diploma mills that required little, if any, schoolwork. His admission demonstrates how even elite universities navigate the gray areas of recruiting to find talent.</p>
<p>A group of senior Georgetown officials carefully reviewed the circumstances surrounding Egerson?s admission last year, according to John J. DeGioia, the university?s president. That came after a report by The New York Times about Lutheran Christian, in which Egerson?s high school coach said he wondered how Egerson had made it to Georgetown given his low grade-point average and an SAT score in the 600s while in public school. DeGioia defended Egerson?s admission and place on campus. </p>
<p>A student, John Kaszuba, said he scored just a 1170 on the SAT but was admitted in part because he played football. </p>
<p>?It?s real embarrassing to take a kid like that,? said Kaszuba, a junior who no longer plays football. ?I can?t really see where they thought he was going to make it here.?</p>
<p>But with tournament frenzy sweeping the Georgetown campus, some students questioned whether anyone really cared about the academic credentials of the basketball players. </p>
<p>Nick Murchison, a junior whose term as student body president ended two weeks ago, said, "To be honest with you, I think as long as they win, that's the most important thing for most people."
[/quote]
</p>