<p>Parents in the main have been trained to be more highly invested in their sons' sports than those of their daughters. What's surprising about that? Fifty years ago, women weren't supposed to go to medical school either; after all, they were going to get pregnant anyway.</p>
<p>In the long run, that is precisely one of the problems Title IX will end up addressing. It will take a generation or two. We'll have a more interesting conversation on CC about this in about 2050.</p>
<p>"Doubleplay: it isn't really "generosity" if it's only for your kids' team, is it?"</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>I'm a music teacher, and I've given a ton to the music program at my kid's school- my time, a piano, stacks of music...I didn't realize I really wasn't being generous because my kids were in the music program.
I also give to the lymphoma/leukemia foundation- a dear friend of ours is battling for his life, which got me involved in giving to that campaign. </p>
<p>We also have an athletic boosters, but they can only do so much. You are correct in that politics and buying team spots is a problem, but the bottom line is that people tend to give to things that they have a direct relationship to. The coach just has to suck it up, step up to the plate, be a man, and do the job he was hired to do- win games. I've seen coaches fired because they don't have the backbone to stand up to overbearing parents.</p>
<p>I don't buy that giving directly to a cause makes one less generous. I also don't buy that you have to collect private donations in a general fund and then dole it out to be fair. Why not use this approach for universities then? We'll just have one big "private" fund that everyone donates to, then some muckety-muck will decide how to distribute it. Because after all, people might try to buy their way into an Ivy or something. Imagine that.</p>
<p>I have always thought that in the interest of fairness Title IX should apply to ALL Extracurricular Activates not just athletics. By applying the concept only to sports where male interest and participation out weighs female participation while ignoring other school funded activities, e.g. Chorus, Theater, Dance, etc., in which female participation is predominate, the government has created a profoundly unfair paradigm. Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.</p>
<p>Evidence? Do women get more scholarships in chorus, theater, and dance than men? Are there separate activities for women that get more funding/scholarship support than similar activities for men? Are the facilities set aside for women markedly superior than those set aside for men?</p>
<p>(If it was true, it would have been litigated a long time ago. But still, if you have the evidence, post it. Anecdotes don't count.)</p>
<p>"Do women get more scholarships in chorus, theater, and dance than men"</p>
<p>Probably. But I doubt anyone has the data. At many colleges women outnumber the men and thereby use more of the facilities, does that count?</p>
<p>"Parents in the main have been trained to be more highly invested in their sons' sports than those of their daughters. What's surprising about that? "</p>
<p>And apparently they're still not. I am appalled at the lack of commitment and participation of parents (and players) on the women's teams at our school. Fundraise for themselves? nahhh. Go out and pick up the trash around their field, do a little weekend "spruce up our field" workparty, install a few extras that would be nice but aren't in the general operating plan? nahhh. </p>
<p>Let me tell you- I only have sons, but if I had daughters I would give their activities the SAME amount of effort as I gave my sons. SHAME SHAME SHAME on those parents that don't. Hopefully I'll have the chance one day if I have granddaughters. </p>
<p>It is not the fault of those that do because there are those that don't.</p>
<p>Real story- the concessions during football games used to be run by the fine arts boosters; all profits went into fine arts and fine arts alone. Last year, there was not even ONE parent who was willing to head up the concessions committee. When the music director asked for volunteers to work the stand during games, NO ONE raised their hand, in spite of his telling everyone how much money would be at stake. What happened? Concessions were turned over to another organization which was willing to do the work. THIS WAS THE ULTIMATE E TICKET- a real lotto winner to whoever wanted it! Which do you think was the ONLY organization in the school whose parents were willing to step up to the plate?</p>
<p>Anyone willing to guess?</p>
<p>HMMMM. I'll bite. Was it the Wrestling Team??</p>
<p>Nice anecdotes by everyone, but they certainly do not portray the "rule" with regard to interest in h.s. sports by girls and their parents.</p>
<p>Our public h.s. is the opposite of those described. Our girls teams are better than our boys teams, and many are State ranked and a couple are nationally ranked. We send more girls to Div. 1 colleges for sports than we do boys. (I don't know whether this is indicative of anything, but in comparison to just about every other sport at our h.s., the football team stinks).</p>
<p>A survey of D-1 football players. Some interesting results.</p>
<p>As far as arts scholarships, it does not seem to me that they are as popular or anywhere near as wide spread as sports scholarships.</p>
<p>GMU offers a few sports scholarships but they are for $1,000 to $2,500. They are dependent, like merit scholarships, upon GPA and continued excellence in dance and one is only for need-based aid. That said no one is getting full tuition. (<a href="http://dance.gmu.edu/scholarships.html%5B/url%5D">http://dance.gmu.edu/scholarships.html</a>)</p>
<p>Western Michigan also offers dance scholarships, for $100-$500 a semester. Again, not substantial. (<a href="http://www.wmich.edu/finaid/Publication/department/COFA-Dance.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.wmich.edu/finaid/Publication/department/COFA-Dance.html</a>)</p>
<p>Ball state offers similar scholarships. (<a href="http://www.bsu.edu/theatre/scholarships/%5B/url%5D">http://www.bsu.edu/theatre/scholarships/</a>)</p>
<p>If anything, men get into arts school easier because men are necessary to programs.</p>
<p>One might think the two areas (sports and the arts) were similarly treated, but they're not.</p>
<p>HISTORYMOM - post #108</p>
<p>Thank you for a great post - well said - and I do agree - Title IX has done great things for our gals - and it is not perfect in many aspects - but it is something - a tool - that has allowed our gals to enter into the athletic world with some success. It is a starting point. I love what you say about kids now adays not really 'knowing' what went before - they do somewhat take for granted that guys/gals sports have always been there.</p>
<p>It is always difficult to see/hear about a sports team being cut for one reason or another - because one realizes that some kids - somewhere - are going to lose out. That is never a situation that lands well on many shoulders. I have seen the outcome of those cuts up-close and personnal - for my guy as well as for my gal. </p>
<p>For many/most students - college is the last chance - last hooraaah - to participate/compete in their beloved sport - when that opportunity is taken away - it is a great loss to them. Sometimes they may have a second chance - but that entails changing schools, etc..... not always an option.</p>
<p>Some day - someone will figure out a way to really make things equal - and acceptable - to both the guys and the gals (and their parents too :) - but til then - all we can do is hope for the best - that our kids will learn from all of their experiences and grow from them - even losing that special sport they have spent sooo many hours preparing for - even that blow will be softened for them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, our exchange is very clear and understandable to anyone interested and who has been following the issue.</p>
<p>I'm sure if you reread you will "get it".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>MerryMOM - I am sure if you reread it yourself - you may understand the HUH!!</p>
<p>Done.</p>
<p>Bay, I don't think that interest or winning seasons should have anything to do with it; all sports teams should be funded equally- from the general fund that is. The problem that I have is the sense of entitlement and perceived unfairness when it comes to private donations.</p>
<p>Bay, I know of plenty schools where the girls programs are more successful than the boys. But I think posters were referring to the number of girls involved & trying out being lower than the boys, regardless of the win-loss records. My town also has a stinky football team. Lacrosse & hockey & basketball & track are nothing to brag about, either. The H.S. has over 1200 kids, yet is unable to field a boys cross country team (no interest,) yet has boys lining up & being cut from the contact sports. (Two boys joined the "team" and ran so they could list a varsity sport on their college applications.) Girls teams here are more likely to do well in competition. Yet there are still many, many more boys attending the tryouts. And our park & rec programs are very careful to offer girls as many opportunities as boys in the developmental years.</p>
<p>As girls approach college, they are more likely to opt out of competitive athletics than boys. Their priorities change, their focus often narrows as careers are considered, and they freely choose to take it down a notch & pursue sports at a less competitive level. I could make an argument that this is actually a very mature decision. Holding on to big athletic dreams against great odds is usually not the smartest choice if the time commitment & abuse of one's body could interfere with future "real world" plans. If the goal of sports participation for the vast majority of people is to build confidence & develop a healthy approach to lifelong fitness & nutrition, I think that is often accomplished before college begins. If girls are more likely than boys to reach that level of awareness at a younger age, it's not necessarily a bad thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as arts scholarships, it does not seem to me that they are as popular or anywhere near as wide spread as sports scholarships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For obvious reasons!! The fine arts don't bring in anywhere near the amount of money athletics does!</p>
<p>Did you know that the University of Michigan pays for ALL of their athletic scholarships for a full calendar year with a SINGLE football game?!?</p>
<p>BTW, ses, I'm still interested to hear your opinion about my attitude.. I need the laugh truly..</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wish Rice would drop its football program, since it is a big money loser, has little support from students, and it competes in a league that doesn't fit it at all. (Rice has 2900 undergrads, and it plays UT Austin, which has almost 40,000 undergrads!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Anxiousmom, Rice doesnt' compete in the same league as UT Austin, Rice is in the Conference USA with schools like Tulsa and SMU. Texas is in the Big 12 - quite a difference.</p>
<p>The reason Rice plays UT in pre-season games is to make money, it's the same reason they played FSU. They knew they had no chance at either game, but it gets them a big payday, which they won't have in their regular conference games.</p>
<p>Rice had a winning season last year and made it to a bowl game for the first time in many, many years. The student body came out and supported the team for the first time too (can you say "fair weather fans"?).</p>
<p>Ecliptica we are on the same page</p>
<p>Sorry for the hi jack, just needed to clarify.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As girls approach college, they are more likely to opt out of competitive athletics than boys. Their priorities change, their focus often narrows as careers are considered, and they freely choose to take it down a notch & pursue sports at a less competitive level.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SS-</p>
<p>Is this based on any evidence? Or is it just another anecdotal observation? (I think I already offered an example of our local H.S. having MORE girls than boys recruited for D1 athletics.) </p>
<p>Also, while your school may have difficulty fielding competitive girls' teams, that is not the case in our community. Our girls teams are extremely competitive, and I would venture to guess that the numbers of girls and boys who try out for teams is similar (if you count cheerleading and our competitive dance team). BTW, our cross-country team has about 200 members, split about equally between girls and boys, at a school of about 1450 students.</p>
<p>At my college, there was more and better housing available on campus for girls than for boys. As a result, pretty much no girl ever had to risk being forced to live off campus if she didn't want to. No matter how bad her number was.</p>
<p>At the time, it seemed unfair, but the reality is that girls and boys are different and have different values and needs.</p>
<p>The reason I have contempt for most feminists is that they demand equality, but mainly when it's to their advantage. They seem to have 2 prinicples:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Women are the same as men, and must be treated equally.</p></li>
<li><p>Women are different from men, and must be given special treatment.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Anyway, the whole reason why there are separate men's and women's sports is that men and women are different. So it's a bit of a contradiction to demand equal treatment in terms of funding for girls' teams and boys' teams.</p>
<p>If feminists really want equal treatment, they should demand that sports teams not be segregated by sex. If they want special treatment, they should acknowledge that boys deserve special treatment too.</p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>"As girls approach college, they are more likely to opt out of competitive athletics than boys. Their priorities change, their focus often narrows as careers are considered, and they freely choose to take it down a notch & pursue sports at a less competitive level.'</p>
<p>Our town is littered with male former high school football players, basketball players, baseball players, and wrestlers who never play a game again once they graduate. And since there are far more of them to begin with, far more of them opt out of competitive athletics all together. I'd be frankly surprised if this wasn't true in most towns (it's been true everywhere I've lived.)</p>
<p>Anecdote, of course. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.</p>
<p>Feminists might or might not want equal opportunity. Their dads sure do. All those men who sit on our courts say the law requires they have it. Good for us!</p>
<p>Nothing wrong with anecdotes.
Anecdotes are what change the world for the better.
Frederick Douglass's narrative was an anecdote and it changed the hearts and minds of millions of people the world over.
Anecdotes bring home truths that no amount of studies, charts, graphs, stats, tables can. If you want to know about the numbers, look at statistics. If you want to know about people, talk to them.</p>