ok class

[BoredShirtless]

I better clear this one up. Parents can naturally send their kids off to a sporting institution for further "education" in one or more specific sports. But not every parent may be able to afford or even be bothered with this. Why should a child have to put up with the limitations of his parents? Schools can provide; so let em provide.

Except that resources are limited and there simply aren't enough people with a realistic chance of success at professional athletics to justify the expense of teaching it. I'm ambivilant on the whole issue of gym (I never particularly liked it myself, but I can understand the arguments in its favor), but it does not offer skills that in most students' cases will ever be used professionally.

Addressing the need for a healthy body and PE's role in that later, you don't have to be a professional sportsperson to incorporate PE into a non-sporting career. Everyone who works for a living falls into two categories: those who use their hands, and those who use their mind. Some labourers for example go to the gym to improve their ability to do their job. Without PE, a labourer may not know how to lift correctly and failing to lift correctly can put a man out of work. Like I said before, the aim of schools is to show students the many roads they can walk. And while showing them the roads, teaching them how to walk.

Of course, in most cases, advanced math, history, civics, science, and literature won't be used by the student after graduation either, but understanding those subjects is critical to a solid educational and civic foundation.

Depends really. I wouldn't say it's critical for a man who uses his hands for a living. My Dad, a great man who came to Australia with nothing but the shirt on his back has made it big time, yet has an extremely weak education [he left school at 14]. But he is a great member of society; he gives his time to help the community, he's a great role model for the family, he's just super

Not being a huge fatass is critical too, but the question is, can gym class have any impact on that, and is it a school's responsibility to do so when there are already so many critical demands on its resources?

Yes, PE is critical for instilling the education required to answer why it's not good being a fatass. And then, how to prevent becomming a fatass. As to funding, I'd ditch subjects like Geography before PE.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aren't you kinda pigeonholing students into either sports-obsessed jocks or industrious scholar-types?

If I seemed to do that, it was not my intention. But I do notice a distinct scial class system in my school at lest. I have noticed that atheletes seemed to be more valued by the group. I myself am disliked by many of my clss mates because I know the material, while someone on the football team can essentially go brain-dead in class and be loved because he scored a winning touchdown.

The problem is with the teacher, not with the idea of a football program.

It is cultural issue... the sport is consideed ore importnt than the schoolwork

I'm sure these people felt completely differently outside of weight training.

Its the class that causes the attitude, not the people!

Actually when I talk to them after class the attitude in many didt change.

How expensive was this equipment, versus the cost of the weights?

One set of equipment for the DNA work costs a few thousand... an entire wieghtroom full of new equipment costs the same amount.

I know quite a few people who stayed in school soley due to sports. Consider the percentages of unschooled people in jail (its some ungodly number like 90%, although I don't have the exact statistic in front of me). If the sports money keeps them in school and out of jail, then it saved society an incredible sum of money.

correlation does not equal causation my friend. A person can sign up for extracurricular activities of they wish, but if they dont want to be in school, they shouldnt have to be. They arent really learning anything if they are in school for the sports anyway.

[Durandal]

You're describing higher learning. The aim of schools is not to pave a students career, but to show them the many roads they can walk. And while showing them the roads, teaching them how to walk. Schools aim to give pupils a well rounded education, and to maximise career opportunities. You can't do either properly without PE.

What exactly about PE increases a student's career opportunities? There are more opportunities in the IT or business management industries than every professional sporting league combined. What skill set do students get from PE that helps them later in life? I sure as Hell didn't get anything from those classes.

They're seperate things only when you have choosen a career and want to get an education for your choice. Whether it be swinging a tennis racket or fixing a car, you need further education once you leave school.

I think it'd be advantageous for you to clarify what exactly you would describe as physical education. If you mean learning how to play sports, then that's simply useless. If you mean learning how to properly diet, exercise and manage your weight, I'd say that that has a much better case for inclusion in curricula than running around a field with a ball.

Who would spend most of their waking life from the ages of 6 to 17 in a place which doesn't teach math?

That's exactly the point. If a school dropped its PE program, the number of students who go on to higher education and get jobs would be virtually unaffected. Watch what happens when a school drops its math courses. Learning math, science, history and English will invariably give students more career opportunities in life than learning how to play football, baseball, basketball and soccer.

Most schools already know this. That's why PE was a non-credit class at my school; it was just required and didn't affect your GPA. That's why school sports are optional. That's why you have to maintain a certain GPA to continue playing a sport, but you don't have to play a sport to be eligible for schooling. Sports are for recreation; school is for work. You get your work done first, then you go off and play sports.

I better clear this one up. Parents can naturally send their kids off to a sporting institution for further "education" in one or more specific sports. But not every parent may be able to afford or even be bothered with this. Why should a child have to put up with the limitations of his parents? Schools can provide; so let em provide.

You could play the same violin for students who want to go on to higher education but simply can't afford it. I consider them much more important than would-be professional athletes.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If it hadn't been for the damn PE classes I must take to graduate, I would have been able to take classes I actually enjoy. Classes like AP Psychology, or AP Gov/Econ.

[BoredShirtless]

You're describing higher learning. The aim of schools is not to pave a students career, but to show them the many roads they can walk. And while showing them the roads, teaching them how to walk. Schools aim to give pupils a well rounded education, and to maximise career opportunities. You can't do either properly without PE.

What exactly about PE increases a student's career opportunities? There are more opportunities in the IT or business management industries than every professional sporting league combined. What skill set do students get from PE that helps them later in life? I sure as Hell didn't get anything from those classes.

I answer these questions in my last post to RedImperator.

They're seperate things only when you have choosen a career and want to get an education for your choice. Whether it be swinging a tennis racket or fixing a car, you need further education once you leave school.

I think it'd be advantageous for you to clarify what exactly you would describe as physical education. If you mean learning how to play sports, then that's simply useless. If you mean learning how to properly diet, exercise and manage your weight, I'd say that that has a much better case for inclusion in curricula than running around a field with a ball.

When I was in school, we had two periods of PE each week. One was practical, the other theory.

Who would spend most of their waking life from the ages of 6 to 17 in a place which doesn't teach math?

That's exactly the point. If a school dropped its PE program, the number of students who go on to higher education and get jobs would be virtually unaffected. Watch what happens when a school drops its math courses. Learning math, science, history and English will invariably give students more career opportunities in life than learning how to play football, baseball, basketball and soccer.

Again, see last post to RedImperator.

Most schools already know this. That's why PE was a non-credit class at my school; it was just required and didn't affect your GPA. That's why school sports are optional. That's why you have to maintain a certain GPA to continue playing a sport, but you don't have to play a sport to be eligible for schooling. Sports are for recreation; school is for work. You get your work done first, then you go off and play sports.

Uh, no. Once again, see post to RedImperator.

I better clear this one up. Parents can naturally send their kids off to a sporting institution for further "education" in one or more specific sports. But not every parent may be able to afford or even be bothered with this. Why should a child have to put up with the limitations of his parents? Schools can provide; so let em provide.

You could play the same violin for students who want to go on to higher education but simply can't afford it. I consider them much more important than would-be professional athletes.

I've already discussed the aim of schools [well rounded education; teach kids how to walk their chosen path], but I haven't fleshed out what exactly does it mean to "walk", which I'll do now.

To "walk" is another way of saying how to live. The best time to teach people good habits for living their lives is in their youths. For example, daily exercise is a good habit. Not only is daily exercise needed for a healthy body (well DUH!) but it also reduces stress and improves concentration; daily exercise is good for our minds too, in other words.

PE arms students with knowledge of their bodies, and instils good habits like exercising. You could argue that isn't the schools job, do it after hours. Nope, not acceptable. They spend most of their waking lives in school; if schools cannot incorporate education for the body because of some budget blow-out, they better get their shit together or they won't be fulfilling their mandate: to give our youth a well rounded education.

[InnerBrat]

To address Aly's thoughts about a class system imposed by physical aptitude, could that not also be a result, not of curriculum-based PE, but of the passion within US society as a whole in following high school leagues?

It's possible to include PE without having intense interschool competition.

[Peregrin Toker]

Aren't you kinda pigeonholing students into either sports-obsessed jocks or industrious scholar-types?

If I seemed to do that, it was not my intention. But I do notice a distinct scial class system in my school at lest. I have noticed that atheletes seemed to be more valued by the group. I myself am disliked by many of my clss mates because I know the material, while someone on the football team can essentially go brain-dead in class and be loved because he scored a winning touchdown.

Strange. As far as what I've observed, I haven't seen somebody at school being universally loved outside the PE classes due to being good at sports.

Rather, I - even though being the very definition of a nerd - once won a "Role Model Of The Year" award during 8th grade.

[Durandal]

I answer these questions in my last post to RedImperator.

No, you said that PE is the only possible way to learn how to lift properly. Any job which requires heavy lifting will invariably teach you that, because they can't afford to assume that you already know how.

When I was in school, we had two periods of PE each week. One was practical, the other theory.

What exactly does that mean?

Again, see last post to RedImperator.

Where did you address the importance, or lack thereof, of PE in higher education?

Uh, no. Once again, see post to RedImperator.

Where did you address the fact that sports are recreational activities?

I've already discussed the aim of schools [well rounded education; teach kids how to walk their chosen path], but I haven't fleshed out what exactly does it mean to "walk", which I'll do now.

As far as I'm concerned, "well-rounded" means education in all academic areas, like history, math, science and English.

To "walk" is another way of saying how to live. The best time to teach people good habits for living their lives is in their youths. For example, daily exercise is a good habit. Not only is daily exercise needed for a healthy body (well DUH!) but it also reduces stress and improves concentration; daily exercise is good for our minds too, in other words.

That is something that could easily be taught outside of school. As it stands, PE simply drains resources from legitimate academic programs. Students can get into a university with absolutely no PE classes at all. The same cannot be said about other courses.

PE arms students with knowledge of their bodies, and instils good habits like exercising. You could argue that isn't the schools job, do it after hours. Nope, not acceptable. They spend most of their waking lives in school; if schools cannot incorporate education for the body because of some budget blow-out, they better get their shit together or they won't be fulfilling their mandate: to give our youth a well rounded education.

Your definition of "well-rounded" is exceedingly liberal. Academics, by their very nature, deal with the mind. There are finite educational resources in a school, and those resources should be devoted to academics. Being able to read, write, add, subtract is simply more important than knowing how to run on a stair-master.

You and I probably had very different PE programs. Mine was a joke; you obviously took yours seriously. If you could design a PE curriculum, what would it consist of, and how much time would it take up? Would it include sex education? Would it affect the student's GPA?

[BoredShirtless]

I answer these questions in my last post to RedImperator.

No, you said that PE is the only possible way to learn how to lift properly.

No I didn't. I said:

Everyone who works for a living falls into two categories: those who use their hands, and those who use their mind. Some labourers for example go to the gym to improve their ability to do their job. Without PE, a labourer may not know how to lift correctly and failing to lift correctly can put a man out of work.

Any job which requires heavy lifting will invariably teach you that, because they can't afford to assume that you already know how.

Lifting in the gym, not at work.

When I was in school, we had two periods of PE each week. One was practical, the other theory.

What exactly does that mean?

Practical: off to the oval or hall for some sport. Theory: in a classroom learning things like exercise physiology, anatomy and some other stuff I've now forgotten.

Again, see last post to RedImperator.

Where did you address the importance, or lack thereof, of PE in higher education?

It's been the main theme in my last two posts. You know, students picking up good habits? Besides good habits, PE also promotes motor, cognitive, emotional and social development.

Uh, no. Once again, see post to RedImperator.

Where did you address the fact that sports are recreational activities?

That isn't a fact. Would you call Tiger Woods a recreational golfer? Sport can be played for recreation, as a profession, or, in the case of PE, education. Example, soccer teaches kids lessons in teamwork; that's education in my dictionary.

I've already discussed the aim of schools [well rounded education; teach kids how to walk their chosen path], but I haven't fleshed out what exactly does it mean to "walk", which I'll do now.

As far as I'm concerned, "well-rounded" means education in all academic areas, like history, math, science and English.

Too narrow for me. Thankfully, most departments of education around the world agree that PE is an essential part in a young persons life. Even though you personally hate it, I bet you took something from it.

To "walk" is another way of saying how to live. The best time to teach people good habits for living their lives is in their youths. For example, daily exercise is a good habit. Not only is daily exercise needed for a healthy body (well DUH!) but it also reduces stress and improves concentration; daily exercise is good for our minds too, in other words.

That is something that could easily be taught outside of school.

Same with maths, physics and English.

As it stands, PE simply drains resources from legitimate academic programs. Students can get into a university with absolutely no PE classes at all. The same cannot be said about other courses.

Schools don't just prepare students for uni, but for life.

PE arms students with knowledge of their bodies, and instils good habits like exercising. You could argue that isn't the schools job, do it after hours. Nope, not acceptable. They spend most of their waking lives in school; if schools cannot incorporate education for the body because of some budget blow-out, they better get their shit together or they won't be fulfilling their mandate: to give our youth a well rounded education.

Your definition of "well-rounded" is exceedingly liberal.

According to who, you?

Academics, by their very nature, deal with the mind.

These aren't academics lining up in assembly, they're students.

There are finite educational resources in a school, and those resources should be devoted to academics.

They should be devoted to education, whether from a book or an oval.

Being able to read, write, add, subtract is simply more important than knowing how to run on a stair-master.

We should dump PE just because it isn't the most important class? I completely disagree. Why would you say something like that?

You and I probably had very different PE programs. Mine was a joke; you obviously took yours seriously. If you could design a PE curriculum, what would it consist of, and how much time would it take up? Would it include sex education? Would it affect the student's GPA?

It would consist of two periods, each lasting 45 minutes. One practical, and the other theoretical. Yes, the theory part would count towards your GPA. No, sex education deserves its own class.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aren't you kinda pigeonholing students into either sports-obsessed jocks or industrious scholar-types?

If I seemed to do that, it was not my intention. But I do notice a distinct scial class system in my school at lest. I have noticed that atheletes seemed to be more valued by the group. I myself am disliked by many of my clss mates because I know the material, while someone on the football team can essentially go brain-dead in class and be loved because he scored a winning touchdown.

Strange. As far as what I've observed, I haven't seen somebody at school being universally loved outside the PE classes due to being good at sports.

Rather, I - even though being the very definition of a nerd - once won a "Role Model Of The Year" award during 8th grade.

Then the attitude of people in your school is better than mine. I am hated in my english and government classes because I know the material, and participate in class dicussions(which often end up being myself and the teacher discussing the issue at hand, because no one else wants to be seen as having any intelligence)

[Durandal]

No I didn't. I said:

Everyone who works for a living falls into two categories: those who use their hands, and those who use their mind. Some labourers for example go to the gym to improve their ability to do their job. Without PE, a labourer may not know how to lift correctly and failing to lift correctly can put a man out of work.

Fine, but how does this change anything? People don't learn how to lift something correctly will learn to do so if they get a job which involves it. That's a rather weak defense for PE.

Lifting in the gym, not at work.

See your own quote. You specifically refer to jobs.

Practical: off to the oval or hall for some sport. Theory: in a classroom learning things like exercise physiology, anatomy and some other stuff I've now forgotten.
...
It's been the main theme in my last two posts. You know, students picking up good habits? Besides good habits, PE also promotes motor, cognitive, emotional and social development.

People get through university without good exercise habits and motor skills. Again, please explain PE's importance to higher education.

That isn't a fact. Would you call Tiger Woods a recreational golfer? Sport can be played for recreation, as a profession, or, in the case of PE, education. Example, soccer teaches kids lessons in teamwork; that's education in my dictionary.

Kids who are realistic aren't going to aim to play sports professionally or teach soccer lessons for a living. For most people, sports are simply for fun. As for teamwork, kids learn that in school as well in group projects.

Too narrow for me. Thankfully, most departments of education around the world agree that PE is an essential part in a young persons life. Even though you personally hate it, I bet you took something from it.

No, I did not. I didn't hate it; I just thought it was a complete waste of my time. Most educational departments also agree that PE is, at best, a very minor part of students' educations. Replacing PE classes with study halls where students can study and do homework would work wonders.

Same with maths, physics and English.

Wrong. You can learn about PE from videotapes. I defy you to try the same with math or physics.

Schools don't just prepare students for uni, but for life.

Intelligent students will try and get into a university, because the wage disparity between workers with college degrees and those without is substantial. Those who do not go to university probably won't be thankful they had PE classes.

According to who, you?

Yes.

These aren't academics lining up in assembly, they're students.

They're students there to learn academics. Thank you for conceding that academics deal primarily with the mind.

They should be devoted to education, whether from a book or an oval.

Schools aren't supposed to teach everything. Existing PE programs are worthless wastes of classroom time, so I see no use for them.

We should dump PE just because it isn't the most important class? I completely disagree. Why would you say something like that?

No, we should dump it because it's the least important, doesn't really have to be there and sucks up money.

It would consist of two periods, each lasting 45 minutes. One practical, and the other theoretical. Yes, the theory part would count towards your GPA. No, sex education deserves its own class.

Two periods per day?

As for sex education, why not teach it in a health class? That's what I had. Having safe sex is part of being healthy. That would seem to fit in with your overall idea.

[Coyote]

A general health-education course could teach things like proper lifting and bending techniques, and how to get leverage on a heavy item using just your own physical strength.

In truth, while I think PE should be an elective (non-credit) at best, it really has little value in public schools. Kids who are not athletic, or are clumsy, are not going to be motivated to join the ranks of supermen as a result of the constant hazing and harrassment they receive at the hands of the bigger kids. If anything, it will only traumatize them away from gyms and fitness centers in the future.

Kids who dig athletics already play sports informally in the neighborhood. And sandlot games are probbaly best-- they don't give kids these false dreams that all they need to do is play with a ball and 'get discovered' and 'go pro someday' and their lives will be made.

One thing I liked about the Israeli school system; at least at the University I was at there-- there were no sports scholarships to be had at all, and the school team was a pack of enthusiastic amateurs that met on their own time after classes. The practice field was just another run-of-the-mill soccer field that was used by the community.

[BoredShirtless]

No I didn't. I said:

Everyone who works for a living falls into two categories: those who use their hands, and those who use their mind. Some labourers for example go to the gym to improve their ability to do their job. Without PE, a labourer may not know how to lift correctly and failing to lift correctly can put a man out of work.

Fine, but how does this change anything? People don't learn how to lift something correctly will learn to do so if they get a job which involves it. That's a rather weak defense for PE.

It isn't my strongest point, but it's still a valid one. But if you think my argument needs it, you haven't been paying much attention.

Lifting in the gym, not at work.

See your own quote. You specifically refer to jobs.

I didn't specify jobs or gym, you assumed I meant jobs. But that's my fault, I should have been clearer.

Practical: off to the oval or hall for some sport. Theory: in a classroom learning things like exercise physiology, anatomy and some other stuff I've now forgotten.
...
It's been the main theme in my last two posts. You know, students picking up good habits? Besides good habits, PE also promotes motor, cognitive, emotional and social development.

People get through university without good exercise habits and motor skills. Again, please explain PE's importance to higher education.

Daily exercise relives stress and improves concentration. Say we have two completely identical people, where the only difference is one exercises daily and the other doesn't. The one who exercises daily will have the better grades. Better grades mean more opportunities, where opportunities are the final goal of higher education.

Now, back to your implication that high school is preparing students for Uni only. What part of "Schools don't just prepare students for uni, but for life." don't you fucking get? I'm getting a little pissed with your tunnel vision. And I am a little amazed at how fucking stupid it is to assume all students going through high school will either get in or even want to go to Uni. Who the fuck will build our houses? Or weld our metals? Schools are like basic military: no matter which area they eventually specialise in, all military personnel go through Basics. When you come out of your mammas...womb..., you are like an unformatted floppy disk. School is akin to formatting that disk. Laying the foundation for life.

That isn't a fact. Would you call Tiger Woods a recreational golfer? Sport can be played for recreation, as a profession, or, in the case of PE, education. Example, soccer teaches kids lessons in teamwork; that's education in my dictionary.

Kids who are realistic aren't going to aim to play sports professionally or teach soccer lessons for a living.

Thank god there are so many unrealistic kids then. Do I really have to point out how fucked up society would be without the entertainment derived from watching sports?

For most people, sports are simply for fun. As for teamwork, kids learn that in school as well in group projects.

But is it as fun? People learn best when they are enjoying themselves, and not everyone enjoys class work. And are the same lessons learnt? Lessons like sacrificing potential personal reward for the good of the team, like passing up on a shot at goal to pass the ball to a classmate in a better position, can't really be learnt in something like a group project.

Too narrow for me. Thankfully, most departments of education around the world agree that PE is an essential part in a young persons life. Even though you personally hate it, I bet you took something from it.

No, I did not. I didn't hate it; I just thought it was a complete waste of my time. Most educational departments also agree that PE is, at best, a very minor part of students' educations. Replacing PE classes with study halls where students can study and do homework would work wonders.

It would work wonders huh. Can you use more then just your say so to back this up?

Same with maths, physics and English.

Wrong. You can learn about PE from videotapes. I defy you to try the same with math or physics.

Videotapes? What about private tutors? And you can not fucking learn PE from videotapes, don't be fucking stupid.

Schools don't just prepare students for uni, but for life.

Intelligent students will try and get into a university, because the wage disparity between workers with college degrees and those without is substantial. Those who do not go to university probably won't be thankful they had PE classes.

Smoke and mirrors. Address my point by either accepting it, or arguing against it.

These aren't academics lining up in assembly, they're students.

They're students there to learn academics. Thank you for conceding that academics deal primarily with the mind.

Students are NOT JUST ACADEMICS! School is an institution for EDUCATION! Point out where that EDUCATION has to be of an academic nature only. Do you fucking not understand that kids would have fewer career options and lead lesser quality lives if they just had academia thrown at them?

They should be devoted to education, whether from a book or an oval.

Schools aren't supposed to teach everything.

And what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

Existing PE programs are worthless wastes of classroom time, so I see no use for them.

I'm not surprised.

We should dump PE just because it isn't the most important class? I completely disagree. Why would you say something like that?

No, we should dump it because it's the least important, doesn't really have to be there and sucks up money.

Ok, enough pussy footing around. IMO, your opinion of PE is absolutely, and without question, completely worthless. Why? Because you learnt NOTHING from your own time in PE. You either completely ignored the benefits of PE I listed, or looked at them from one POV only: Uni.

It would consist of two periods, each lasting 45 minutes. One practical, and the other theoretical. Yes, the theory part would count towards your GPA. No, sex education deserves its own class.

Two periods per day?

A week.

As for sex education, why not teach it in a health class? That's what I had. Having safe sex is part of being healthy. That would seem to fit in with your overall idea.

Quoting me: "No, sex education deserves its own class.". Please pay more attention.

[Durandal]

It isn't my strongest point, but it's still a valid one. But if you think my argument needs it, you haven't been paying much attention.

I'd love to see a person who learned heavy lifting solely from his PE class in high school.

I didn't specify jobs or gym, you assumed I meant jobs. But that's my fault, I should have been clearer.

No, you specified "putting a man out of work" and a "labourer."

Daily exercise relives stress and improves concentration. Say we have two completely identical people, where the only difference is one exercises daily and the other doesn't. The one who exercises daily will have the better grades. Better grades mean more opportunities, where opportunities are the final goal of higher education.

There are any number of activities which can improve concentration and grades. Should we force all of them on students in high school? Students can get by without PE, which is the bottom line. It is not a detriment if they don't have it.

Now, back to your implication that high school is preparing students for Uni only. What part of "Schools don't just prepare students for uni, but for life." don't you fucking get? I'm getting a little pissed with your tunnel vision. And I am a little amazed at how fucking stupid it is to assume all students going through high school will either get in or even want to go to Uni. Who the fuck will build our houses? Or weld our metals? Schools are like basic military: no matter which area they eventually specialise in, all military personnel go through Basics. When you come out of your mammas...womb..., you are like an unformatted floppy disk. School is akin to formatting that disk. Laying the foundation for life.

Ah yes, every student who doesn't go on to a university will be thankful for his PE class. PE is and always has been something you learn on your own or through a personal trainer. School PE is an excuse to run around and play sports for 45 minutes in the midst of academic activity. No one ever remembers that shit from high school.

Thank god there are so many unrealistic kids then. Do I really have to point out how fucked up society would be without the entertainment derived from watching sports?

This does not change the fact that less than 1% of those who aspire to play professionally will actually end up doing so.

But is it as fun? People learn best when they are enjoying themselves, and not everyone enjoys class work. And are the same lessons learnt? Lessons like sacrificing potential personal reward for the good of the team, like passing up on a shot at goal to pass the ball to a classmate in a better position, can't really be learnt in something like a group project.

There are any number of other ways for kids to learn these lessons, like theatre for example. I learned infinitely more about team work, project management and the delegation of tasks by being a stage manager for my school's theatre productions than I did playing soccer. This is because that teamwork environment is much more pure. While one player might have a good game in soccer, the team could lose, but that player still gets personal glory. When building a set, if it's done badly or not done at all, it reflects badly on everyone and no one gets to claim personal glory from it. There are plenty of other such examples.

It would work wonders huh. Can you use more then just your say so to back this up?

More time to do homework and study means more homework and studying done. My grades certainly would have improved.

Videotapes? What about private tutors? And you can not fucking learn PE from videotapes, don't be fucking stupid.

That's just why golf tapes are so successful.

Smoke and mirrors. Address my point by either accepting it, or arguing against it.

See above. I've never seen a single example of PE having a substantial impact on someone's life after he's left high school to go on to a university or straight into the job force.

Students are NOT JUST ACADEMICS! School is an institution for EDUCATION! Point out where that EDUCATION has to be of an academic nature only. Do you fucking not understand that kids would have fewer career options and lead lesser quality lives if they just had academia thrown at them?

According to you, since schools must educate, they must teach everything you think they should. Some things simply are not appropriate for that environment.

And what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

See above. PE is like a single island in the middle of an otherwise totally academic curriculum.

Ok, enough pussy footing around. IMO, your opinion of PE is absolutely, and without question, completely worthless. Why? Because you learnt NOTHING from your own time in PE. You either completely ignored the benefits of PE I listed, or looked at them from one POV only: Uni.

That's right. It was completely worthless to me, and since 90% of my graduating class went on to higher education, it was completely worthless to them as well. I seriously doubt the other 10% came out of it with a differing opinion. PE is a blow-off class.

And I got a health class dealing with sex education, good eating and exercise, and you know what? I took nothing from it. In the midst of studying for math or science, I wasn't going to waste time studying for a PE exam, and no one else was about to do the same thing either. You're enormously exaggerating the benefits of PE.

A week.

I could certainly live with that, but how many terms? Just one?

Quoting me: "No, sex education deserves its own class.". Please pay more attention.

Yes, you unilaterally declared that, I know. But I asked you why because sex education would seem to fit in with the idea of healthy living, which is what you're encouraging.