In Defense of High School Sports

[theski]

Mike, do you have any Proof for these claims of yours or are they just your Opinions?..

I would also stress the fact that the vast majority of the student body at any given academic institution is not part of a sports team. The idea that sports teams will help kids is just one of the mindlessly repeated memes that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

it's total bullshit to claim that this helps students when it only helps a tiny proportion of them,

You're full of shit. You're assuming that every kid who plays team sports even in PE class is somehow benefiting from the expenditures on competitive sports teams in the school. And what about the negative impact of sports scholarships to universities, especially on the mindset of inner-city kids

And doesn't it concern you at all that as sports participation rises, academic performance drops?

They're a complete waste of time and money, and it's even more shocking when you realize just how much time and money that can be.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, do you have any Proof for these claims of yours or are they just your Opinions?..

I need to "prove" that society does not have a pressing need for more football players, or that the money spent on high school team sports could actually be useful elsewhere? Are you on drugs, or are you just a moron?

[theski]

Mike, do you have any Proof for these claims of yours or are they just your Opinions?..

I need to "prove" that society does not have a pressing need for more football players, or that the money spent on high school team sports could actually be useful elsewhere? Are you on drugs, or are you just a moron?

I guess its the drugs asking you to back up your claims about sports and academics....

[CarsonPalmer]

Mike, I am one of the "weaker players" and I do help the team. At practice. In the business world, does everyone who worked on a presentation physically give the presentation? At practice, the "weaker players" work scout team, learn the plays, work hard, and try and get better so they are no longer weaker players. How does this not teach you real teamwork? And how do musicians learn teamwork more than football players, when learning to run a sweep requires people working in unision just as learning to play a musical piece does?

[Big Phil]

Mike, do you have any Proof for these claims of yours or are they just your Opinions?..

I need to "prove" that society does not have a pressing need for more football players, or that the money spent on high school team sports could actually be useful elsewhere? Are you on drugs, or are you just a moron?

You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial. You really also should prove that the money spent on anything that isn't academic book learning (math, writing, science, history) is being wasted, because you can't reasonably argue for the elimination of sports due to waste and not argue for the elimination of other extra-curricular events, such as drama, debate, or the chess club.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Those aren't the subject of this thread, and divert vastly more disproportionate amount of income than the others do by far. And sure, most drama and art programs are excessive and teach few marketable skills and send people anywhere.

[Surlethe]

You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial.

As I said on the previous page, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a program which is hardly related to education ought to be school-sponsored. You also need to demonstrate the benefits outweigh the opportunity cost.

[Big Phil]

You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial.

As I said on the previous page, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a program which is hardly related to education ought to be school-sponsored. You also need to demonstrate the benefits outweigh the opportunity cost.

Since sports are already in schools, I don't see that I really need to justify why they should remain. They're desirable (most students and parents want them), they're fun, they do teach some skills, and contrary to what some people believe, they don't remove vast amounts of much needed funding from school budgets (as has already been evidenced by theski).

Since we're discussing burden of proof, maybe we should talk about what exactly we're all trying to prove. It seems to me that the standard has already been set by most communities - if the parents, students, and community want sports in school (for whatever reason) then they're provided; simple supply and demand. Many schools (my high school, for example) don't have all sports. We didn't have wrestling, men's volleyball, or gymnastics - other schools around here did. We had a chess club, but no debate team. Other schools had both, others had neither.

I don't believe there's another standard that needs to be met when discussing school sponsored sports - this whole argument about cost-benefit analysis is a tangent and a waste of time.

[Surlethe]

You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial.

As I said on the previous page, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate a program which is hardly related to education ought to be school-sponsored. You also need to demonstrate the benefits outweigh the opportunity cost.

Since sports are already in schools, I don't see that I really need to justify why they should remain.

Let's look at this logically. You claim, "It is the case that sports should be a part of schools". This is a positive claim; thus, the burden of proof lies with you.

They're desirable (most students and parents want them), they're fun, they do teach some skills, and contrary to what some people believe, they don't remove vast amounts of much needed funding from school budgets (as has already been evidenced by theski).

Let's apply this argument to sex. We permit students to have sex in schools because sex skills are desirable, sex is fun, you learn stuff while having sex, and a sex program wouldn't remove vast amounds of much-needed funding from school budgets. Do you support a sex program at your local high school?

[Civil War Man]

If I may...

You know what organized sport teaches a lot more kids teamwork at a much more critical age?

Little League.

Don't know about your town, but do you know who funds the Little League teams where I live? Local companies. They sponsor a team, help them get equipment and all that crap, and most likely get a nice charitable donation deduction from their taxes as a result.

[Uraniun235]

You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial. You really also should prove that the money spent on anything that isn't academic book learning (math, writing, science, history) is being wasted, because you can't reasonably argue for the elimination of sports due to waste and not argue for the elimination of other extra-curricular events, such as drama, debate, or the chess club.

Drama can be vocational - not just for actors, but also for theatre technicians. Also, it varies from school to school, but the drama productions at my high school were almost - if not entirely - paid for by profits made from previous productions. Not necessarily a tremendous amount of resources going into that.

Debate can promote rational, logical thinking (a skill which I believe we all agree is in desperately short supply in America) as well as build oral communication skills which I would imagine are quite valuable in the business world.

The chess club - which not even every school has - consumes so little that I cannot believe it was even brought up. All you need are a few chess boards and some kids who want to stick around after school to play chess in the library. What a burden.

[Big Phil]

Since sports are already in schools, I don't see that I really need to justify why they should remain.

Let's look at this logically. You claim, "It is the case that sports should be a part of schools". This is a positive claim; thus, the burden of proof lies with you.

I've already justified sports in schools:

They're desirable (most students and parents want them), they're fun, they do teach some skills, and contrary to what some people believe, they don't remove vast amounts of much needed funding from school budgets (as has already been evidenced by theski).

I would also add that they build community or school spirit/morale, they encourage participation in the school community, and in the case of many student-athletes, they actually increase academic performance. In my high school the kids who played sports actually had higher average GPA's than those who didn't.

You want some magical cost-benefit analysis that doesn't exist, and I can't provide it.

[Pick]

Debate can promote rational, logical thinking (a skill which I believe we all agree is in desperately short supply in America) as well as build oral communication skills which I would imagine are quite valuable in the business world.

Not to mention debate also requires minimal funding. At my school the only cost related to debate is transportation --and the kids are required to provide it themselves. The debate coach is a volunteer.

[Big Phil]

You might want to prove that the money spent on sports teams isn't beneficial. You really also should prove that the money spent on anything that isn't academic book learning (math, writing, science, history) is being wasted, because you can't reasonably argue for the elimination of sports due to waste and not argue for the elimination of other extra-curricular events, such as drama, debate, or the chess club.

Drama can be vocational - not just for actors, but also for theatre technicians. Also, it varies from school to school, but the drama productions at my high school were almost - if not entirely - paid for by profits made from previous productions. Not necessarily a tremendous amount of resources going into that.

Debate can promote rational, logical thinking (a skill which I believe we all agree is in desperately short supply in America) as well as build oral communication skills which I would imagine are quite valuable in the business world.

The chess club - which not even every school has - consumes so little that I cannot believe it was even brought up. All you need are a few chess boards and some kids who want to stick around after school to play chess in the library. What a burden.

Are we really going to engage in this idiocy? Fine...

High school sports provides much needed vocational experience for physical trainers and physicians. Many doctors first got their start as high school trainers (while they were students).

Some students can even work with the coaches and get much needed experience as coaches and teachers.

Other students get EXTREMELY valuable management experience as team or equipment managers.

The athletes themselves provide excellent economic benefits to local physicians by getting hurt and requiring medical treatment, thus stimulating the economy. Their purchase of athletic equipment also helps retailers and manufacturers.

[Uraniun235]

Are we really going to engage in this idiocy? Fine...

High school sports provides much needed vocational experience for physical trainers and physicians. Many doctors first got their start as high school trainers (while they were students).

Some students can even work with the coaches and get much needed experience as coaches and teachers.

Other students get EXTREMELY valuable management experience as team or equipment managers.

The athletes themselves provide excellent economic benefits to local physicians by getting hurt and requiring medical treatment, thus stimulating the economy. Their purchase of athletic equipment also helps retailers and manufacturers.

Yeah, but all that is at a significantly higher cost. I'm also impressed that you had the balls to argue that the pain and suffering of students is a benefit.

Look, I for one am not arguing for the abolishment of high school sports, but I do think (and I will readily admit that this perspective is colored by my years in band) that it's just slightly disproportionate when the football team regularly gets shiny new equipment and the band - which busts their asses to support that football team - counts itself lucky to get new uniforms every couple of decades.

[Big Phil]

Are we really going to engage in this idiocy? Fine...

High school sports provides much needed vocational experience for physical trainers and physicians. Many doctors first got their start as high school trainers (while they were students).

Some students can even work with the coaches and get much needed experience as coaches and teachers.

Other students get EXTREMELY valuable management experience as team or equipment managers.

The athletes themselves provide excellent economic benefits to local physicians by getting hurt and requiring medical treatment, thus stimulating the economy. Their purchase of athletic equipment also helps retailers and manufacturers.

Yeah, but all that is at a significantly higher cost. I'm also impressed that you had the balls to argue that the pain and suffering of students is a benefit.

Look, I for one am not arguing for the abolishment of high school sports, but I do think (and I will readily admit that this perspective is colored by my years in band) that it's just slightly disproportionate when the football team regularly gets shiny new equipment and the band - which busts their asses to support that football team - counts itself lucky to get new uniforms every couple of decades.

Which is why this sort of academic penis waving is completely pointless. Sports, drama, arts, etc., ALL have benefits. Why some people insist on denigrating sports in high school is beyond me. Besides which, I already said it was bullshit for the band to get shitty equipment and the football team gets new stuff every year.

By the way, Surlethe, here's a couple of articles. The first indicates that participation in high school athletics reduces the drop-out rate. You'll have to make do with the abstract unless you feel like looking up the whole thing. The second says that sports has minimal benefits, other than entertainment.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0 ... 0.CO%3B2-3

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_15868226
And here's the problem - for every "scientific" study you find supporting one point of view, you can find another supporting an opposing view. So what "evidence" would you like me to provide?

[The_Nice_Guy]

I think the real issue here isn't the existence of school representative sports teams per se. They certainly provide a rallying point for the school community, and encourage leaders to emerge, especially in team sports. There are social positives. And there are the rare few students who shine all the brighter because they can excel on and off the field, eclipsing those who can only study.

The real problem is that the costs involved, namely the money sunk into such activities, have really reached the point of diminishing returns, or even worse, as some posters have pointed out with the jock culture and the neglect of academic work in schools in favor of sports, negative returns.

So what should be done is to try to tone back the amount of money that is being spent, as previous posters have already said. Unfortunately, the allure of sports icons in the real world is much, much stronger than the allure of academics, and that in turn predicates how parents push their children and the schools educating them, as well as the kids themselves. It's just a fact of life.

We just don't have enough intellectual heroes to act as balance, and intellectual heroes, by their very nature, are accessible to only the smart fraction of the population, always a minority.

TWG

[The_Nice_Guy]

BTW, even for clubs, societies, and performing groups like the debating team, chess team, the choir, etc, you'll always have the first team, the role players, and the scrubs. The strong singers who serve as the 'posts' and lead, the weaker ones who follow, and the plain disastrous who won't be allowed onto the stage.

My own personal experience, as a chorister, a chess player, a former debater, and 2nd/3rd team soccer player, is that variety is the spice of life. While I could certainly play soccer and have fun outside of school without actually joining the school team, having a coach who teaches new tricks of the trade and understanding better what actually goes on in a soccer match is something that is not so easily attained if somebody(the school in this case) did not fork out the money for it.

Of course, the money spent on sports in my school then was a piffle, mere fractions to the exhorbitant sums some of you were going on.

TWG

[Surlethe]

Since sports are already in schools, I don't see that I really need to justify why they should remain.

Let's look at this logically. You claim, "It is the case that sports should be a part of schools". This is a positive claim; thus, the burden of proof lies with you.

I've already justified sports in schools:

They're desirable (most students and parents want them), they're fun, they do teach some skills, and contrary to what some people believe, they don't remove vast amounts of much needed funding from school budgets (as has already been evidenced by theski).

So, do you support afterschool sex for kids? On the school's payroll?

I would also add that they build community or school spirit/morale, they encourage participation in the school community, and in the case of many student-athletes, they actually increase academic performance. In my high school the kids who played sports actually had higher average GPA's than those who didn't.

Justify your general assertion regarding academic performance. Furthermore, you still haven't produced evidence sports are academically relevant to schools.

You want some magical cost-benefit analysis that doesn't exist, and I can't provide it.

Listen up: you can't make a rational decision without cost-benefit analysis. Is that clear? The default position is no sports in school, and you're providing unquantified handwaving to support your position.

[Surlethe]

By the way, Surlethe, here's a couple of articles. The first indicates that participation in high school athletics reduces the drop-out rate. You'll have to make do with the abstract unless you feel like looking up the whole thing. The second says that sports has minimal benefits, other than entertainment.

Surely you don't propose to argue the only reason to keep sports in schools is as a dropout net. Furthermore, the study indicates a correlation, which is not necessarily causation.

<snip long links>

And here's the problem - for every "scientific" study you find supporting one point of view, you can find another supporting an opposing view. So what "evidence" would you like me to provide?

You'll note your second article states, "Most research suggests that scooping up ground balls, kicking goals, or eluding tackles has little influence, positive or negative, on character. And any effects that do turn up tend to be small." I wonder where the preponderance of evidence lies.

[CarsonPalmer]

But isn't it the side arguing for a change that has to satisfy the burden of proof? Isn't the status quo assumed to be the best alternative?

[Uraniun235]

Why some people insist on denigrating sports in high school is beyond me.

Because we're bitter and we see the physical-oriented sports activities as inherently inferior to activities that we perceive as intellectually rewarding?

It's beyond me that such an obvious explanation is beyond you.

[Big Phil]

snip

Other than sitting back and saying "prove this, now prove that, blah blah blah" you haven't done much. I've already shown you the benefits of sports in school, from multiple sources and provided multiple examples. I've even gone so far as to find sources that DON'T agree with me.

I took the step, in spite of the fact that I don't have to prove diddly, of showing why sports in school are valuable. Since you are unable to do much other than demand evidence that isn't available to me, and certainly haven't provided any damning arguments of your own, I'm going to fall back to status quo and let you take it from here. Status quo being - sports in school.

[theski]

By the way, Surlethe, here's a couple of articles. The first indicates that participation in high school athletics reduces the drop-out rate. You'll have to make do with the abstract unless you feel like looking up the whole thing. The second says that sports has minimal benefits, other than entertainment.

Surely you don't propose to argue the only reason to keep sports in schools is as a dropout net. Furthermore, the study indicates a correlation, which is not necessarily causation.

<snip long links>

And here's the problem - for every "scientific" study you find supporting one point of view, you can find another supporting an opposing view. So what "evidence" would you like me to provide?

You'll note your second article states, "Most research suggests that scooping up ground balls, kicking goals, or eluding tackles has little influence, positive or negative, on character. And any effects that do turn up tend to be small." I wonder where the preponderance of evidence lies.

Then I guess we shouldnt put any faith in Mikes quote...

And doesn't it concern you at all that as sports participation rises, academic performance drops?

and drop sports from Schools should we...

[Big Phil]

Why some people insist on denigrating sports in high school is beyond me.

Because we're bitter and we see the physical-oriented sports activities as inherently inferior to activities that we perceive as intellectually rewarding?

It's beyond me that such an obvious explanation is beyond you.

Perhaps because it's an expression of annoyance and disgust, which is clearly beyond you?

Such bitterness is an ungodly waste of time, and I frankly don't give a rip, and nobody else does either. There's a reason why some "nerds" make something of themselves (Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Jobs, etc.) and others live with their parents when they're 45.