StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote:

theski wrote:I was addressing this quote from Coyote
?

The ones who play sports, which as already pointed out, is a tiny minority of students in a given school.

not your Cost/benefit...

Oh puh-lease, you're just taking his quote out of context. He was obviously talking about the same out-of-class sports teams that I was talking about, not the team sports that they make everyone play in PE class. Playing football in PE class is not the same thing as being on the football team.

Ok.. are you still saying that with all of the "SPORT TEAMS" in every high school the particapents are still a tiny Minority??

According to this September 2003 report at CNN, 2.86 million girls and 3.99 million boys participated in high school sports in the United States. The US Census bureau reports a total of 17.1 million high school students in the United States in October 2003. That comes to just about 40% participation. I don't have figures for other countries.

theski wrote:Ok.. are you still saying that with all of the "SPORT TEAMS" in every high school the particapents are still a tiny Minority??

Are you saying that in a high school of, say, 1500 students, there are more than 1000 players on the various sports teams at any given time? And doesn't it concern you at all that as sports participation rises, academic performance drops?

Darth Wong wrote:

theski wrote:Ok.. are you still saying that with all of the "SPORT TEAMS" in every high school the particapents are still a tiny Minority??

Are you saying that in a high school of, say, 1500 students, there are more than 1000 players on the various sports teams at any given time? And doesn't it concern you at all that as sports participation rises, academic performance drops?

You and theski are so far off on a tangent that it's not even funny. The percentage of students who participate doesn't make a difference in whether or not school-sponsored sports are appropriate.

It relates to how many people actually receive direct benefit from them.

If it can be done relatively cheaply, provides a healthful physical outlet, teaches determination, hard work, and team work, what is the harm? If done well, I can't see any possible harm being done by sports, and a lot of good in it.

Darth Wong wrote:

theski wrote:Ok.. are you still saying that with all of the "SPORT TEAMS" in every high school the particapents are still a tiny Minority??

Are you saying that in a high school of, say, 1500 students, there are more than 1000 players on the various sports teams at any given time? And doesn't it concern you at all that as sports participation rises, academic performance drops?

There might be that many over the course of a full school year.. I played 2 sports.. so that was almost the full year.. some only one .. so Half a year.

I think the second part of your question could be asked of the parents as well.. Its all about time management for the student athelete

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It relates to how many people actually receive direct benefit from them.

Horse puckey. If the argument for or against sports in schools is dependent upon the benefit the students receive, then you could apply that to all sorts of different things. You could argue that teaching math or science in an inner cityh school is unnecessary because it won't benefit the kids much. Most won't go to college, and lots of them will fail and feel bad - we can't have kids feeling bad after all

I thought drama, ceramics, and music were a waste of time - I derived no benefit from them and I was bored to tears in those classes. I didn't like having to go to mandatory assemblies where drama kids put on plays any more than Spanky liked going to sports assemblies, but you don't see me protesting the fine arts classes.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Horse puckey. If the argument for or against sports in schools is dependent upon the benefit the students receive, then you could apply that to all sorts of different things. You could argue that teaching math or science in an inner cityh school is unnecessary because it won't benefit the kids much. Most won't go to college, and lots of them will fail and feel bad - we can't have kids feeling bad after all

It would, however, fit the purpose of education, which is to educate the masses and prepare a reasonably skilled workforce. People can learn and play sports outside of school; very few people learn math and science outside of school.

I thought drama, ceramics, and music were a waste of time - I derived no benefit from them and I was bored to tears in those classes. I didn't like having to go to mandatory assemblies where drama kids put on plays any more than Spanky liked going to sports assemblies, but you don't see me protesting the fine arts classes.

I would, if they sucked up large proportions of the school budget.

Precisely what the fuck do you think schools are for?

Durandal wrote:

Ubiquitous wrote:How could you not learn teamwork from playing football for three years? You must have played for one really shitty team if that is the case!

I played for a shitty team and hated my coach. Hell, I hated most of my teammates except for the other goal keeper. Overall, it wasn't a team-building experience. I stayed there as long as I did because I happened to like being a goal keeper.

Without teamwork, a football team simply cannot function properly, and I don't mean just on the pitch, either: it was our duty as a team to set up the pitch [corner flags, netting etc.] before the match, perform our team warmups properly [strikers working the goalkeepers, wingers exercising hamstrings, defenders on headers etc.] and, when we were in sixth form, make our own way to the opposition pitches [i.e. sorting out our own coaches or cars, directions etc.]. Our coaches sound quite shit compared to these $80000 ones that exist across the pond: we used to have a guy called Cleggy who came to train us in sixth form for £10 a session!

I didn't say there was no teamwork in the sport. I love soccer. But frankly, the kind of teamwork you learn in organized sports just isn't very applicable to the real world. Here in America, you basically learn clichés like "There's no 'I' in 'team'", but that's not really useful in business or college. In sports, the not-so-good players just sit around waiting for a blowout game so they can go in. If you're working in a group in an office, you have to make sure everyone contributes, and not in some mealy-mouthed bullshit way like "Oh if it wasn't for you, the best players would have no one to practice with".

You were a goalkeeper too, eh?! Best place on the pitch I say! Sure, we don't get the glory but we do get to wear gloves and a jumper during the winter!

All the benfits I see people talking about could be gotten from simple intramural programs, which aren't costly because they are volunteer coaches, have no uniforms (ok maybe some pinnies if you actually play other schools), don't require real venues, etc. If a school is struggling financially or academically, why not just offer an intramural program and aim it as a "fun way to get in shape"? It would be more like a club, like science club or sewing club, that way and not the school focus.

EDIT: in my experience, intramurals have also been more student lead. The students have to take initiative to want to form teams, get signatures, organizae the rules- while we had teacher help on this, it was always the kids that got things going if they wanted specific sports to be included.

Darth Wong wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Horse puckey. If the argument for or against sports in schools is dependent upon the benefit the students receive, then you could apply that to all sorts of different things. You could argue that teaching math or science in an inner cityh school is unnecessary because it won't benefit the kids much. Most won't go to college, and lots of them will fail and feel bad - we can't have kids feeling bad after all

It would, however, fit the purpose of education, which is to educate the masses and prepare a reasonably skilled workforce. People can learn and play sports outside of school; very few people learn math and science outside of school.

About fucking time you made this point (clearly), instead of carrying on about percentages and other idiocies. I'm still not clear, though, if your opposition to sports in high school is because you don't think they belong or if you don't think so much money should be spent on them.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:About fucking time you made this point (clearly), instead of carrying on about percentages and other idiocies.

Blow me, moron. I can't believe I actually had to say it, because dipshits like you were acting as if it wasn't self-evident. Why the fuck did I actually have to point out what education is for? Shouldn't that be a given?

I'm still not clear, though, if your opposition to sports in high school is because you don't think they belong or if you don't think so much money should be spent on them.

Both. PE class belongs in high school, but competitive team sports don't. 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.

As I said earlier in the thread (but which you were apparently too fucking stupid to notice), you don't see a lot of want ads in the newspaper offering jobs to people who are good at football.

But intramurals aren't as good a uniter of the school as interscholastic, especially if they are student organized. Interscholastic sports break cliques. In a good program, you aren't such and such, the football star, you are a football player, equal to the benchwarming backup kicker. That's the way it is in good programs, at least.

Darth Wong wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:I'm still not clear, though, if your opposition to sports in high school is because you don't think they belong or if you don't think so much money should be spent on them.

Both. PE class belongs in high school, but competitive team sports don't. 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.

As I said earlier in the thread (but which you were apparently too fucking stupid to notice), you don't see a lot of want ads in the newspaper offering jobs to people who are good at football.

Explain to me why PE belongs in school, then? It doesn't have much to do with education either? What about the band or plays? How many ads do you see in the newspaper for people who can blow a tuba or pretend to be a gay cowboy? Why can't those kids go learn to act or play music outside of school?

Darth Wong wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:About fucking time you made this point (clearly), instead of carrying on about percentages and other idiocies.

Blow me, moron. I can't believe I actually had to say it, because dipshits like you were acting as if it wasn't self-evident. Why the fuck did I actually have to point out what education is for? Shouldn't that be a given?

I'm still not clear, though, if your opposition to sports in high school is because you don't think they belong or if you don't think so much money should be spent on them.

Both. PE class belongs in high school, but competitive team sports don't. 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.As I said earlier in the thread (but which you were apparently too fucking stupid to notice), you don't see a lot of want ads in the newspaper offering jobs to people who are good at football.

Does anyone ACTUALLY have any real cost numbers or are we just Guessing....

Schools want to cognitively enrich their students as much as possible; and children learn best when they are interested. For the creative student, their interest may be art classes or theater. For the physical-loving student, there is PE. By nuturing interests in other areas, you can better teach students in the classes they are not so interested in, ESPECIALLY in schools where there is a "working together" between faculity in different subject areas. Making connections between different subjects facilitates learning and grabs the attention of a student who might not otherwise listen.
EDit: to give an example- In some schools. teachers will mold a unit together. In history you might be learning about the Revolutionary War, in English you read essays written durin that time, in art you study the artwork of the period, and in gym you play a game the way it was played by children during that time.

But if you offer the creative student art or music and the physical loving student PE (and, of course, they are made to participate in both), there is room to argue that sports teams are not necessary.

Iin addition, because of the prevalence of sports in communities in the USA, it is very easy and cheap to find a team to play on that is not affliated with the school- at the community center, or for the town, or county, or even teams that are formed at facilities.

It is much more difficult to find affordable art and music classes.

But those teams are not well developed, are more difficult to access, and more importantly, often cut kids. A no-cut policy is the true benefit of High School sports. Many teams can do this, and this allows all to participate.

Cairber wrote:Schools want to cognitively enrich their students as much as possible; and children learn best when they are interested. For the creative student, their interest may be art classes or theater. For the physical-loving student, there is PE. By nuturing interests in other areas, you can better teach students in the classes they are not so interested in, ESPECIALLY in schools were there is a "working together" between faculity in different subject areas. Making connections between different subjects facilitates learning and grabs the attention of a student who might not otherwise listen.

But if you offer the creative student art or music and the physical loving student PE (and, of course, they are made to participate in both), there is room to argue that sports teams are not necessary.

Iin addition, because of the prevailence of sports in communities in the USA, it is very easy and cheap to find a team to play on that is not affliated with the school- at the community center, or for the town, or county, or even teams that are formed at facilities.

It is much more difficult to find affordable art and music classes.

I'll point out that the case you're making for art and drama having benefits to students is the same argument Wong and others are criticizing for sports. That being that they're not necessary skills for getting a job and you can do them outside of school. Sure, it might be expensive, but you can still find a music teacher or join a community play.

In our school the PE freaks got their own major, with actual studying and practice, is this a possible solution?

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Explain to me why PE belongs in school, then?

Because society has an imperative to attempt to teach people physical fitness. PE is valuable because it teaches fitness, not because it teaches sports. A nation of people who know how to play every team sport but are fucking fat-ass slobs is not in good shape.

It doesn't have much to do with education either?

Yes it does, when it's done right. PE class should teach people about the human body; this is not unnecessary information. A healthy workforce is also a more productive workforce, not to mention less of a drain on healthcare and other resources. But there is no indication that teaching kids to play sports actually makes them healthier; if anything, it is better to teach kids about solitary fitness activities since those are more likely to be continued once the individual leaves the school system and cannot be bothered joining recreational leagues etc.

What about the band or plays? How many ads do you see in the newspaper for people who can blow a tuba or pretend to be a gay cowboy? Why can't those kids go learn to act or play music outside of school?

These are low-demand activities to be sure, and so I would agree that they should not consume much of a school's budget. However, as Cairber says, they are much harder to find outside of school.

CarsonPalmer wrote:But intramurals aren't as good a uniter of the school as interscholastic, especially if they are student organized. Interscholastic sports break cliques. In a good program, you aren't such and such, the football star, you are a football player, equal to the benchwarming backup kicker. That's the way it is in good programs, at least.

I found that playing other schools made for a lot of nastiness (egging each other's schools, making up lewd names for their teams). Maybe because I was at an all girl's school, but I never found it to break cliques; in fact, the sports teams usually hung out with eachother and formed a kind of clique.

Edit: for dumb spelling mistake

CarsonPalmer wrote:But intramurals aren't as good a uniter of the school as interscholastic, especially if they are student organized. Interscholastic sports break cliques. In a good program, you aren't such and such, the football star, you are a football player, equal to the benchwarming backup kicker. That's the way it is in good programs, at least.

You know there's a difference between theory and reality, right? Just because things are supposed to work in an ideal fashion in theory doesn't mean that they automatically will in actual practice. I think that's something that seriously needs to dawn on you before you continue on repeating all of this "but it's supposed to work this way.." jazz.

And how do interscholastic sports break cliques? In my experience, they actually contributed to them just as much as pretty much any other programme in school, like drama, debate, or show chior.

Darth Wong wrote:

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Explain to me why PE belongs in school, then?

Because society has an imperative to attempt to teach people physical fitness. PE is valuable because it teaches fitness, not because it teaches sports. A nation of people who know how to play every team sport but are fucking fat-ass slobs is not in good shape.

It doesn't have much to do with education either?

Yes it does, when it's done right. PE class should teach people about the human body; this is not unnecessary information. A healthy workforce is also a more productive workforce, not to mention less of a drain on healthcare and other resources. But there is no indication that teaching kids to play sports actually makes them healthier; if anything, it is better to teach kids about solitary fitness activities since those are more likely to be continued once the individual leaves the school system and cannot be bothered joining recreational leagues etc.

What about the band or plays? How many ads do you see in the newspaper for people who can blow a tuba or pretend to be a gay cowboy? Why can't those kids go learn to act or play music outside of school?

These are low-demand activities to be sure, and so I would agree that they should not consume much of a school's budget. However, as Cairber says, they are much harder to find outside of school.

What a load - you could teach kids about fitness through organized sports and drop PE as a class too, but there's no way in hell you'd suggest that. You don't like school-sponsored sports - I get that.

You sure do keep flopping back and forth between "sports are unnecessary" and "sports cost money that would be better used for education." And you sure don't use that argument against anything you don't oppose.

Your argument can be taken to all sorts of logical (or illogical) extensions, such as "Why should we have a Literature class?" After all, nobody gets hired for a job based on their having read War and Peace or Hamlet...

Cairber wrote:

CarsonPalmer wrote:But intramurals aren't as good a uniter of the school as interscholastic, especially if they are student organized. Interscholastic sports break cliques. In a good program, you aren't such and such, the football star, you are a football player, equal to the benchwarming backup kicker. That's the way it is in good programs, at least.

I found that playing other schools made for a lot of nastiness (egging each other's schools, making up lude names for their teams). Maybe because I was at an all girl's school, but I never found it to break cliques; in fact, the sports teams usually hung out with eachother and formed a kind of clique.

This would be (and is) true even without sports. Rich/poor, cool/lame, druggies/non-druggies, white/black, punk/goth, etc. Humans naturally gravitate toward tribalism - it'll happen no matter what.