4 ms·

> The impulse to blame the "kids these days" seems like an ever-present force Lamenting a lack of experience with arts and crafts and similar sounds more like

> The impulse to blame the "kids these days" seems like an ever-present force Lamenting a lack of experience with arts and crafts and similar sounds more like an "education these days"-complaint to me. If children do suffer from a lack of trained motor skills it is not their fault, but it is something to take seriously, for their sake more than anyone else. Also, I dunno waiting for a proper study is worth the risk. It would take quite long, which means that if it is a problem we already screwed over a generation. Plus, people complaining about a lack of physical education these days is not something limited to surgery. Taking physical education more seriously as being important for general development, and not something just for the people who want to continue in sports is probably beneficial for everyone in the long term anyway. (tangent: I wonder if these students would perform better when handling robot arms with a control stick than previous generations)

barry-cotter 8y ago
> Taking physical education more seriously as being important for general development, and not something just for the people who want to continue in sports is probably beneficial for everyone in the long term anyway. Physical education is awful and it is not capable of not being awful. Even if it was not almost uniformly focused on team sports which some people hate to the point of faking illness and others love to the point of obsession, leading to massive capability gaps, it would still be irrelevant. Two or three hours a week of teacher directed exercise is nothing in the scheme of developing real skill. If people were serious about this problem they could allow children ample time to play, learning about the world and their bodies as small animals are meant to, or if they insist on making everything into a subject, treat physical education as a core part of the curriculum, English public school style, where everyone plays team sports almost every day.
- nradov 8y ago
  Two hours a week of coaching is better than none. Unstructured play is great, but it's no substitute for targeting coaching when it comes to developing useful skills.
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    > Two hours a week of coaching is better than none. No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. Two hours a week will barely get you past novice in a year. It’s so little, so seldom that a substantial amount of each lesson has to be revision too but even if learning was instant and perfect 100 hours a year rounds to nothing. > Unstructured play is great, but it's no substitute for targeting coaching when it comes to developing useful skills. Tell it to the Chinese football team. Then tell it to the Brazilian football team.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Bullshit. I've seen my own children and their peers make significant improvements in several sports with only 2-3 hours a week of coached practice. For example it's not that hard to learn a decent swimming crawl stroke, but almost no one can figure out the right technique on their own. That takes an experienced instructor and focused, disciplined practice. You might have had a bad experience in PE class but don't project your own failings on others.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - vanderZwan 8y ago
      > No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. You have never done any sports, have you? > Tell it to the Chinese football team. Then tell it to the Brazilian football team. Are you seriously going to use two professional teams with extensive professional coaching as an argument against the use of coaching? Nobody is arguing against unstructured play, you are just trying to steer the conversation into a direction where it's an either/or situation where it is not.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  > Physical education is awful For some, yes. And it is certainly taught in an inadequate way in most cases. > and it is not capable of not being awful. And this is where you basically close the door on any further discussion. I think the issue is more that you are too fixated on what Physical Education is than on what it could and should be.

barry-cotter 8y ago

> Taking physical education more seriously as being important for general development, and not something just for the people who want to continue in sports is probably beneficial for everyone in the long term anyway. Physical education is awful and it is not capable of not being awful. Even if it was not almost uniformly focused on team sports which some people hate to the point of faking illness and others love to the point of obsession, leading to massive capability gaps, it would still be irrelevant. Two or three hours a week of teacher directed exercise is nothing in the scheme of developing real skill. If people were serious about this problem they could allow children ample time to play, learning about the world and their bodies as small animals are meant to, or if they insist on making everything into a subject, treat physical education as a core part of the curriculum, English public school style, where everyone plays team sports almost every day.

nradov 8y ago
Two hours a week of coaching is better than none. Unstructured play is great, but it's no substitute for targeting coaching when it comes to developing useful skills.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  > Two hours a week of coaching is better than none. No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. Two hours a week will barely get you past novice in a year. It’s so little, so seldom that a substantial amount of each lesson has to be revision too but even if learning was instant and perfect 100 hours a year rounds to nothing. > Unstructured play is great, but it's no substitute for targeting coaching when it comes to developing useful skills. Tell it to the Chinese football team. Then tell it to the Brazilian football team.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Bullshit. I've seen my own children and their peers make significant improvements in several sports with only 2-3 hours a week of coached practice. For example it's not that hard to learn a decent swimming crawl stroke, but almost no one can figure out the right technique on their own. That takes an experienced instructor and focused, disciplined practice. You might have had a bad experience in PE class but don't project your own failings on others.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    > No one gets good at anything on two hours a week of practice. Absolutely nothing. You have never done any sports, have you? > Tell it to the Chinese football team. Then tell it to the Brazilian football team. Are you seriously going to use two professional teams with extensive professional coaching as an argument against the use of coaching? Nobody is arguing against unstructured play, you are just trying to steer the conversation into a direction where it's an either/or situation where it is not.
vanderZwan 8y ago
> Physical education is awful For some, yes. And it is certainly taught in an inadequate way in most cases. > and it is not capable of not being awful. And this is where you basically close the door on any further discussion. I think the issue is more that you are too fixated on what Physical Education is than on what it could and should be.