3 ms·

> > but in the US you need an entrance exam to keep the jocks out > This comment is unnecessarily and rudely exclusive. Indeed. It's also completely wrong abo

by price 6y ago

> > but in the US you need an entrance exam to keep the jocks out > This comment is unnecessarily and rudely exclusive. Indeed. It's also completely wrong about TJ, just as it is about the school you went to. From my experience (graduating in '02), lots and lots of TJ students played sports -- and quite a lot of them were very serious about it and quite proud of how well they did. I believe our crew teams, in particular, were nationally competitive. This is counter-intuitive to a lot of people who don't expect "nerds" to be interested in sports or "jocks" to be good at math, science, or technology. (Including me when I first got there.) But I don't think it's a coincidence. It turns out that working hard, showing up, and keeping at it even when things aren't easy is a powerful way to get better at something. That's just as true for a sport as for an academic subject.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
The anti-sports stance is deliberate. Pursuing athletics at a high level takes time and money, both of which would better be directed elsewhere in a world of limited resources. It's also sending a message: this is a school, not a sports club; if you want sports, join the sports club, there you get sports. There are studies that school districts that dropped sports have better academic outcomes: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-cas... Especially, what's with the focus on competitive sports? At school you absolutely want to reach the unfit kids because school sports is the only time they get any kind of exercise. You have to be inclusionary, the purpose is public health, individual fitness, not competition, but competitive sports is exclusionary. Also, what's with the focus on team sports? American schoolkids have a staggering need for conformity, and team sports seem to feed that need.
- price 6y ago
  > There are studies that school districts that dropped sports have better academic outcomes: [link] I don't see such a study described in that article. After not finding it, I searched for "study", "studies", and "research", and still didn't. Can you perhaps quote a key sentence from the bit you're thinking of? There is a story about one district that dropped football (not all sports), under severe budgetary pressure. Seems like the right choice. I should add some context that may not be obvious outside the US: that district is a small town in Texas, and Texas and especially its small towns are where high-school football is a really especially big deal. (My dad grew up in a small town in Texas.) In the rest of the country it's generally not so extreme as it was in that town.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    The article is quoting a study saying that team sports may improve outcomes for the players but not for the rest of the students. The obvious doesn't need saying: organized sports is a moneysink that takes funding away from the core mission, which is academics.

by price 6y ago

HarryHirsch 6y ago

The anti-sports stance is deliberate. Pursuing athletics at a high level takes time and money, both of which would better be directed elsewhere in a world of limited resources. It's also sending a message: this is a school, not a sports club; if you want sports, join the sports club, there you get sports. There are studies that school districts that dropped sports have better academic outcomes: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-cas... Especially, what's with the focus on competitive sports? At school you absolutely want to reach the unfit kids because school sports is the only time they get any kind of exercise. You have to be inclusionary, the purpose is public health, individual fitness, not competition, but competitive sports is exclusionary. Also, what's with the focus on team sports? American schoolkids have a staggering need for conformity, and team sports seem to feed that need.

price 6y ago
> There are studies that school districts that dropped sports have better academic outcomes: [link] I don't see such a study described in that article. After not finding it, I searched for "study", "studies", and "research", and still didn't. Can you perhaps quote a key sentence from the bit you're thinking of? There is a story about one district that dropped football (not all sports), under severe budgetary pressure. Seems like the right choice. I should add some context that may not be obvious outside the US: that district is a small town in Texas, and Texas and especially its small towns are where high-school football is a really especially big deal. (My dad grew up in a small town in Texas.) In the rest of the country it's generally not so extreme as it was in that town.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  The article is quoting a study saying that team sports may improve outcomes for the players but not for the rest of the students. The obvious doesn't need saying: organized sports is a moneysink that takes funding away from the core mission, which is academics.