Scott Ganz (American Enterprise Institute) published an interesting article analyzing what effect, if any, youth sports may have on shaping the economic, academic, and social prospects of Americans.
Considering our current discussion on how we might help students develop the skills necessary to become competitive participants in today's global economy, I thought this article might put a twist on things!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This is an interesting article, and the author makes some valid points. And let me preface my response to the article by saying that there is no question that sports definitely help some kids in immeasurable ways.
That being said, there remains a question of balance. The question is not, "do sports help some kids?" the answer to which is an obvious and resounding "yes." The real question is, "how important should sports be in an academic environment in the flattening world?" My answer to that question (i.e. my opinion) is that both high schools and universities still put WAY too much emphasis on sports; and my response to this article is therefore largely to question its conclusions. I'm not trying to be a jerk and just disagree with the article because I think there's too much emphasis on sports; but I do intend to approach it with a cynical eye.
So let me further preface this by openly stating my bias. I do not have, and never have had, any personal interest in sports. On occasion I have enjoyed playing a game of basketball or something for fun with family and friends, but it was about the time spent, not the game itself. I am, by no stretch of anyone's imagination, a sports fan. There is no way in the world I could ever possibly care less about NFL drafts, NBA championships, etc. That being said, I don't have anything against the idea of sports, either. I just have no interest. So please don't view the tone of my comments as hostile. I am attempting to be dispassionate (you can judge for yourself whether or not I have succeeded). I am neither enamored of sports nor outraged by them. My intent is to provide a contrasting point of view to the article, based on my ambivalent personal attitude toward sports, and my opinion that sports are given too much emphasis in schools.
The author provides as evidence for his claims two problematic sources: case studies, and statistical surveys. Case studies, while interesting, can provide nothing more than examples of how certain cases occurred. The cases of individual coaches having a profound positive impact on troubled kids are moving; and certainly, I know it's something that can and does happen. Thankfully so. But since it's something that could also happen with another teacher, or any positive adult role model, giving the credit to sports is an overstatement of the case. Sports is merely the vessel that provides the connection between the kids and the adult. But that vessel could also be a classroom; or a club; etc. Further...while the benefit of sports for troubled kids is apparent, I don't see a convincing connection, even from these case studies, between sports and academic performance in general. I grant that for some kids, it's the only connection they relate to--and so I do not, and will not, advocate the complete removal of sports from school, no matter how little I personally care about them. However, as I have said, I think sports are inappropriately emphasized on American campuses.
As for the survey data... unfortunately, I am forced to disregard it entirely. First of all, no method of how the survey was conducted is provided. How were the subjects chosen? What was the size of the sample population? How do the sizes of the sub-populations of athletes and non-athletes compare? Without this information, I can't even tell if I should consider the results to have any validity whatsoever--let alone whether any differences that exist in the data are statistically significant.
And then there's the graph. Graphs are useful tools when used right; but they can also be used to totally misrepresent facts to suit a specific agenda; which is what the cynic in me suspects is going on in this case, for several reasons.
The graph shows data from the Class of 1972. (I think, anyway; it's hard to see on the image...but the article refers to data from the 1970's...in which case, how relevant is it to 2008 anyway?). It looks impressive...but looks, and graphs, can be deceiving. People with agendas can use graphs to their advantage because they can make them look like they say whatever they want them to say while still "honestly" representing the data. This graph, in particular, very conveniently has no labels on the vertical axis. How MANY people are we talking about here? Does this data represent 10 people? 100? 1000? I see things like that and as a scientist, I can lend the figure no credence.
The kindest conclusion I can reach is that the author assumed his audience would be too confused if he presented real data. A slightly less charitable, but still relatively kind response would be to chalk it up to simple incompetence. But my cynical nature leads me to suspect, instead, that it is a deliberate attempt to manipulate data to support the author's claims--otherwise, why NOT state how many people the data in the graph are intended to represent?
But even assuming the veracity of the data is not suspect, the data still comes from the 1970's, when the issue of globalization was not the issue it is today. Americans competed mostly against other Americans for jobs.
I don't claim to know what more current data might look like...but I find it interesting that the authors of the study referenced by the article went back 30 years to find data to support their claims (or perhaps the study is 30 years old, in which case why is the author using it?). Again, it causes the cynic in me to raise an eyebrow. It would be much more relevant to see how much, if at all, having played high school sports would mean in today's global job market, than to look at the American job market of the 1970's.
Also, since the data on that study (if I read the article correctly) comes only from males, I think it could be just as easily be interpreted in an entirely different way. As a side issue, I have to wonder why the study only considered males...then again, maybe it's not such a side issue. I know there have been other studies done on factors that affect hiring and salaries of American males, and one thing that has been strongly indicated is that for males (many studies are less conclusive for females), if they are more attractive, which would likely include being more athletic in build, they are more likely to be hired and more likely to be paid higher salaries. I'm not going to track down every such study--nor claim that all of them are valid. But I've read about a lot of them; and an abstract of an example of such a study is here.
But anyone who has worked in corporate America (I worked for two corporations before ECHS) is familiar with the phenomenon of the nice-looking-but-incompetent manager. Especially if they are middle managers. Anyone who's worked in a corporate environment (or watches The Office, which depicts it in only slightly exaggerated form), I am sure, knows exactly what I'm talking about!
Especially in the 1970's and 1980's, when the men from the cited study would have likely entered the work force, I would find it easier to believe that if there is a statistically significant difference between athletes and non-athletes, it is because of this cultural prejudice toward the greater perceived attractiveness of athletes. I realize the data is about college graduates who played in high school; but I think it a not unreasonable assumption that those who played sports in high school are more athletically inclined than those who didn't, and these greater athletic inclinations would likely still exist even after college graduation. So once again, the cynic in me raises an eyebrow; and I suspect that it is not by dint of being better employees, but by dint of being better looking, that the athletes had employment advantages (if said advantages are even statistically significant) over non-athletes.
Also, in typical high schools and even some colleges, jocks and cheerleaders are at the top of the social pecking order. Couldn't any "benefit" simply arise from that, as well? The fact that these people received this social boost that may have followed them, or perhaps just gave them a higher self-perception, which is a strong determiner of how others perceive you? But again--how significant will the social rewards of being an athlete in America remain in a global job market? Do we want our students to aspire to be jocks and cheerleaders, or scientists and engineers?
Of course, I'm now the one who is overstating and oversimplifying. Being a jock and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive; nor are being a cheerleader and an engineer (though it seems less likely). However, I still maintain that with the overemphasis on sports on American campuses, we absolutely must remain vigilant--not about our priorities, which I don't think have changed or are likely to--but about the effect of the sports program on our student body.
I fully believe that the opportunity to play sports is a great thing for some kids; and yet I can just as strongly state, from my own interactions with students, that there are other kids who deeply resent the increased presence of sports on our campus--some sports more than others. And in virtually every instance, it's not really about the sport itself; it's about the attitudes and effects that accompany it.
Ganz's article itself begins by listing (then effectively dismissing) some of the negative effects of sports in American culture. I know no one on our campus wants to pretend those negatives don't exist...and I'm not here to pretend there are no positive effects, either.
I'm just saying that we shouldn't ignore the negatives; and that we need to take both the positives and the negatives into account as we think about what is best for all of our students in this emerging global economy.
I'm in the rather awkward position of having to agree with Noah here. It is hard to find anything he hasn't said about this issue, of course, but I think I found a few things to say.
The academic benefits of sports are largely related to self-esteem. We do self-esteem better now than we did in 1972. A confident student can approach difficult material with a greater chance of success. That success can be gained in a number of ways other than on the field of play.
I played sports in high school and earned letters in two sports. I was a mediocre athlete at best, but my I had a greater sense of self-discipline "in season" than I did out of season. The hours I spent on the pitch, the court, the gridiron made the hours I spent in study more productive.
This was largely due to a higher level of physical fitness and a greater sense of belonging. There are many ways to be fit and to gain a sense of belonging. Participating in organized sports may be one of the better ways. Engaging in yoga and doing well in AP Calculus is another.
It is also interesting to note that this guy who was saved by sports went back to sports to become a coach. It is like the old argument about college football. College football is said to be a "revenue stream" to the university--but the fact is that college football doesn't build libraries. College football builds stadiums and may fund other sports. In my opinion, in the end, sports become a bit self-serving and we should weigh their value more carefully.
If I may, I would like to offer a few observations as someone who has not played organized sports since eighth grade basketball and who does not own a single item of professional sports paraphernalia.
First, the article mentions the immortal aspect of sports, and its link to heroic figures of myth and history, striving against the odds and emerging victorious. Who doesn't want to feel like that once in awhile? We engage in sports, or simply exercise, partly because our immortal spirits inhabit mortal bodies. If done right, it feels good, and it's good for our souls and bodies. Movement and competition (even if only against our own personal best) reconnect us to the sensual and enlivening experiences of the physical world that grow fainter as our routines move further from the playground. In my view, the more technology we have, the more we need physical activity that injects some effort, perhaps even some slight discomfort or risk, into our cushy, adult American lives. Carrying the groceries into the house or pushing the vacuum cleaner just doesn't provide that kind of perspective.
But what about our students? I think they need as many options as we can give them because at that age, they can be incredibly hide-bound and already in a rut. (I'm continually surprised at the number of students who are afraid to try new things, or who already "know" they won't like something they have never tried. So much for open-minded youth!)
As in the article, organized sports can offer enriching experiences to students in many areas, and allows them another way to discover more about themselves, other people, and life in general. I think that a sports program managed and presented in a balanced way can be a very positive factor for high school students, whether they choose to participate or not. It's up to us as teachers and coaches to show them that any sport is simply another forum in which to demonstrate creativity and initiative.
Let's conclude with a bit of American history (shocker!). Theodore Roosevelt is considered by many historians as an absolute genius - the man spoke multiple languages, wrote dozens of books, could expound on innumerable topics, and set the lone precedent for the "imperial presidency" until it was revived by his distant cousin FDR. (It's amazing to think that TR had the same job description as Coolidge, but I digress.) But Americans don't think of TR this way; we usually imagine him charging up San Juan Hill (actually Kettle Hill), or yelling, "Bully!", or practically digging the Panama Canal on his own. How did this formerly chronically sick child become so robust? He used his brain to strengthen his body. How did his excellent physical condition reward his brain? It provided the stamina and energy to take him wherever he desired to go and to work as much as he wanted to accomplish his prodigious goals.
We would serve our students well to set them on a path that challenges their minds and bodies, and we would do well to remember that ourselves.
(Long live the Rolly Backpack Race!)
Great points, Jackie. By and large, I agree with you. I definitely think you hit the nail on the head at least twice: that it needs to be balanced; and that we, as teachers and coaches, are responsible to make sure that it is.
As I've said, I'm not opposed to sports. What I'm opposed to is their overemphasis; and the rather absurd social status American culture applies to athletes--especially those from particular sports.
And lest anyone accuse me of picking only on sports, I am also opposed to the absurd social status American culture applies to singers and actors. I enjoy a good entertainment now and then...but I couldn't really care less about "Brangelina" than I do about NBA finals, etc.
They're good at something that's fun for them and entertaining to watch. Nothing wrong with that; and nothing wrong with enjoying it. It doesn't warrant the fawning adulation American culture gives them, though.
My real point is that, since America has a tendency to exaggerate the importance of sports, and because of what we ALL know can happen on a campus where sports get out of control, we just need to keep the big picture in view, and always ask what's best for the whole school--for ALL our students.
Welcome, Jackie, and thanks for bringing in the mythic and mystical aspect of sports! I had ignored a lot of the benefit sports brought and still bring to me to this day! As I write, I'm sitting and watching the Padres warm-up show. (I may be the only one so doing in the greater San Diego area, but I am doing it.)
I think my objections to sports come from the disturbance I feel in the "Charter Force" since football and cheerleading have arrived. I lettered in football and I am a Charger season ticket holder. (I'll pause while you let the envious green fade from your visages.) It would be hypocritical of me to call for the banishment of sports. I do think that, on Charter, we most definitely need to make sure that the academic superstars are and remain the role models and the cool dudes and dudettes on campus.
I recently heard one kid deem participation in Academic League "social suicide." This is the kind of short-sighted, uniformed generalization that could lead to the kind of culture NONE of us want.
Mel, it is that same tremor in the Charterian Force, and (I will be less kind) obnoxiously stupid attitudes like the "social suicide" comment that have made me more than a little leery of football and cheerleaders on our campus. (And I'm really glad to know that even a football fan like you has concerns!)
But I had best not really get started talking about this...it would be my longest post yet.
And--though this need not be said--that's saying something.
I really think we need to have a serious discussion with staff and administration about this issue, though. I know for absolute fact that we are not the only teachers who are bothered. In fact, just about every teacher I've talked to has feelings ranging from concern to downright ire about the whole thing.
And that's to say nothing of the student body. The "social suicide" comment about Academic League is a prime example of why our true (by which I mean literal) A-listers feel threatened and discomfited by the presence of jocks and cheerleaders. It doesn't even matter whether it was one of said j-a-c's who said it; their presence on campus encourages the attitude.
Granted, this year was much better in terms of reducing their visibility on campus (with the exception of that...ahem...routine at the Theater Grand Opening). It only retards the problem, though; it does not eliminate it.
To avoid going on much longer, let me just say that while I have no problem with sports in general, for many of the reasons Jackie brings up, I have definite problems with the mentality that accompanies football and cheerleading on other campuses (my high school, e.g.), as it is wholly antithetical to what we are trying to do at Charter. I just have a really hard time believing that as long as football and especially cheerleading exist on our campus, the prevalence of those anti-Charter attitudes won't increase every year.
Everybody seems to be concerned about the House system being divisive. Where is that concern with regard to football and cheerleading?
Noah,
I think I speak for all concerned. Tell us what you really think--even if it takes 20000 words.
Mel
Thanks, Mel. I guess I've just been apologetic about the length of my posts recently because I know I have a tendency to go on (and on), which is why I had to learn to be pretty brutal when editing my own papers for school; but I'm not really editing myself that much here. A little, but not much.
I just don't want anyone who might be new to the blog, or reading it but not yet having joined it, to feel like I'm trying to monopolize things; especially since the "eloquence" of my lengthy posts was pointed out at the staff meeting.
Post a Comment