I heard that the high school I attended looked into trying to start later because of all the studies that show it would be beneficial, but realized that it wasn't doable because of after school sports: our school would have games against other schools in the area, so if our school started later and the others didn't then then it would make scheduling games difficult or impossible.
I agree, but I'd argue they make sense at a high level just not as much on lower ones. The level they may sense on is the "design a way to keep kids busy with useful stuff while their parents work". In that sense, something that involves directly being bussed somewhere after school vs. and evening thing adds convenience.
They keep kids busy and direct their energy and attention to arguably constructive things. Some kids do sport, other kids belong to chess clubs, others do theater. It all keeps them out of trouble.
However there are external costs to sports that other extracurriculars don't have. You also end up spending a lot of the school budget on facilities (stadiums, pools etc) that are a waste of time.
There seems to be two approaches to sporting activities: the intramural kind where you’re kknd of just having gun olaying games and the more competitive type where it’s about besting the competition as the main goal. I hope one day we get back to tje more collegial attitude toward sport: bonding, teamwork, fitness and fun.
I'm the introverted nerdy type - my main interests are programming, playing the piano and physics. But as I was growing up my parents were trying to encourage me and my siblings to be somewhat active for the obvious health reasons. And I stayed on the swim team through freshman year of high school. And I get it. There's more to life than school and books. Being on a sports team can be fun and rewarding, it can push you out of your comfort zone, can help you meet and bond with people not quite like you. I consider it one of my top five life mistakes that I quit the team.
So I disagree that the teams are such a waste of everything. Sure, you could separate the teams from the schools, but especially in the suburbs, why? Logistics are an issue - if you're already at a school how do you get to practice? The school also already has a social structure based on which to organize teams - sure you could create a whole separate structure, and I don't think that's necessarily bad, but I don't see why it wrong to use one you already have.
Just because something can be overdone doesn't mean it's wrong to do it at all.
Can nerds as a group please drop the "I don't get the sportsball so it's clearly a waste of time" bit? Athletics promote physical fitness, working together as a team, and are at their roots generally enjoyable to those who choose to play them. You can argue about how it's expensive, but in my mind the price is well worth the investment if it gives kids a sense of camaraderie, keeps them out of trouble, and helps teach the value of teamwork. There are of course people who get way too invested in sports, but that is a totally different problem to be addressed, the sports themselves are generally fine.
Because people have decided that the benefits of having sports programs are worth taxpayer support. This is largely opinion-based - if you feel they shouldn't be, bring it up at a school board meeting. Maybe people will agree with you.
>Sports are a distraction.
Sports are inherently no more of a distraction than chess club or coding for fun after school.
>I spent only a year at a high school in the US but god I hated all the talk about sports.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. I played sports and enjoyed myself doing so, and gained some perspective and habits that I still value later in life. You are obviously welcome to hold your own opinions about sports, but you're going to have to do better than "I don't like sports" to convince people they are not worth the time or should not be funded by the school systems.
> Because people have decided that the benefits of having sports programs are worth taxpayer support.
Have they "decided" though? The reason for their existence is largely historic. I don't think people are really aware of the costs, both monetary and non-monetary.
> This is largely opinion-based - if you feel they shouldn't be, bring it up at a school board meeting. Maybe people will agree with you.
I've brought it up before. I was told that it's good because students can then get athletic scholarships. When I brought up that the sum of the scholarships received this was was very well below the budget of the athletic department, I didn't receive an answer.
> Sports are inherently no more of a distraction than chess club or coding for fun after school.
No, chess club has very little external costs. As the comment I was responding to said, one school cancelled later times (something everyone would benefit from) due to sports.
Also, chess matches aren't a major "social event".
> Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. I played sports and enjoyed myself doing so, and gained some perspective and habits that I still value later in life.
Which skills? Don't say "team work" or "diligence" or something.
> You are obviously welcome to hold your own opinions about sports, but you're going to have to do better than "I don't like sports" to convince people they are not worth the time or should not be funded by the school systems.
It's not about me disliking them, it's about me having it shoved down my throat and me, as a taxpayer, paying for it.
>Have they "decided" though? The reason for their existence is largely historic. I don't think people are really aware of the costs, both monetary and non-monetary. [...] I've brought it up before. I was told that it's good because students can then get athletic scholarships. When I brought up that the sum of the scholarships received this was was very well below the budget of the athletic department, I didn't receive an answer.
Again, if the status quo is not to your liking, attempt to change it. If you think people are unaware of the costs, educate them. Personally, I am aware of both and find them satisfactory. Perhaps those people did as well.
> No, chess club has very little external costs. As the comment I was responding to said, one school cancelled later times (something everyone would benefit from) due to sports. Also, chess matches aren't a major "social event".
Sure, but if all schools adopted later start times (as they should), it would no longer be a problem for sports to find scheduling. And my point is that kids are going to do something as an after-school activity, and that sports are perfectly fine as one of them.
> Which skills? Don't say "team work" or "diligence" or something.
Good workout routines and general ways of keeping physically fit. Tactical planning and how to effectively and efficiently fill roles. Teamwork, which I am saying anyway because that is absolutely a valuable takeaway from team sports, I'm not sure why you think that isn't good enough. Are these things exclusively learned from team sports? No, but nothing is really exclusively learned from anything else.
>It's not about me disliking them, it's about me having it shoved down my throat and me, as a taxpayer, paying for it.
I don't like everything my taxes are spent on either, but that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society sometimes.
>By the way the sports culture was a major factor in the Columbine shooting
This is in absolutely no way, shape, or form relevant to the discussion, and you should be ashamed for even considering to compare people who think sports have value in society to mass murderers in an otherwise civil discussion.
I think you make some good points. Athletics at school are great for all the various reasons you mentioned.
The problem, from my experience of going to school in Kansas and Oklahoma, is that you have all these small towns where academics take a back seat to sports.
I lived in three different towns until graduating high school. All three towns cared more for football and basketball than any curriculum.
I graduated in 2008. The textbook we used had no mention of Bill Clintons presidency and were from around 1991.
We didn't have a rigorous math curriculum. I had Alegebra 1 and 2, Geometry, and Trig. There was no pre calculus or calculus.
My first year in a CS degree program, I had never seen the symbol for a summation before.
The district spent a fortune on raising funds or using tax payer money (both) on keeping the athletic facilities functioning. Yet we couldn't afford to have better classes or teach math at all. It wasn't even encouraged.
Athletics at school are a good thing. Over index in one area is utter stupidity.
>Athletics at school are a good thing. Over index in one area is utter stupidity.
I completely agree - there's a huge problem when athletics become the focus of a school district, and this should absolutely be addressed. I mostly just wanted to point out in my previous post that this isn't an unavoidable end point for athletics - I was fortunate in that I attended a high school that valued both academics and athletics, and feel both have enriched my life and the idea of dropping athletics for pure academics feels very short-sighted.
Can nerds as a group please drop the "I don't get the sportsball so it's clearly a waste of time" bit?
Can jocks please drop the "nerds and their 'sportsball'" bit? That is not what parent said at all, but rather questioned why it's attached to schools. And it's a solid question given how many schools give priority to the football team over academics. There are plenty of extra-curricular soccer leagues out there, there's not reason it wouldn't work for football and basketball.
>Can jocks please drop the "nerds and their 'sportsball'" bit? That is not what parent said at all, but rather questioned why it's attached to schools.
Oh please, defending sports on Hacker News hardly warrants calling someone a jock. And the parent said, and I quote, "high school sports are such a waste of everything" - that's absolutely showing a lack of understanding of why sports are a thing. There's nothing wrong with questioning why they're attached, and there absolutely is a problem with valuing athletics over academics in many school districts, but the parent's argument largely boils down to "I DON'T LIKE THING". That's not a convincing argument, and there's plenty of opportunity to balance academics and athletics without weighing too heavily on the scale with either one.
why are intermural athletics considered a superior way of encouraging those skills rather than funneling kids into community-based independent leagues? if anything i think the potential benefits of getting kids to practice teamwork & build friendships in a non age segregated environment would better reflect the realities of the workplace & society as a whole. we spend so many resources turning schools into their own enclosed ecosystems rather than using them as a means to encourage apprenticeship within the larger community where people are actually going to be utilized.
It promotes athleticism, teamwork, and is generally enjoyable to those around it. Sure, some schools may invest a little too much into sports, but that doesn't mean that schools should drop sports entirely.
No, it's a major strain on the school and the school life. Schools tend to promote sports over other things. Things like "school spirit" are legit retarded.
One of the points missed with school and sports is that exercise interacts with learning (growth hormones from working out help strengthen memories etc) and I do agree with it being separate from schools.
I've pointed out in the past that the Anglosphere drinks coffee and tea, while the rest of the world takes naps and siestas and so on. Protestant work ethic cultural imperialism!
> Yes, but unlike those places there is no Anglo-American tradition of a mid-workday nap.
That's because the Anglo-American world mostly has a tradition of a large evening meal (instead of a large midday meal) and is largely not in a warm climate; siesta, by varying names, is most common where warm climate and large midday meals coincide, and even there have often been displaced in the modern workforce though long lunch breaks often remain in an echo of the tradition.
> the Anglosphere drinks coffee and tea, while the rest of the world takes naps and siestas and so on. Protestant work ethic cultural imperialism
Even if the first part was true (it's not), the second part is unlikely to be the explanation: Protestantism, even the Calvinism most associated with the “Protestant work ethic”, isn't a unique feature of the Anglosphere.
When I pressed him about how much sleep he got each night, be went into the same "I'm so busy, I don't have enough time" routine that everyone else does.
37 comments
[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 82.1 ms ] threadGroup mentality was strong in high school. "Be a strong boy for everyone to be proud of."
Now everyone has moved on and I have lifelong aches and pain for 0 financial or personal gain. I'm glad I specialized in computers :)
So I disagree that the teams are such a waste of everything. Sure, you could separate the teams from the schools, but especially in the suburbs, why? Logistics are an issue - if you're already at a school how do you get to practice? The school also already has a social structure based on which to organize teams - sure you could create a whole separate structure, and I don't think that's necessarily bad, but I don't see why it wrong to use one you already have.
Just because something can be overdone doesn't mean it's wrong to do it at all.
Because people have decided that the benefits of having sports programs are worth taxpayer support. This is largely opinion-based - if you feel they shouldn't be, bring it up at a school board meeting. Maybe people will agree with you.
>Sports are a distraction.
Sports are inherently no more of a distraction than chess club or coding for fun after school.
>I spent only a year at a high school in the US but god I hated all the talk about sports.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. I played sports and enjoyed myself doing so, and gained some perspective and habits that I still value later in life. You are obviously welcome to hold your own opinions about sports, but you're going to have to do better than "I don't like sports" to convince people they are not worth the time or should not be funded by the school systems.
Have they "decided" though? The reason for their existence is largely historic. I don't think people are really aware of the costs, both monetary and non-monetary.
> This is largely opinion-based - if you feel they shouldn't be, bring it up at a school board meeting. Maybe people will agree with you.
I've brought it up before. I was told that it's good because students can then get athletic scholarships. When I brought up that the sum of the scholarships received this was was very well below the budget of the athletic department, I didn't receive an answer.
> Sports are inherently no more of a distraction than chess club or coding for fun after school.
No, chess club has very little external costs. As the comment I was responding to said, one school cancelled later times (something everyone would benefit from) due to sports.
Also, chess matches aren't a major "social event".
> Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man. I played sports and enjoyed myself doing so, and gained some perspective and habits that I still value later in life.
Which skills? Don't say "team work" or "diligence" or something.
> You are obviously welcome to hold your own opinions about sports, but you're going to have to do better than "I don't like sports" to convince people they are not worth the time or should not be funded by the school systems.
It's not about me disliking them, it's about me having it shoved down my throat and me, as a taxpayer, paying for it.
By the way the sports culture was a major factor in the Columbine shooting https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/june99/...
Again, if the status quo is not to your liking, attempt to change it. If you think people are unaware of the costs, educate them. Personally, I am aware of both and find them satisfactory. Perhaps those people did as well.
> No, chess club has very little external costs. As the comment I was responding to said, one school cancelled later times (something everyone would benefit from) due to sports. Also, chess matches aren't a major "social event".
Sure, but if all schools adopted later start times (as they should), it would no longer be a problem for sports to find scheduling. And my point is that kids are going to do something as an after-school activity, and that sports are perfectly fine as one of them.
> Which skills? Don't say "team work" or "diligence" or something.
Good workout routines and general ways of keeping physically fit. Tactical planning and how to effectively and efficiently fill roles. Teamwork, which I am saying anyway because that is absolutely a valuable takeaway from team sports, I'm not sure why you think that isn't good enough. Are these things exclusively learned from team sports? No, but nothing is really exclusively learned from anything else.
>It's not about me disliking them, it's about me having it shoved down my throat and me, as a taxpayer, paying for it.
I don't like everything my taxes are spent on either, but that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society sometimes.
>By the way the sports culture was a major factor in the Columbine shooting
This is in absolutely no way, shape, or form relevant to the discussion, and you should be ashamed for even considering to compare people who think sports have value in society to mass murderers in an otherwise civil discussion.
The problem, from my experience of going to school in Kansas and Oklahoma, is that you have all these small towns where academics take a back seat to sports.
I lived in three different towns until graduating high school. All three towns cared more for football and basketball than any curriculum.
I graduated in 2008. The textbook we used had no mention of Bill Clintons presidency and were from around 1991.
We didn't have a rigorous math curriculum. I had Alegebra 1 and 2, Geometry, and Trig. There was no pre calculus or calculus.
My first year in a CS degree program, I had never seen the symbol for a summation before.
The district spent a fortune on raising funds or using tax payer money (both) on keeping the athletic facilities functioning. Yet we couldn't afford to have better classes or teach math at all. It wasn't even encouraged.
Athletics at school are a good thing. Over index in one area is utter stupidity.
I completely agree - there's a huge problem when athletics become the focus of a school district, and this should absolutely be addressed. I mostly just wanted to point out in my previous post that this isn't an unavoidable end point for athletics - I was fortunate in that I attended a high school that valued both academics and athletics, and feel both have enriched my life and the idea of dropping athletics for pure academics feels very short-sighted.
Can jocks please drop the "nerds and their 'sportsball'" bit? That is not what parent said at all, but rather questioned why it's attached to schools. And it's a solid question given how many schools give priority to the football team over academics. There are plenty of extra-curricular soccer leagues out there, there's not reason it wouldn't work for football and basketball.
Oh please, defending sports on Hacker News hardly warrants calling someone a jock. And the parent said, and I quote, "high school sports are such a waste of everything" - that's absolutely showing a lack of understanding of why sports are a thing. There's nothing wrong with questioning why they're attached, and there absolutely is a problem with valuing athletics over academics in many school districts, but the parent's argument largely boils down to "I DON'T LIKE THING". That's not a convincing argument, and there's plenty of opportunity to balance academics and athletics without weighing too heavily on the scale with either one.
No.
The same is true of almost any question that starts “Can nerds as a group...”
It's not like there is a National Council of Nerds coordinating nerd doctrine.
> Athletics promote physical fitness,
Generally, that's fairly obvious.
> working together as a team,
Less true; team sports (like any team activity) does that, but athletics doesn't consist exclusively of team sports.
> and are at their roots generally enjoyable to those who choose to play them.
Most activities are enjoyable to those who choose to participate, because otherwise people wouldn't choose to participate.
That's because the Anglo-American world mostly has a tradition of a large evening meal (instead of a large midday meal) and is largely not in a warm climate; siesta, by varying names, is most common where warm climate and large midday meals coincide, and even there have often been displaced in the modern workforce though long lunch breaks often remain in an echo of the tradition.
Even if the first part was true (it's not), the second part is unlikely to be the explanation: Protestantism, even the Calvinism most associated with the “Protestant work ethic”, isn't a unique feature of the Anglosphere.
I recent;y interviewed the founder of a startup that is focused on getting companies to improve the sleep habits of their employees.
In case you are interested: https://www.disruptingjapan.com/can-capitalism-ever-allow-us...
When I pressed him about how much sleep he got each night, be went into the same "I'm so busy, I don't have enough time" routine that everyone else does.
Our lack of sleep is a deep societal problem.