In the last couple of days, the local news has had stories on it about how the Woodland Hill School board has been voting to remove its no-cut policy from high school sports. I found this kind of amusing at first, and then kind of annoying and then kind of interesting, and as is my custom when something gets a bug up my ass for no particular reason, it eventually inspired me to write 1000 words of free flowing hostility:
So far, The news has presented the removal of the no-cut policy as some highly controversial issue. Well excuse me for a moment while I wonder about the validity of this. How is it a controversial issue? How in the bloody blue hell is this even fucking news? People are supposed to get cut from sports. That’s the best part.
Ok, so as I understand it, there are certain individuals who feel that the no-cut rule is a good thing. It means that every kid gets an opportunity to play any sport that they want. Its “fair” or something. Well, this may be stupidest idea I have ever heard in my life. Since when are high school sports supposed to be about being fair? Hell, since when is high school supposed to be about being fair. High School is about preparing for life, and you know what? Life is not fucking fair. The way life works, is that the people who are best at something are the people who are chosen to do a certain job. For some reason, people out there seem to have taken the stance that just because something is fun, everyone should have a chance to do it, no matter what their level of skill. WHAT THE FUCK?!?! I think brain surgery is fun, it’s a crime that no one lets me practice it on them.
We live in a society, where we for some reason like to believe that mental pursuits are simply more important than physical ones. We like to believe that if you’re smart that’s somehow more important than if you are strong. We like to believe that being a nice person is somehow more important than being good looking. Well, I’m sorry but that’s just bullshit. Just like some people are smarter than other people and will receive certain advantages in certain aspects of life because of it, some people are stronger or faster or prettier or whatever and they should be able to receive advantages too. The scrawny uncoordinated kid with 20/80 vision and the bad knee just doesn’t get to play varsity football. Sorry, kid, thems the breaks and that’s just the way it is. So stick your nose back in a book, Poindexter.
Seriously though, lets look at the issues one by one. First the obvious one: Sports are by definition, games of skill. If you remove the skill requirement then what the fucking point? In order for the game to be interesting, all of the participants need to be on reasonably similar skill levels. In High School sports we accomplish this by having Varsity, Junior Varsity and Freshman teams. Yes, some students might not even be good enough for the lowest level team. Well, tough shit. Sometimes you just fall through the cracks. Honestly, does anyone really want to watch the bottom of the athletic barrel try to scrape by on the same field of play with the physically gifted. I sure as hell don’t.
Ok, next issue. Did any of these nimrods stop to think for a moment that sports like say football, hockey, basketball and whatever are fucking dangerous? People get hurt. People who aren’t physically prepared for the beatings of those sports are going to get hurt even worse. I don’t care how much he may want it, a sixteen year old who weighs in at less 120 fucking pounds soaking wet with bricks in pockets is going to get broken in half the first time he takes a hit in the bread basket by an outside linebacker who clocks in at 250 plus. The kid is going to get fucking killed out there.
Finally, it’s about teaching a lesson. The way the world works, there are disappointments. We don’t always get to do what we want to just because we want it. You want to be a football star? Fine then put in the work and become a good football player. Go to the gym, work out, eat right, work your ass off, and maybe you’ll get the shot. Maybe not. That’s the way life works. By just giving a free pass to someone who wants it, you are belittling the accomplishments of the people who work their ass off for it. (Or the people who are naturally gifted). It’s no more fair or right to let someone who isn’t physically adept onto the team just because he wants it than it would be to allow a student flunking remedial science into Chemistry II just because they think “mixing shit together is wicked cool.” What about other entertainment pursuits? Should someone without acting talent be able to demand a part in the school play? Are the tone death owed a part in the school choir or glee club? Give me a break.
Why is it that we treat mental development as so much more important than physical development? Is it harder? No, not necessarily. Is it more fulfilling? Not always. Is it more important? Rarely. We like to tell children that its what’s on the inside that matters and not what’s on the outside, but is that really true? Of course not. The total package matters. Both what’s inside and out. Physical strength may not be a substitute for intelligence, but it doesn’t work the other way either. Some people have one or the other. Some people have both. And yeah, I hate to admit it, but some people have neither. That’s just how it works. Thems the breaks. Is what it is. But games of skills are intended to utilize just that. SKILLS! And if we remove that element of skill what do we have left? We have a bunch of clumsy assholes running around on a field kicking a ball for no readily apparent reason whatsoever, likely running into each other and destroying whatever brain they had left. Hey, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad anyway.
Of course, I’m smart, strong, fast and pretty… so really, what the fuck do I care?
We live in a society, where we for some reason like to believe that mental pursuits are simply more important than physical ones. We like to believe that if you’re smart that’s somehow more important than if you are strong.
Umm, when did you move to a society outside of the US? I must have missed the going away party.
No, I see his point.
Superficiality is rampant here, but we like to pretend that it is not. I think he’s expressing what society wants to say is true, not necessarily what actually happens in society.
yeah… pretty much… I am complaining about the stated ideal, not necessarilly against the actual status quo practice. That’s a whole different rant.
eh… I was taking a shorthand approach. I frequently do that for word economy in a 1KWFFH. But my point is the rhetoric that we like to claim to children and just as a general matter of course is that “its whats inside that matters” and that staying in school and learning stuff is more important than excelling at sports or being pretty. My point being, in practice that isn’t true, and if anything it might be the other way around.
And, by the way, you’re wrong about the effect of the no-cut policy as well… it doesn’t result in a bunch of clumsy assholes running around kicking balls, it results in a whole lot of clumsy assholes standing on the sidelines in uniforms watching the coordinated players play until they get frustrated and quit. No one gets cut is a much different policy than everyone gets to play.
No one gets cut is a much different policy than everyone gets to play.
Yes, granted… And I don’t really know the actual details since I’m not a student at the school or a parent or a coach or even a fan. I am my rant entirely on the reporters stories and the interviews they showed on the news. People on both sides of the issue seem to imply that its an equal play kind of situation (whether that’s true or not is another matter). Some favoring it because everyone gets a fair chance, others dismissing it for taking playtime away from the real atheletes. So I sort of took it as a given, but yes you’re right it might not be. And of course if it isn’t, If its actually “all 40 of you guys are on the basketball team, but only these 10 guys ever get to play” then that just leads more to the hypocrisy I was talking about anyway. If nothing else, its a waste of money on buying a bigger bus than is really needed.
I feel that I must interject the immortal words of Tom Lehrer:
“The American army has carried the democratic ideal to its logical conclusion: not only has it rejected discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, or color, but also on the grounds of ability.”
Yeah, well I’m personally of the opinion that in certain circumstances discrimination is ok. I talked about it in this rant last year.
The way life works, is that the people who are best at something are the people who are chosen to do a certain job.
Now, that’s an interesting hypothesis. Certainly explains our present government. I suppose I should quit whining and admit that George W. Bush is the best possible President.
Also, aren’t you unemployed? Are we to conclude that you aren’t good at anything?
Anyway, my point is not to argue with the no-cut policy or its absence, merely to point out that your little meritocracy is an utter fantasy. (Maybe it would be *nice* if people’s fates were decided on their merits, but it ain’t so.)
well sure its a fantasy… most of my rants are on some level or another, aren’t they?
But anyway, no your logic doesn’t follow… I would argue that me being unemployed whilst GWB is president is an aspect of the broken system that I was complaining about in the first place. Clearly there are people in the world less skilled than me doing jobs that I could do, so if people would just listen to what I said SHOULD happen, I should be able to bump them…
See… why am I not ruler?
Well, then, a meritocratic football team won’t prepare the kids any better for the real world, will it? It’s just choosing which fantasy-land you prefer the kiddies to live in…
ah touche…. played well young Higgins… played well….
seriously though… it’s not merely the lack or merit in the system that bothers me. It’s the lack of merit, the implication that everyone gets a fair chance, and the fallacy that the no-cut system is fair. Also, it’s the insinuation that atheletic or physical skill is maningless compared to intellectual skill. Yes, I am speaking in terms of ideals, but as a matter of course, what more do we have?
Well, intellectual vs. “physical” skill is kind of a red herring. For all I know the same policy was used with the debate team and the chess team.
I think the substantive debate is actually kind of subtle. Presumably, at some points in a child’s development, you do want “everyone to be a winner” in some sense. The idea is to inculcate enough self-esteem that the kid has enough of an internal motivational structure that he or she can go out there and take chances and risks. (Remember, when you’re a young kid, you almost always lose in a fair competition because you haven’t yet developed any skills.)
Later, you want to train the child to deal well with failure, so you make the competition more and more real. The question is, when and how do you switch over? High school is probably too old for “everyone is a winner”. (Hell, third graders are smart enough to see through that.) But it’s not obvious that you want full-on laissez-faire competition in every case either…
Well, intellectual vs. “physical” skill is kind of a red herring. For all I know the same policy was used with the debate team and the chess team.
True… I don’t know either. I was basing the rant on the fact that the news story specifically was centering on sports. I think its just as wrong for the school stutterer to demand a spot on the debate team or the class idiot to demand a spot on the chess team.
Also, I agree that there is some merit to the idea of making sure that every four year old makes it on the tee-ball team. Yes it sucks being the last seven year old picked in dodgeball, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the point that high school is too old for that. These are people we trust to drive here. If someone can control a four thousand pound vehicle, then they need to have the good sense to judge whether or not they reasonably belong on a highschool football field.
Another tasty attempt to shield our young from the heartbreak of disappointment. Everyone gets 100% on the test, because we wouldn’t want you to know you’re stupid. I would say this ironically if it wasn’t for the rarity of holdovers in the
ghettopublic school system.wait? are you saying you have an example of a school that actually does follow that policy?
One student at my school, PD, would get an A++ if “hall” were a subject. When I had him in my class his main activities were: using Sharpies to write on the desk, wearing his hood, cracking gum, talking loudly about nothing I understood, and walking out the back door. Now, yes, he is repeating the seventh grade this year, but the wonder is that he reached the seventh grade at all. I see him more often in my classroom now that he is not enrolled in my course.
ah… but he has been “slipping through the cracks” as opposed to “being passed as a matter of policy” right? Of course at what point does the difference become entirely semantic?
There is an annual standardized, usually exclusively multiple-choice exam the kids must pass to go on to the next grade. Even if they don’t do a damn bit of work all year, if they pass the test, they go to the next grade. If they fail the test, they are sent to summer school. At the end of summer school, they are to take the test again. However, often a student is passed to the next grade even if they fail the end of summer administration of the test, so long as they faithfully attended summer school, regardless of whether they actually did anything academic during summer school.
Maybe it’s policy, maybe it really is decided on a case-by-case basis…but the effect is that of “slipping through the cracks.”
But back to your original point…at least we are still allowed to give failing grades, thereby notifying students that they are not so good at academics.
fascinating… so if I get all As and fail the test I am held back, but if I fail everything and pass the test I graduate. In other words, grades are meaningless. I actually do see some great logic there, but I also see the potential for, I dunno, a billion very obvious problems.
Yeah, at least can still notify the student that you think they suck academically (lets cut through bullshit semantics, that’s what giving a kid a failing grade is… its the teacher telling the student, “look kid, I don’t think you’re so much with the smarts in this area”), but if the end result is that the kid moves on anyway, then its no better than the coach being able to say “look kid, you can’t catch, you can’t throw, you can’t tackle, you can’t run, you can’t block, but since I have to play you anyway, why don’t you go out there and line up at fullback”
Again, I reiterate… when I am ruler, all these problems will go away…
“look kid, I don’t think you’re so much with the smarts in this area”
I do try to make passing vs. failing more about “did you do the work” than “did you do it well,” but I’m confused. When exactly did you become Jewish?
actually, I’m a chinaman.
I was aware of your proud Asian heritage. Hence, my confusion.
hmmm… perhaps I am an Afro-Asiatic Jew….
I have to agree with you on this one.
People don’t seem to understand that sometimes, ya just gotta have standards.
yeah… really I get that no parent wants to hear “really, your kid sucks at basketball” but does any parent really want to watch his kid out there getting slaughtered either?
*shrug*
people are stupid…
In my high school, we had a girl in a wheelchair on the cheerleading squad. I had several rants similar to yours above regarding this situation.
see, I’m slightly more torn on that. Did your cheerleading squad goto cheer competitions? Did they cut anyone? See, if there were a competitive cheer squad and a pep squad/spirit club, I’d be all for the wheelchair girl joining the the pep squad, but if there are actual physical, acrobatic and atheltic requirements for the cheerleading team, and said team competes in cheer competitions, then people who can’t make the cut… well shouldn’t make the cut…
I’m not sure how involved they were in competitions. I just wasn’t something I paid close attention to in high school. However, there were acrobatic and athletic requirements that everyone else had to perform in order to get on the squad. I don’t know if it was a situation of being on, then being ‘cut’. I think it was more of a simple situation of going to the try-outs and only a certain few, those who performed the best, would make it on the team.
My rants were slightly different than your particular rant, but in a similar spirit. It is sad that the girl is handicaped. It is sad that there are many things that we can do that she cannot, due to her situation, such as walk. But I think being a cheerleader, is, unfortunately for her, one of those things. It’s too bad, but it’s just not something she can do.
Also, since most of the requirements for getting on the team, for everyone else, included being able to successfully perform backflips and other acrobatics, how could they possibly ‘fairly’ judge whether she should be on the team?
She was also very active in choir, which I think is a fine organization for her. Though we did also do dances and such at certain concerts, that is not essential to the purpose of the group. I think it is essential to cheerleading, and so shouldn’t be ignored.
I’m not really differentiating being cut from not making the team. But yes, I would think that being a cheerleader should require a certain amount of acrobatic ability and athletic skill. The fact that she can’t do it because she can’t walk does not make her more qualified to be on the team than the girl who can’t do it because she’s too clumsy or whatever. So yeah, I am inclined to agree. Its sad that she can’t walk, but that shouldn’t give her a token free pass. This isn’t the same as discriminating against a black student who might be just as capable of doing the routines as the white student. Similarly, I think its reasonable to cut an overweght student on the grounds that the other squad members can’t reasonably throw her up in the air, if such was a requirement of cheerleading.
In college, there was a student in one of my creative writing classes. He spoke english as a second language, and not very well. Not horribly, but clearly with some problems. Several members of the class got upset with me for criticizing the grammar in his stories since it was “very good, considering he didn’t speak the language very well” but I felt that, though it sucks that he doesn’t speak english well, that shouldn’t relax our judgement of his english in an english class. I would have felt the same way about a student who had a severe learning disability, or one that simply sucked at writing. I think this is the same issue.
Yeah, I think we’re more or less on the same page.
The problem here is that you aren’t looking at the money and where it goes. Athletic programs cost considerably more than any other after-school activity, yet are the most exclusive in who can participate. This often isn’t an issue of who can participate in competitive events alone, but who can enjoy the benefit of training as well. I feel it’s more than appropriate that anyone’s children should have equal access to these athletic opportunities funded through public money, even if they don’t get to play in a single competitive event. Perhaps they won’t be able to run fast enough or throw enough three-pointers in the first year to be competitive, but without access to such training you are essentially closing off any chance those people might have to better athletes. Since the goal of public education is to allow all of us to reach our potential, even if it be more limited in some areas than for others, I feel that closing off students from participating with these athletic clubs – so that we can pour all of the athletic budget into people who will not considerably benefit in comparison to those would normally get cut – to be contrary to that goal.
Good point.
yes… it really was…took me quite a while to think about it to respond…
this is a really good point and one I had to think about for a while. There are several points that I think are of essence here.
1) Cost of the sports program. Yes, sports are generally the most expensive of extracurricular activities. However, sports also bring more money in than any other extra curricular activity. I don’t know the specifics of the sports programs in Woodland Hills. But for instance in my school district, our Admiral King High School’s basketball team was definitely profitable, and probably paid for a few school programs.
2) Rights of the students to enjoy the programs. I would argue that enjoyment of the sports program is not merely limited to the atheletes. Students may support the team in other ways. They can come and enjoy the games. They can attend pep rallys, make signs, join the cheerleaders or the band. They can do any number of things. Yes, one might argue that the athelete derives the greatest benefit from the sport but that doesn’t mean he derives the only benefit. Also, when I was in highschool, I was the editor of the school newspaper, and if I didn’t like your writing, you simply didn’t get published. That simple. You could still read the paper all you wanted. Sports should be no different.
3) goal of the sports program. I’m kind of torn here. I understand your point, but I’m not sure if I agree with it. I’m not totally sure I don’t either. It all comes down to what the point of a sports program is. Is it to bring the entire student body up to a bare minimum level of physical achivement or is it to further challenge those who excel. I think I am inclined to believe it is the latter. As I was pointing out in the original rant, I do think that physical development should be seen as important as well as mental development, but I would argue that in school activities, such as gym and english class are meant to develop the student to competancy levels, but that extracurricular activities like football and the debate team are intended to expand the skills of those that already excel. So in your example, its the difference between having a german class and an after school german club.
But yeah, definitely good points.
Woodland Hills School District is a bit messed up for many political reasons. But in recent years they have had a pretty big budget crunch. I could be wrong, but I thought Woodland Hills had cut their intramural sports programs several years ago. This may have been the reason for the no-cut policy. Just to give students access to sports training and expertise. I think all public school students have that right. Otherwise it’s like denying kids the right to take German if they can’t already speak it.
The implication of the interviews was that the programs were made no-cut in order to give all the students who wanted to play a chance to play. Or at least that’s what the parents in the district on both sides of the issue believe. How true that actually is, who knows.
Now that it has been voted down though, they did say they would be trying to institute intramural programs for students who can’t make the actual teams.
Ask me about it in person sometime. I have some theories about it.
yeah sure… and like I’m anymore likely to remember that than you are to remember to give me thoses discs…