🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Jan09.011315.62346@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, wayman@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Wayman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.222319.19498@sequent.com> petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
>>
>>Or what about this kid, in a school where (s)he is put down by his, peers,
>>and in some cases by his parents, because he would not 'fit-in'. A kid
>>I was a mentor to this summer, (est IQ over 135) didn't want to get good
>>grades because he felt that he would not have any friends, and he did not
>>want to be a 'nurd and geek' ,his words, Also he had to make a choise between
>>basketball EVERYNIGHT of the week or homework, the school (big into
>>sports) and his parents felt that his basketball was more important and
>>these are direct observations and conservations with the school and his
>>parents, not my opion.
>
>I'm not entirely certain that extracurricular activities aren't as 
>important as academics in the situation of a tremendously gifted child.
>Of course, being pushed into something is another story.  A student
>like this needs balance in his life more than anything.  Athletics
>(that's what was mentioned here) can provide that along with other
>experiences that can teach him as much as any classroom ever could.  if
>the kid likes something other than academics, let him at it. 

    There appears to be this traditional belief that all academics makes
a bad person.   While I sort of agree with this point of view, it also
seems like all athletics isn't necessarily good.   People admire those
who can accomplish in athletics, but deride those who do well in
academics.   How often do you hear "All that athletics is bad for the
boy, he should study more" and how often do you hear "All that studying
is bad for the boy, he should go out and play sports".   Making fun of
those who try to do well academically ends up resulting in a society where
it's OK to be dumb.   I agree that there ought to be some balance, but
it should work both ways.

>>His math teacher was the only one who seemed to care, but she was new,
>>and (I can't blame her) didn't want to risk loosing her job. Both his
>>history and english teachers were basketball coaches.
>
>The only one who cared about what?  

   I assume the only one who cared that this kid, who was potentially
bright, was, in effect, being discouraged from doing academics.  Imagine
if someone saw a good runner, or a good football player, or a good violinist.
Such a person might be persuaded quite heavily to continue to excel in
these activities.   Yet, it appears in this case that few people may
be encouraging this student to work on academics.   Of course, if the
kid is having problems relating to other students, that should be looked
into, but it could just as easily be due to other students not liking
the kid for not playing basketball.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu