🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0Mvsy.ox@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>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.
>
>I completely disagree.  What is school there for?  To provide the academic
>foundation for the future, or to teach the students to "relate to"
>immature personalities?  Why do you consider it so terribly important a
>lesson to learn?  In the event that "fitting in" to that juvenile social
>structure requires that one be "average", what are you advocating here?
>I'll tell you, you are advocating the "curing" of geniuses of their gifts.
>I can think of nothing more antithetical to the principles of proper education.

Whew!  What a blistering comment!  That's also quite a conclusion you
jumped to for me. I appreciate the effort, but you are dead wrong in what
you told me I was thinking.  Hear: I advocate a balance in a child's life
and sports (other extracurriculars activities also) can help provide that.
In response to your question, school is not there just for knowledge, but
to teach students as much as we can about life.  It is very important for
a child to learn to deal with personalities and ideas different than his own.
"Fitting in" to a social structure is not the same thing as dealing with it.
Dealing with society is a good thing to learn unless the child has 
poinpointed serial killer or recluse as a career objective.  You'll
notice that my original post did not advocat "`curing' geniuses of their
gifts."  Maybe you read it wrong.

>>Of course, being pushed into something is another story.  
>
>But that IS what was happening in this particular case, and is a very common
>situation.

The original poster noted later that the child liked basketball; if 
you have had correspondence with him or if I have missed a post from
him that says otherwise, please correct me (I don't mean that sarcastically).

>>A student
>>like this needs balance in his life more than anything.  
>
>A "balance" between what and what?
>
>Knowledge and ignorance?
>Civilized adult behavior and irresponsible juvenile behavior?
>Intellectualism and anti-intellectualism?
>Reason and irrationality?
>Achievement and failure?
>Academic development and academic degeneration?
>
>What are you afraid of?  Such a student actually progressing beyond the
>point where his peers can catch up?

Oh, gosh.  I mean a balance between academics and nearly any other
activities that can do him some good.  Many times, all a tremendously
gifted student does is read and learn.  I have seen gifted students
benefit tremendously from exposure to different things.  Focus on
one thing and one knows only one thing.  If the child is talented,
broad exposure may uncover many things he's good at.  And, he might
even enjoy it!!  What a thought!!

>>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.  
>
>Such as?  Brutality uber alles?  The superior value of social consensus over
>reason?  Please explain these valuable lessons and why they are so
>terribly important.  I hear platitudes like that all the time, but I
>seldom hear any kind of explanation attached. 

I won't comment on "Brutality uber alles" because I don't know what that
means.  To the second question: athletics don't teach the superior value
of social consensus over reason.  Anyone who knows anything about the
Duke basketball program sees that Coach K is running a clean, successful
program.  That certainly hasn't been the consensus in college hoop, though
folks like him are making it that way.  There are many stories about
how athletics kept kids off the streets.  Keeping kids off the streets
and out of crack houses is a good thing.  For some kids, athletics is the
only way out, kids who would be nowhere if your opinion were teh prevailing
one.

There are many valuable lessons to be learned in athletics.  A person
can learn to be part of a team; that sometimes one must work within a
system to best achieve a common goal.  They can learn to win, that 
being successful carries with it the responsibility of humility,  They
can learn to lose - sometimes when you have done absolutely everything
you can, you still aren't successful.  That's a real important lesson.
They can learn to control themselves; when things aren't going your way,
they will be best resolved by temperence and adjustment.  They can learn
the value of good physical condition, and nutrition, that one feels better
and is healthier when one takes care of his body.  They can learn the
value of hard work and harder work; sometimes raw talent isn't enough
to get by and sometimes you don't have to have raw talent to succeed.
They can learn the value of mental preparation, they are doing something
else other than stealling and drugs, and, heaven forbid, they may even
be having fun.  There are more, these come to mind now.

>
>>If the kid likes something other than academics, let him at it. 
>
>I agree with that, but the point here is that schools need to encourage
>academic development, which is something that compared to the encouragement
>offered for athletic prowess is practically nothing.

False.  I'll grant you that there does need to be more emphasis on
academic development.  But to say that this encouragement is practically
nothing, even when compared with the encouragement athletics receive,
is to discount the efforts of every good teacher in existence. I hate that.
When you hear teachers say they got out of teaching because it's a thankless
job, they are talking about thoughtless comments like this.  

>>>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?  
>
>About his intellectual development, of course.  You may have heard about the
>good old days back when this was considered important in schools.

>>I think coaches get a bad rap about only caring that kids get into sports.
>
>I think it is quite well-deserved based on what I have seen.
>
>>Granted, there will be those coaching zealots who only care that a kid
>>can play, but I'd guess 98% of the high school coaches have the kid's
>>interest in mind.  And yes, I thought about that statement!!  :-)
>
>I think that is absurd.  MOST coaches care about WINNING more than anything
>else.  Of the rest, you may be right, but they see the "kid's interest"
>as being athletic development, "school spirit", and the like.  Whether their
>intent is to "help kids" is irrelevant if they have a false view of where
>that interest actually lies.
>
>--Brian

I hope to make a statement like that, calling my contention "absurd",
that you are speaking from a wealth of experience.  That experience
would include participation in athletics and a good deal of exposure
to *a lot* of coaches.  If you have that background, then I disagree
and we probably stop there.  If you do not have that background, then
I classify your statement as another person speaking from a position of
ignorance.


Jeff         wayman@lamar.colostate.edu