Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think that we are hurting our future generations by coddling them too much. i see this in many areas beyond just sports, such as social interaction, scholastic achievement, and others.
fracturedman's story of the tennis teams of 100+ members is an example of this mentality, because it is applied to a competitive team, not a for-fun game.
filihok said it well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Playing for competition is fine.
Playing for fun is also fine.
As is usually the case, there are benefits to both and allowing people to choose for themselves is the best answer.
but the rest of filihok's first post does not apply to fracturedman's situation, in my opinion:
Quote:
And everyone who was on your HS tennis team went on to a life of suckling at the welfare teat as a direct result of not learning about competition right?
fracturedman's situation was specifically about his school's competitive tennis team, which plays against other schools and their competitive teams.
there is nothing inherently wrong with competitive sports; in fact, i have seen in my own life, and read the researched thoughts of others that conclude that competitive sports are great for kids, especially in order to teach them about social interaction (and this does not imply only a social pecking order based on physical capability).
competition does not belong in every game, in every class, in every facet of life. sometimes, it is entirely appropriate to play a game simply for fun, even if you forget or decide not to keep score.
but at the same time, playing for competition is also entirely appropriate in the right circumstances. a competitive school sports team, meant to compete against other schools, would be one such instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDGeek
However children also need to learn how to lose well, and they need to learn that not everything is going to go their way every time. Too many parents are protecting their children from failure when I think failure is a part of life. It teaches valuable lessons.
this is one of the biggest lessons that competitive sports can teach young people, though there are other ways to learn it as well.
as an example, sir ken robinson mentions that our school systems are based off of a 19th century model that discourages being wrong, discourages exploration, discourages discovery, discourages finding out through trial and error, discourages creativity, and in the end... encourages conformity, learning only that which has already been discovered, and encourages a fear of failure.
this is funny, by the way, so it is worth your time to watch for entertainment as well as historical and philosophical value.
where would we be if our greatest minds had feared being wrong? first of all, they wouldn't have been our greatest minds; they would have stifled and conformed themselves into mediocrity like many of us do.
We don't limit math class to the best math students, why should we limit basketball to the best basketball players? Public school activities should be available to all.
the problem with your example is that the extra curricular activities that we are talking about are not comparable to math in this regard. we are talking about competitive teams, which are fundamentally different than fun leagues, which are designed to allow kids to learn the game, and to have fun, while ignoring competition.
labart's analogy is more accurate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LABART
The math clubs that go out for competition do not put the kid on the team that can't add. Why would you put a kid on a competitive team such as football that can't throw a ball.
math class would be akin to fun league sporting events, while the competitive math club would be in the same league as competitive sports teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
For those athletes who feel the need for a more competitive situation there are plenty of private leagues that they can pay to join.
there are plenty of community league games that don't require pay, or that require minimal pay, in most areas. i don't see why competition sports need to be relegated just to the people that can afford them. this would be just one more way to screw the poor out of what little interactivity they currently enjoy with the rest of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LABART
Personally, I'm not all that big into sports. I would rather they teach kids to read and write and to do math. Society puts too much emphasis on school sports because johnny can't read and might make it big in football.
as i mentioned earlier, there are multiple activities that will teach these lessons. the important part is to allow children the chance to learn from their mistakes, to put the responsibility for the outcome of their endeavors in their own hands. sure, they need to learn that outside influences can make or break them no matter how responsible or well prepared they are, but they also need to grasp the fact that only they can ultimately decide whether they succeed or fail in life.
as it stands now, i think our society does too much to provide crutches to adults and children alike, to tell them that it is not their fault that they are unmotivated, apathetic, lazy, uneducated, or unskilled.
we are more than happy to slap an acronymical label (ADHD, PTSD, etc) on them that says that they are defective, require medication, and shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaskateguy
We have all taken our lumps. The reason we fall, is to learn how to get back up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I spent my childhood in the 1940s and 50s, and here's how things worked then. Kids got up in the morning and ran outside and played. You go find another kid, and use something for a bat and a ball, and one hits the ball to the other who catches it and they take turns. If more kids show up, the make teams and figure out rules that will work for small numbers and different ages. If a really lot show up, they play fairly regular baseball. Big kids made sure little kids had fun. If grown ups show up, the kids run away and find somewhere else to play. Kids instinctively know how to play, and play fair. If a kid falls down, he gets up and keeps running. When the 5-oclock whistle blows at some nerby factory, the kids all go home for supper. After supper, in summer, kids go back outside and play makeshift versions of tag or hide and seek until the streetlights come on. Only one universal rule: All kids have fun and are part of the game.
those were the days; i grew up in the 80s, but we lived by the same principle. once my parents inherited the neighbors' trampoline when they moved away, our backyard became the neighborhood park (simpler times: no law suit scares back then).
it is amazing that even when we kept score, the goal was simply to have fun, and if your team lost the kickball game that day, you still went out as excited and ready to try and beat them tomorrow.
nowadays, kickball is a wii game that you play with a remote control.
I find parents mentalities to be very strange these days, and they are extremely overprotective. Very few kids are allowed to go over to others houses or vice versa. I'm not sure if it is just in my area of TN or not. In FL my son had friends in the neighborhood and they played all the time here and there. Now he is 16 and he's out a lot. My daughter on the other hand grew up mostly in TN and is 10 and she has found one friend that her parents don't keep her locked up. Is it the area or the gender, I don't know. When I was a kid I had a bike and no boundaries, I think I came out okay. I think?
in government, the principle is that safety and freedom are usually on polar ends of the legislative table. in order to secure more safety through legislation, you need to veto more freedoms.
in the end, this has the unwanted side effect of creating a society that does not know how to act and react appropriately even when they do have freedom. the society tends to rely on government for protection instead of healthy social relationships and community bonds, and their own capabilities and minds.
i see similar trends with the way that people raise children. this is not to say that children should just be let loose; i am certainly going to make sure that i know whose house my kids are playing at, and that i know their parents. but i'm not going to simply keep them home, in a padded box, for the sake of safety.
So what is causing the problem? Is it the generation itself or outside pressures out of their control?
it is the parent's fault. but it is the societal trends that lead ignorant parents to this fault.
from same link; i mentioned earlier that overprotective parents create disfunctional children:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinem
I had to fire a 28 year old little boy for just failing to show up for work--more than once. I got a call from his mother about it and the next day a visit from both parents wanting me to re-hire him and then furious and threatening legal action when I wouldn't.
28!! With these types of parents, the guy didn't stand a chance.
With the Fun leagues for sports around that do not keep scores because they do not want the kids to feel what it is like to lose. Are we taking away the kids motivation to succeed. In real life everything you do is compared with someone else, ie for pay raises, promotions, and more importantly for jobs themselves. Do you think by coddling the kids we are doing them a disservice.
If you want to talk about them in the workplace, my observation (before I retired), is they are more interested in the process than getting the job done/results. For the most part they lack the ability to make a decision unless they check for everyone's opinion/make sure everyone weighs in on it. You know, it's more important that people participated than the end result. Everytime a hard job is given to them they expect everyone to drop what they're doing and help them. They need constant feedback that they are doing a good job. They are so used to getting A's for simply participating that an "average" rating on an evaluation makes them think the boss is picking on them. They don't get an interview then there is something wong with the company or it's just a good old boy decision to hire more good old boys, couldn't have possibly been their resume. When they get an interview, the reason they aren't hired is there is something wrong with the questions, not their answers, or they were wearing a blue shirt when the "stupid company" must prefer white shirts so who would want to work for them anyway.
I read once in a news article that employers were saying parents called them and were inquiring about the results of junior's job interview.
And get this:
"Most frequently (40%), parents obtained information about companies for their children. Employers also reported that applicants’ parents sometimes attended career fairs (17%), made interview arrangements (12%), negotiated salaries (9%) or advocated promotions (6%) for their children. Some respondents reported that parents even helped their children complete work so they wouldn’t miss deadlines."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
