So, over at FRK they're talking about a school that doesn't score games in gym class

[conuly]

Something like that.

I'm actually for this on the grounds that a. the kids didn't choose to be there and it's unfair to make them compete in games they might not like and may not have had time to get good at and b. gym class is too short for a real game anyway, especially once you account for changing clothes (twice), taking attendance, warming up, choosing teams, and just general moving from place to place. Scoring is pointless when you're only playing for a scant half an hour. (This goes double or even triple if at no point were the rules or strategy of the game really outlined to the kids, or if there was little to no drilling of any of the practical skills upfront, so nobody had a chance to improve their skills.)

A couple of interesting things come up in these sorts of discussions all the time. Before I start talking, I want to say that I'm not for eliminating all scoring of all games everywhere so that "nobody feels bad". I think that's just a bit silly. However, neither do I think that competition is an inherent value in and of itself, which some people seem to think. I'm kinda in the middle here.

1. Most of the people in the beginning of the comments there state that taking the competition out of organized games (so "everybody wins") is unfair because it's less fun. (One went so far as to pretty much claim that there's no fun, ever, in games that are designed to be non-competitive, from his limited experience.) Yet most of them readily admitted to playing the occasional "pick-up game" with no scoring because it was "just for fun". This is unacceptable in gym class, but it's okay for them on their own time. Also - doesn't "just for fun" imply that scoring isn't fun? I'm not making that argument, but they're really not making that argument and they're the ones saying it!

2. A lot of people make the claim that eliminating competition is wrong (or at least stupid) because "humans are always competitive" (in, uh, everything, I guess). They never back this up. They just say it.

I'm not going to argue if our society tends to be competitive, or if we should try to be non-competitive or whatever. That's not very interesting. But I'd love to know if anybody with more knowledge than me knows more about this "people are ALWAYS inherently competitive". People keep saying it, and I don't know much about it one way or another, but the more they say it the more the question arises: Is this really true? How do they know? (Even if it is true, I bet they don't really know it. They just say it a lot.)

3. Some of them make the claim that competition in school is necessary and good because when kids grow up they'll be in some form of competitive work environment. I'm not sure if this is true or not, working as I do for my family. Is this true?

4. And just for fun - what IS the point of gym class?

Comments

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

2. Judging from what we have seen of humans, just because you eliminate scoring doesn't mean there won't be competition.

3. These people are thinking in the 1980s. Business, the economy, and work are changing. Some work environments are competitive, others are not.

[conuly]

2. Judging from what we have seen of humans, just because you eliminate scoring doesn't mean there won't be competition.

That's the argument for "don't eliminate scoring"... although honestly, if there's still competition, sometimes, just to stir the pot, I want to ask why it *matters* that there's no scoring, then!

But is that really part of humanity, or is it something to do with culture? I, personally, have no flipping clue.

[lady-angelina.livejournal.com]

I'm no expert on the subject, am not a sociologist, etc., but I'm guessing it has something to do with Darwinism (whether evolutionary or social)? I know that makes human behavior sound ridiculously simplistic, like we're being "reduced to the apes" or something, but that's about all I can think of. There have probably been studies out there on this.

As far as whether scoring is needed... for me, anyway, it's a quantifiable guideline as to how much the individual has improved in the activity in question. Without keeping track of how many times you've gotten the ball into the goalpost, or how many jumping jacks you've done, etc., you don't know whether you're actually getting better at the activity.

I did, however, always think it was silly to make gym class a requirement for graduating from high school or college. =P While physical health is important, I don't think that someone should be prevented from graduating from high school just because they never learned how to swim. =P

[conuly]

As far as whether scoring is needed... for me, anyway, it's a quantifiable guideline as to how much the individual has improved in the activity in question. Without keeping track of how many times you've gotten the ball into the goalpost, or how many jumping jacks you've done, etc., you don't know whether you're actually getting better at the activity.

That's not the sort of scoring they mean, though, where you compare your past performance to your present performance. They mean scoring like class rankings and winning teams in gym. Which may be valuable, I don't know, but it's not the same.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Without keeping track of how many times you've gotten the ball into the goalpost, or how many jumping jacks you've done, etc., you don't know whether you're actually getting better at the activity."

Actually, it's been demonstrated that people get better at physical activities when they don't keep score, don't keep track, don't measure 'this time' against any past record, but just concentrate on making 'this time' as perfect as possible every time.

This is the basis of Zen archery. It doesn't even matter if you hit the target at all; the entire focus is on drawing the bow with perfect centered balance; where the arrow goes after that is of no particular concern.

So you fire arrow after arrow, not counting, not scoring, not cheering when you hit nor cursing when you miss - it's almost like the target's just there to stop the arrows so you don't have to walk so far to get them. It's all about the bow: when you can draw the bow with perfect centered balance every time without thinking about it, without thinking about whether you're going to hit or miss, your arrows will naturally and inevitably go exactly where you aimed them every time.

[conuly]

Kinda like how that girl who won the olympics for figure skating a few years ago, she went into it thinking she'd already lost so she decided not to worry and to just have fun, and she did, and she was perfect perfect?

[l33tminion]

I feel like a policy that prohibits scoring games (or, more accurately, prohibits discussing the score of games) decreases the enjoyment of some kids and increases the enjoyment of other kids. But I feel like for the members of the second group, their increased enjoyment will be more than balanced out by their more-competitive peers blaming them for the policy.

Gym class serves a few functions:
1. Makes sure even the unpopular, unmotivated to exercise on their own kids get some exercise (does that poorly and unpleasantly, though)
2. Helps kids get stronger (unfortunately, PE resources are directed in such a way that they're far more effective at helping the already strong kids get stronger, especially as more serious sports start to dominate in high school and college)
3. Teaches kids a wide variety of physical activities (maybe useful, not sure that wouldn't be better served by adding more free play time)

[leora.livejournal.com]

I agree and disagree with you. I agree that some kids will find it less fun and some will find it more fun. But I think once the policy is in place, no kid will be blamed for it. And I also think that the kids who grow up with this being the norm in schools will simply expect it.

It is possible that some kids will be blamed during the transition time, but I think it will soon end and just be the policy.

Personally, I suspect it will more help the kids who need gym class more, which strikes me as useful. Plus, if the school still has sports teams as optional after-school activities then those who enjoy competition can still have it, and in a more sensible environment, where you have time to play a reasonable length of the game.

Personally, I never paid attention to the score in gym class when we had games with scores, but I could not imagine caring.

[l33tminion]

But I think once the policy is in place, no kid will be blamed for it. And I also think that the kids who grow up with this being the norm in schools will simply expect it.

I'd be more inclined to go with you if I expected all the parents to go along with it. There's more to the relevant norms than just gym class, but kids who grew up with just for fun in gym and more competitive sports elsewhere might well be fine with that, as long as the policy wasn't over-enforced.

The real wrench in the works is the parents, some of whom are apt to flip out when they are informed of such a policy. Some of that is just knee-jerk traditionalism, but a lot of it ties into very nasty gender politics. (Though the thread in question hasn't devolved into flamewars about how schools are being "feminized" yet, so maybe there is hope after all.)

[leora.livejournal.com]

I get that some kids might not like it, but why would they blame other kids? How would they know which kids would have been responsible for a policy that was in effect before any of them started school there?

[l33tminion]

Kids are mean, and they'll realize the policy is meant to benefit the likely losers, especially if it's framed to them as "everybody wins".

[leora.livejournal.com]

If the policy is already in place, I just don't believe that. I do believe they will pick on the ones who do more poorly, because that is what happens when you allow bullying and cruelty in schools and do not overly supervise kids, and this policy does nothing to address those things. But I think they do that either way.

On a side note, there are some schools that have been working on policies to prevent exclusion and decrease groups of kids ganging up against other kids, and they have found some things that seem to help. I really hope people will continue to investigate along these lines and set up social systems in kids that are not particularly abusive to any kids. I just don't think this policy will do much in either direction. But I do think it will affect kids' enjoyment of gym class. I just don't know whether it will be a net loss or a net win. As I said, I suspect it will make it more enjoyable for those who need it more, which seems beneficial. Especially because gym class didn't seem to offer much to those who already had the skills, because they rarely taught us anything in gym class, which I think is unfortunate. And those who liked physical activity were getting more of it anyway, so making those who like it less get some is at least of some value. Probably.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

All biological organisms are competitive - for food, for territory, for mates - and those who don't compete successfully die off. This is the basis of natural selection.

Humans are aggressive social primates; the most dangerous and voracious predators on the planet. The velociraptors and tyrannosaurs are damn lucky they died off before we came along, because we'd have hunted them to extinction if they'd shared our environment. This means that yes, we're intrinsically competitive; our place at the top of the food chain proves that we're very, very good at it.

All very well when we were few in numbers and trying to survive in a world full of large and dangerous animals. Not so good now that there are billions of us competing amongst ourselves for dwindling resources. We've got nothing left to fight but each other, and if we don't rein in our aggressive nature, we will most assuredly drive our own species to extinction.

Fortunately, we are social as well as aggressive. We don't just compete with each other; we also cooperate. That instinct for cooperation is what makes us so dangerous - because individually, we're naked, fangless, clawless prey, our senses no match for the ears and noses of the other hunters, but when we work together, nothing can stand against us.

Our instinct for cooperation evolved in small family groups, however. It's natural for us to bond in clans and cliques and teams, to identify as 'Us'... whic inevitably means that the other guys are 'Them': friendly rivals at best, deadly enemies at worst.

Team sports foster this. Whatever they may say about their 'building character', the truth is that they encourage and reward Us vs. Them behavior and attitudes which are destructive to harmony and tolerance within the larger context of society.

Competitive sports are the cause of a shocking number of injuries and deaths every year. I don't call it good physical education when it leads to so many young people being disabled. There are thousands of other ways for young people to hone their physical abilities - and if the activity isn't fun and worthwhile for its own sake, without the artificial stimulus of competition, then maybe it isn't worth bothering with.

As for competition in school being a necessary preparation for competition in the workplace, I refer you to the works of John Gatto (to which you already have the link) regarding the ways in which the public-school system was deliberately engineered to ensure the preservation of the existing class structure.

Perhaps this nation, and the world, would be better-served by young people who did well at whatever they do because they valued doing well for its own sake, and as their proper contribution to the society of which they are members, rather than because they had to keep up with the rat race and fight their way up the hierarchy of the rat pack in order to survive.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

Well-put!

I had a mostly-hate relationship with gym class as a kid, in part because an inevitable side-effect of our competitive nature is the fact that, no matter how little I cared about sports (and believe me, it was hard to care less), I still hated being the worst in the class at them.

Also, no one ever explained to me what the hell I was supposed to be doing, as if being born American gave me an instinctual understanding of the rules of Baseball. Hell, if I ever hit the ball, I was lucky to run in the right direction. Once I actually learned how to at least try properly to play soccer and basketball (and had my asthma under control enough to do so), I rather enjoyed them.

[tungol.livejournal.com]

In the question of whether or not all humans are competitive, I think something is left out: whether people always enjoy being competitive.

I have observed in myself that being competitive about a game often ruins my enjoyment of it. If I don't care whether or not I win or lose, I can enjoy the game without tension, without worrying about whether or not I will win. But sometimes (or rather, about some games) I get competitive, and really care whether or not I win or lose, and this often takes all the fun out of the game, because I worry about how well I'll do rather than just enjoying the play.

So it's not because I'm non-competitive that I like playing games non-competitively, but because I'm competitive without enjoying it.

[queenlyzard.livejournal.com]

Good point!