![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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?
