The Trophies For All Mantra

[Unregistered]

Don't you come through and make my point for me! How many kids go off the deep end because they didn't get into Harvard or whatever high end school they applied? Lots! Because they never learned how to handle disappointment when younger.

Geez, I am stupid because I let myself fall for debating with ridiculous people. You think kids today don't deal with any disappointment? Everybody makes the all-As Honor Roll? Every team wins the state cup? Every kids gets the MVP award? Every kid gets picked for every all-league and every all-star team? Kids born to opiate or coke or benzo Moms don't experience any disappointment or hardship?

[Unregistered]

I want to call you an idiot but I'll be polite and resist. Putting up a fancy quoe out of context does nothing. Try getting your kid into an elite school. Then you'll discover how NON-trophies-for-all a society we have. And, btw, self-esteem is now a bad thing? Or only less than 1% should have self-esteem while we plant the seeds for the other 99% to become enraged, fringe characters who stormtroop elementary schools with guns?

"Various experiments with education reform tend to confirm my fatalistic view. Every so often, some shiny new idea comes along – self-esteem! prizes for all! multiple learning styles! – that is supposed to turn every failing kid into a winner. None of these fads appears to have the least effect on student achievement. At the same time, the problem of failing kids is one of the most pressing issues of our time."

"....we’ve raised kids based on the self-esteem movement. So how do you teach grit? Can you?

I think you can. There’s not yet a clear path, but it seems like there are a few things that help. The main one is helping kids learn how to manage failure and adversity. That involves two things: One is just making sure they actually have some failure and adversity in their lives. Especially for high-achieving, high-income kids, that’s often what’s missing.

These kids are so overly protected that they don’t have the opportunity to overcome setbacks. It’s also giving them that experience in a setting that lets them not just be disappointed and hurt by failure, but learn from it."

"I think there is a real difference between developing self-esteem and developing character, and in the past few decades we’ve become confused about that. Yes, if you want to develop kids’ self-esteem, the best way to do it is to praise everything they do and make excuses for their failures.

But if you want to develop their character, you do almost the opposite: You let them fail and don’t hide their failures from them or from anybody else – not to make them feel lousy about themselves, but to give them the tools to succeed next time."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/...3436/?page=all

[Unregistered]

Geez, I am stupid because I let myself fall for debating with ridiculous people. You think kids today don't deal with any disappointment? Everybody makes the all-As Honor Roll? Every team wins the state cup? Every kids gets the MVP award? Every kid gets picked for every all-league and every all-star team? Kids born to opiate or coke or benzo Moms don't experience any disappointment or hardship?

In this forum, we are speaking of kids mostly coming from well heeled parents, not the inner city. If you read the "Grit" article, kids from lower income families are a whole different subject and should be dealt with differently then those from upper income familes. But still it comes down to teaching kids to deal with adversity.

[Unregistered]

You are arguing with what is known as an instigator. Their job is to light you up with ridiculous posts and hope you will repond. Always remember that if no one posts on a forum, the forum dies. When forums die the owners lose a revenue stream. If you think that is crazy, think of this, we now have all American football players falling in love with facebook pictures that turn out to be a fictitious front for another man.

[Unregistered]

Dumb post. You are teaching kids to be motivated by extrinsic rewards, when real success is determined by those with intrinsic motivation. To some degree it's is part of the child's character, but it is in varying degrees and still can be encouraged in others. What any of them learn in the process will take them far in all they do.

Sure, what the hell do I know. I just have expereince instructing children for 15 years. Many of them , when they grew up, were top students in HS and College. Some were even first in their class.

Their parents didn't think I was dumb when I run into them years later.

[Unregistered]

Dumb post. You are teaching kids to be motivated by extrinsic rewards, when real success is determined by those with intrinsic motivation. To some degree it's is part of the child's character, but it is in varying degrees and still can be encouraged in others. What any of them learn in the process will take them far in all they do.

Sure, what the hell do I know ? I just have expereince instructing children for 15 years. Many of them , when they grew up, were top students in HS and College. Some were even first in their class.

Their parents didn't think I was dumb when I run into them years later.

[Unregistered]

Sure, what the hell do I know ? I just have expereince instructing children for 15 years. Many of them , when they grew up, were top students in HS and College. Some were even first in their class.

Their parents didn't think I was dumb when I run into them years later.

And I can out do you with nearly 30 years doing the same. Things are a whole lot different today than even 5 years ago. Just ask David McCullough's son.

[Unregistered]

You're gonna be late for your NRA meeting.

Another example of the prejudice and intolerance of the left. For the record I don't even own a gun, never mind belong to the NRA. However, I don't have a problem with lawful and responsible citizens who do. You see, unlike a lot of liberals today, I judge people on their individual character, not what group they belong to.

[Unregistered]

Shoot, of course it is real. Just look at all the plastic trophies in your kids' rooms today for everything they do. Is it really necessary?

Here is a non-athletic example a friend of mine who teaches in an elementary school of about 325 students. The school puts on an annual play. There are about 20 parts including a chorus to the play and 80 kids try out. In the past the kids who didn't earn a part are invited to help with play prep, staging, ect., but the school now requires all 80 kids be given a part. Why? Because the administration is sick of having to deal with 60 parents who think their kids should get a trophy.

Part of the problem here lies with the administration, for not having the guts or courage to set these parents straight. Nobody wants to tell a parent that "Your child was not chosen for the play (or the team) because the persons or committee did not think they were good enough. These are the things they can work on for next year and they are more than welcome to try out again".

When I was part of the town soccer progam we tried to have EVERYONE play on a team, even for travel teams. I disagreed with this approach and thought we would be better off limiting the number of teams and letting the less talented players find another sport to play besides soccer

[Unregistered]

A lot of votes for segregating and quarantining here.

Kids who aren't "good enough" shouldn't even be allowed to play town soccer?

And now the real problem in terms of this "trophies for all" thing is actually meant somehow for the top-end kids who are winning the competitive trophies? Thye are the ones who need to be taught a lesson?

My head is spinning.

[Unregistered]

Part of the problem here lies with the administration, for not having the guts or courage to set these parents straight. Nobody wants to tell a parent that "Your child was not chosen for the play (or the team) because the persons or committee did not think they were good enough. These are the things they can work on for next year and they are more than welcome to try out again".

When I was part of the town soccer progam we tried to have EVERYONE play on a team, even for travel teams. I disagreed with this approach and thought we would be better off limiting the number of teams and letting the less talented players find another sport to play besides soccer

I've been one of the vocal posters against the "trophy for all" mentality, but I would never support the idea of kids being excluded from town soccer.

And please don't anyone try to make it analogous with the school play issue either, where at least the kids that didn't make the cast are invited to be part of the production.

[Unregistered]

I've been one of the vocal posters against the "trophy for all" mentality, but I would never support the idea of kids being excluded from town soccer.

And please don't anyone try to make it analogous with the school play issue either, where at least the kids that didn't make the cast are invited to be part of the production.

Thank you. Although I assume we disagree on the larger issue, even though I'm never quite sure what that is for the "vocal" against trophy for all mentality, I appreciate the qualification.

Seems like folks come at this from several different angles. The most recent today is the value of failure as a teaching/experience tool. That seems like another whole topic to me.

My own view is that we live very much in a meritocracy, at all levels and in multiple domains. Folks can argue politically about assistance and things like affirmative action, but even inclusive of those things we are a society almost obsessed with clear winners and losers. Outside of the Special Olympics, which I assume even most conservatives support, once you get to the mid to late teens, and certainly throughout adulthood, I don't see a lot of "trophies for all." And my strong educated guess is that despite conservative rumblings, our society has never been more of a meritocracy than it is now, and on an upswing. I would also guess that some of those who preach this lament about this so-called trophies for all mentality are some of the same folks who vociferously object to global competition (e.g. jobs overseas and/or immigrants taking jobs here). Just sayin'.

[Unregistered]

I've been one of the vocal posters against the "trophy for all" mentality, but I would never support the idea of kids being excluded from town soccer.

And please don't anyone try to make it analogous with the school play issue either, where at least the kids that didn't make the cast are invited to be part of the production.

Agree but there is a pecking order established. The more talented kids get parts in the play, the less talented get support roles. It seems to me that when it comes to sports, parents struggle more with being told their kid ain't good enough. It is seemingly more acceptable to them in art, music, or academics (not everyone belongs in the advanced group). When it comes to sports there is a huge pushback when kids do not "make" the first side. My kids are decent athletes. They are better at certain sports than others. They work harder at certain sports than others. They have been disappointed in the past. They got over it and are pretty honest about their limitations.

[Unregistered]

Let's flip the argument on its head. Maybe there should be NO "trophies," for anyone. Not even "1st place" trophies. Then we (and our kids) either do what we do for intrinsic value, out of self-determination, etc, or decide to do nothing at all. Anyway, you can't have a tenable society structured in a way where there is 1 "winner" and 999 "losers," as though there is no value among the 999 who produce, perform very well, etc, but don't win some "ultimate prize". It does not, for example, follow that all soccer players who won't win a full D1 scholarship or be a prospect for the full national team should just quit or should never have played, or some equation where something like a half-scholarship means you should only "spend" half the resources of someone who might get a 3/4 or full scholarship.

[Unregistered]

Let's flip the argument on its head. Maybe there should be NO "trophies," for anyone. Not even "1st place" trophies. Then we (and our kids) either do what we do for intrinsic value, out of self-determination, etc, or decide to do nothing at all. Anyway, you can't have a tenable society structured in a way where there is 1 "winner" and 999 "losers," as though there is no value among the 999 who produce, perform very well, etc, but don't win some "ultimate prize". It does not, for example, follow that all soccer players who won't win a full D1 scholarship or be a prospect for the full national team should just quit or should never have played, or some equation where something like a half-scholarship means you should only "spend" half the resources of someone who might get a 3/4 or full scholarship.

I think I know how you voted in the last election cycle. Thanks comrade.