Children are tougher than butterflies!
One of the inevitable consequences of hosting the Olympics is the calling for more competitive sports to be introduced into the school curriculum, so we can, as a nation do better. I think this is nonsense; we did unbelievably well this time around, despite the fact that most of our athletes presumably attended school when socialism dictated that children would be mentally scarred for life if they lost a game of tiddlywinks let alone tennis! I think games and sports are not a bad thing, but many of us hated the whole idea when we were at school.
Schools are meant to educate children in basic skills, literacy and numeracy and so forth, not to spot future Olympic champions.
And what about the risk factor? There is an interesting article here on this very subject and it is also interesting how risk factor assessments are rarely accurate. More competitive sport in schools means more children at risk of injury or death, and there is no such thing as an accident these days.
Frog leapt out and scared gardener!
Boadicea's Chariot 
Hmmm! There are some disturbingly fur-twitching sentiments buried in here. Don’t make me angry – you wouldn’t like me when I go frizzy.
OZ
What, you don’t like butterflies and frogs, OZ? 😉
Nice pics, Arrers. I enjoyed some of the more civilised school games.
I tend to agree with you. Any child that wishes to pursue sports can surely do so through clubs out of school hours.
I don’t actually see the need for exercise to be competitive, what is wrong for older children to learn to dance properly rather than gymnastics? A damn sight more useful in later life.
Exercise, games and sports tend to be recreational for most people in later life and are rarely life threatening unless taken to extremes. I cannot see why the system should be set up for the few rather than the many.
Equally I do not believe that everything people do should be competitive, I think it produces rather unpleasant individuals with peculiar mental problems. I was once persuaded against my better indolent nature to enter my garden in a competition. Yes I won, but I have to say I had the most horrid gardening season of my life obsessing about dead heading, weeds and God knows what! Never again!!!
My son swam long distance to get away from people, it was his ultimate recreation.
I have never understood this need for sports competitions or why athletes should be admired. They have always struck me as total parasites. They take public money to compete and when they win, collect prizes and commercial sponsorships for themselves but make no effort to repay their debt to society in cash terms, why not? What do they actually DO for the country? Nothing, they make no money except for themselves, create no jobs of consequence and probably pay very little tax. Just look at me, I’m a winner, I’m to be adulated and even worse, I’m a role model!
The final denouement being elevated to sports ‘personality’ and ‘commentator’, (paid offshore!)
I reckon your frog is a better bet, at least his slime comes naturally!
Thank you, Janus.
I did enjoy some games too, I was in the netball team, I played tennis, but I hated gym and cross country running, and don’t even mention stupid winter games that involved chasing balls around on muddy fields, or swimming. Ghastly!
Evening Tina.
Well precisely, most children, or mine did certainly, joined clubs to do whatever took their fancy, and dancing too. Mind you, some of these clubs took it rather too seriously for my liking. They wanted the children to compete, and mine didn’t want to, so they were whipped out smartish. Probably for the best.
No, I agree, with much of what you say, if some want to choose athletics and sports as careers, fine, but don’t expect the system to do any more. I’d rather they taught children rather more important things during school hours.
Quite so! loike reeding and riting!
Re the sports clubs, Roo ran in to that too, he would never join Brum swimming club, they had a coach that manically exhorted all and sundry to competitions all the time. I suggest your daughters are much more in balance because of avoiding such.
All the community sports stuff in Wales was only vaguely competitive and no one took it seriously, basically an excuse for a marathon drinking session afterwards and much more fun. He was deeply loved in the village because when they were short a man at either rugby or cricket they called him at Uni, he would jump in the car and drive an hour plus to stand in for them. Needless to say his bar bill was miniscule!
Nothing wrong with butterfies and frogs, Araminta. I tend to start prickling when competitive sport in schools is decried, as may have been made clear. 😉
OZ
Ah, I’m not decrying competitive sport, OZ, but I think that there are more important considerations. It’s fine, but given that our education system has for some years been turning out children who can’t read or write, I think that compulsory sports is a bit of a secondary consideration. Independent schools manage to do both, and always have, but I don’t think this is a high priority at the moment given the above.
We turn out children, who leave school inadequately educated to either gain employment or move on to higher education. A very small percentage go on to make athletics a career, and I’m not entirely sure that our economy would benefit from more athletes given our circumstances at the moment.
When I see posts like this I thank God that I don’t live there.
PE at school is not about finding future Olympic medalists but giving the children a rounded education (and yes, being healthy is an integral part of being clever [or not])
The fact that if, after 12 years or so in your state education system youngsters can’t read or write has as much to do with PE as it has to do with which came first? The chicken or the egg?
If your system is broken fix it!
I actually can’t believe that I bothered commenting on this (and I’m sorry Ara, please feel free to delete this but having read your link and the comments hereon I’m just dumbfounded)
Hi Soutie.
Of course I’m not going to delete it, I absolutely agree with you! Of course children need a rounded education but New Labour pursued such a disastrous policy, tinkering with the curriculum and encouraging the sale of school playing fields, not to mention the banning of competitive sports that the system is most certainly broken!
Now, they suddenly have decided that they are going to fix it by introducing competitive sports, with the intention somehow making the schools responsible for encouraging athletics. It’s completely ludicrous nonsense, in my opinion. Nothing wrong with the idea, as I have said, the independent sector have always maintained a sensible balance, but not at the expense of teaching basic skills, which our state schools have manifestly failed to do for some many years.
Not to mention the Health and Safety issues, and the increasing propensity for parents to sue the schools if the children are injured. It’s a complete nightmare.
Males tend to confront risk, women tend to avoid it. It is the way of nature. In an increasingly female influenced (if not dominated) society (which has occurred since women got the vote), risk aversion is becoming more apparent. That may be a good thing, but inevitably, a time will come when society has become so timid that any individual possessing the merest whiff of testosterone will find it a fairly straight forward affair to totally dominate our society. Only then will the women folk start to sing that song from ‘Oh What A Lovely War!’
I understand your point, Minty, but disagree. Sports should be encouraged as part of the learning process.
British children are growing ever more well-rounded, physically at least. A good hour or two of sports could well help slow down mid-section growth in today’s youth. It would also serve as a great boon to teachers.
Children have energy, often more than we adults can handle. If they run about in circles for a while they might have a bit less energy and could well focus better.
If independent schools can do it (and they have no more actual hours available than the state sector) then what is going wrong? I believe a value system has flourished in British state schools since the introduction of ‘comprehensive’ education which teaches the dangerously fluffy notion that competition in anything is bad and that nobody can fail anything, hence the dumbing down of academic standards and the promotion of such idiocies as a non-competitive egg-and-spoon race.
The poor kids go through school thinking they are the mutt’s nuts; that the world is their lobster and owes them a living. Then they get out into the world of work for which they are totally unprepared and immediately fail something because somebody else using their last vestiges of nous actually had the temerity to compete for the job. Sad really.
OZ
Erm sorry OZ but independent schools DO have more time to devote to sport. The fee-pying parents can afford to pay for out-of-hours clubs and events away from home, not to mention the fact that many public schools have boarders whose hours are unlimited by practical considerations.
However (breath) competition is in the essence of life, whether CO likes it or not. 🙂
I’ll declare an interest here in that I went to an independent school as a day-pupil. Compulsory games were held on Monday and Wednesday afternoons and the Corps (also compulsory) paraded on Thursdays. Academic standards were high as were levels of discipline. it was just a very good school because of its dedicated teachers.
The problem today seems to be that teachers are no longer dedicated. Several classroom assistants and support staff have separately mentioned to me that by 3.15 PM nearly every state school teacher is out of the gates honking about their ‘inadequate’ final salary pensions and holiday entitlements. I accept that this may be a bit of a generalisation, but it does seem to highlight the root cause of the problem.
OZ
Thanks Sipu.
Interesting perspective with a certain element of truth contained therein!
Hi Christopher.
I don’t disagree with you, children need to be encouraged to let off steam, that’s perfectly true, but my point is they haven’t been allowed to! I think my main objection to re-introducing competitive sports in schools, which I don’t object to, is the timing, which seems to be inspired by some sort of post Olympic fervour, the main purpose of which is to make schools into some sort of talent spotters for future Olympic winners.
Not to mention that some children are not necessarily competitive in such sports but may well be in other more academic pursuits. I think Christina’s makes a valid point, field sports or athletics are not the only way to keep fit.
Janus.
I think you are right about Independent schools having more time and probably better teachers generally speaking. Most boys schools play sports on a Saturday. I used to drop my poor unfortunate little brats off at 8.00am and pick them up at 6.00 pm or even later when they were not boarding. I was working at the time, so it was the only way I could deal with a full time job. I didn’t do such long hours when I was at school, but I rarely left school until 4.30-500 pm.
Like you, Araminta, I loathed games at school – and opted out at 13. Not that that was a real option! I just didn’t turn up at any of the lessons. The headmistress, an extremely wise woman, knew that whatever she said wasn’t going to make any difference I would simply continue to boycott the lessons and, thus, she ‘excused’ me attending thereafter…
I don’t have have problems with encouraging children to take exercise – but I can’t see why it has to be ‘competitive’ – especially when competition in academic subjects is so discouraged.
Let’s get our priorities right – schools should be providing children with the basic training to live as self-sufficient adults in society – and that includes the ability to deal with risks and failure. It should not be about training future Olympic athletes – or, for that matter, Nuclear Scientists. Specialisation should be deferred to a later date – and I am in sympathy with Soutie’s statement that schools should be providing an all-round education – one that provides a sound foundation for future achievements, whether they be academic or physical .
Sipu – what can I say! You must be joking! I really cannot take your comment seriously…
Janus – you are talking nonsense! As my daughter says “the more one pays for education the less time the children are at school’. It may well be that parents who pay for education are more able to pay for extra-curricular activities – but it does not mean that they will.
As for risk factor assessments – my brother, a headmaster of a private school in the UK, has told me about the whole procedure for taking children on a trip – it sounds a nightmare and it amazes me that any school would even contemplate such a venture!
Dare I say, Araminta, re your #19 – that the Independent Schools probably have better parents and students than the State Schools.
They may, or may not, have better teachers – but there is little that even the most dedicated teacher can do with students whose parents treat school as a ‘child-minding institution’, think that ‘education’ has no value, believe that their children can do no wrong, and who teach their offspring that the best thing they can do is to sign on the dole for the rest of their life.
No one can make silk purses out of … 🙂
Boa, my comment was written at midnight following dinner and a glass or two of wine, so I accept that it was probably not the most eloquently expressed of observations and there was possibly a bit of tongue in cheek, but there is a serious and indeed, I believe a valid point to it.
One cannot truthfully argue that men are generally less risk averse than women; or even equally so. It is quite obvious that men are generally more willing to confront risks than women. Surely you accept that? Broadly speaking men underestimate danger while women over estimate it. The disparity is essential to nature. Without men’s risk taking, we would never progress and would not yet have mastered the use of fire. Without women’s caution, we would have all burned to a cinder, millennia ago.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect democratically elected politicians to enact laws according to the wishes of the electorate.
It is a fact that women only gained the vote in the during the 1920s.
Cannot one therefore conclude that whereas a hundred years ago politicians and their laws had a predominantly masculine bent, they now incorporate a much greater degree of feminine influence and that influence has lead us to be more risk averse?
It cannot be denied that Western society has become far ‘softer’ over the past hundred years. Capital punishment has been abolished in most countries, as has corporal punishment. Safety measures throughout all areas of life have been increased out of all proportion to their efficacy. Whether it is the level of training required to operate a step ladder, the safety rules attached to driving or the compulsory background checks carried out to prevent paedophiles becoming school-bus drivers, the precautions taken do not begin to justify the actual level of danger. Even cricket player wear helmets. That has happened in the past 30 odd years.
Read this article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634055/Come-off-it-folks-how-many-paedophiles-can-there-be.html
As a society we are becoming softer and more hysterical about risk. While I do not condone the gung-ho approach to industrial slaughter that occurred during the Great War, I do believe that we have gone too far the other way. The danger is that we lay ourselves open to others who may not be quite so precious about the sanctity of human life. Just consider how Islam, led by fundamentalists, has penetrated and begun to mould our society. Their methods contain considerably higher levels of risk than ours.
Thanks for your well-expressed thoughts, Boadicea.
Yes, it is a question of priorities and a sound foundation is essential before moving on. I’m sure some state schools fulfil this task as well as those in the Independent sector, but the majority seem to fail. I take your point about parental attitudes and aptitude or otherwise of their children.
It did seem to me that children at the local comprehensive used to attend for less hours than mine did at their school, their core hours were shorter, but then their holidays were shorter too. And yes, I certainly had to pay to leave my children at school for longer, but they agreed there were advantages. They used the library to do supervised prep, had teachers available if necessary, and took part in various activities, or were fed and watered if required.
Lovely photos Ara.
Interesting debate.
From my perspective, the choices for sport at my school (girls state grammar in the 70’s) were pretty limited, offering virtually no scope to find the right sport for the individual: however I was very lucky that our school did have a small outdoor (barely heated) swimming pool – installed a few years before my time after some years of dedicated fund-raising. This meant I did find my ‘sport’ – the other ‘summer options’ were tennis, or tennis. I found tennis difficult! Winter activities were netball or hockey….and a once a year cross country run! By the time I reached sixth form things were improving, with a new sports hall offering more sport opportunities.
My boys, not at all sporty, a a fee paying school, have had a much wider range of sport to try, and therefore to find a way that they feel comfortable to keep fit… one plays squash and does Judo, the other uses the gym and runs.
I would, though these experiences, say that schools should be able to open doors for children so that they can find an appropriate sport for each of them, but that the further training and development of these sports can be pursued partly in school and partly in after school clubs.
I agree that school should be there primarily for the education – so I agree with this: “Schools are meant to educate children in basic skills, literacy and numeracy and so forth, not to spot future Olympic champions” – however, I feel schools should be responsible for offering a wide range of opportunities in sports, as not all parents will have opportunity / capacity / finance to offer their children these choices.
In addition many children with dyslexia, dypraxia and the like, actually find team sport virtually impossible – they have trouble enough judging their own movements, without having to judge another 21 players. They, in particular need to have time to find an individual sport that suits them, such as running or cycling, rowing, Judo etc.
On last Sunday’s radio two an interview with a swimmer who found his way through swimming was heart warming… I’ll see if I can find it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lh4b8
Duncan Green with Aled Jones
Boa, I think ‘nonsense’ is a bit strong? All my children were at private schools, as are several of their children. Yes, of course parents decide if they wish to ‘invest’ in sport, but at least they get the chance and many do. Many state schoolchildren would probably benefit from such opportunities.
Hi Nym, and thank you for your contribution and the link to to the interview with Aled Jones.
Glad you enjoyed the photos. 🙂
I agree with you, private schools offer a much wider range of sports activities and yes, encouragement to all, but some children just will never be good at these things, but at least they have the opportunity to try. Those who show aptitude can go on to join clubs and pursue these activities in school, clubs or university.
Sipu.
I took your comment #12 as fairly tongue in cheek, and rather amusing, but I did think it had an element of truth.
I still do, but I will be interested to see Boadicea’s response.
It reminded me of a book I read many years ago, Childhood’s End, by Arthur C. Clarke. Have you read it? If you totally eliminate the competitiveness and aggression in mankind, and achieve a sort of nirvana, then there is nothing; no achievement, just naval gazing and eventually the end of the human race.
There has to be a balance, I suppose and yes, women have been traditionally that, but ladettes and so forth, I do wonder.
Sipu
I wouldn’t argue too much with your comment that men are risk-takers and women are risk-avoiders – with, of course, the acknowledgement that such a statement is a sweeping generalisation and there are many, many exceptions to that ‘rule’!
I would, however, refute your assertion that society has become ‘softer’ only because women have the vote. The laws regulating working conditions, prison reform, the abolition of slavery, pensions and other such ‘improvements’ in social conditions were all enacted at a time when Governments and the Electorate were the sole prerogative of men. Furthermore, until recently, Governments, however democratically elected, have been predominantly male and have not shown themselves too willing to follow the wishes of their voters. I doubt very much whether the abolition of Capital Punishment would have had the support of the majority of the electorate.
It seems to me that the present laws protecting people from the folly of their own actions are no more than an extension of the laws that were, reasonably, enacted to protect them from other people. We have seen this time and again… laws that were passed, quite rightly, to stop discrimination have become laws to silence genuine criticism.
I agree that we have to remove those laws which attempt to wrap us in cotton wool. For many years I was quite happily allowed to climb ladders to reach books on the top shelves in the National Archives – now I’m not allowed to even stand on a low stool. Utterly ridiculous!
Part of the problem is that we have removed the right to be responsible for our own actions – the idea that someone else has to be at fault has led to far too many silly compensation cases and everyone wants to protect themselves from being sued.
I could not agree more that ‘As a society we are becoming … more hysterical about risk.’ I just loved the linked article which says it all. It’s a very sad state of affairs when a man is afraid to even smile at a child in a supermarket for fear that he will be accused of paedophilia. In fact, it’s not just sad it’s downright disgusting.
We are breeding a generation who are not only unable to take responsibility for their own actions and who are afraid to take risks but who also see the world as a dark and dangerous place where every other human being is a predator.
I wish I knew how to turn it around.
Slightly off-topic, Boadicea but you might take a look at this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9415613/Graduate-jobs-Top-10-degree-subjects-for-getting-a-job.html?frame=2282929
Interesting that historical and philosophy graduates beat students of subjects which failed to make the list including engineering, architecture and computer science in this survey of top ten degree subjects for employability.
Just don’t mention this to Bearsy! 😉
Boadicea, you make a very fair point, ‘The laws regulating working conditions, prison reform, the abolition of slavery, pensions and other such ‘improvements’ in social conditions were all enacted at a time when Governments and the Electorate were the sole prerogative of men.’
Though of course much of the credit for prison reform must go to a woman, Elizabeth Fry. Also, non-contributory universal pensions are a relatively new development. Old age pensions for those over 70 were only introduced to the UK in 1909, just as the Suffragette Movement was hitting its stride.
Oops, I see it is past midnight. I had better shut up.
Araminta – fascinating stuff! I’m particularly interested since when I left school I was going to do a degree in Maths. Seems like my switch to History was a better choice!
Sipu – I was very aware of Elizabeth Fry! Great Woman! Nonetheless, the reforms were passed by a male Parliament, as was the Pension Act of 1909. Nor should one forget the Married Women’s Property Act of 1870 – passed, again, by a Male Parliament – and almost certainly detrimental to many ‘hopeful’ young male suitors!
With all due respect, Sipu, I think you are ignoring the fact that many Men in positions of power in the past had a sense of ‘fair play’ which led to the enactment of laws which improved the lot of those less fortunate than themselves, laws that may well have been detrimental to their own interests.
Not all men are bastards simply out for their own advantage – and, equally, not all women are soft-hearted and out to do the best for the rest of humanity!
Actually the song was from much earlier and was used in Army Recruitment rallies for real.
http://www.firstworldwar.com/audio/yourkingandcountrywantyou.htm
As regards the idea of competitive sports, of course a vast majority of boys want to take part, and while not so many, also a large number of girls. My daughter, without prompting from me loved playing rugby and cricket. She was not so keen on netball as you could not hurt anyone! Also, Mrs FEEG was a highly skilled hockey player.
The lack of competitive sports is one, but by no means the only, reason, why why there is so much low level youthful misbehaviour, leading from everything from annoying graffiti to riots. I think everybody should be made to try as many sports as possible when they are young, just to see if there is one they like and/or are good at! I know I did, and found I was good at hockey and volleyball, chucking things around the athletics field and, primarily, rugby.
As the old saying goes, “Mens sana in corpore sano”
Or these days: asics!
Ara: A frightening list, strongly suggests to me that Britain has completely lost the plot. Are there ANY engineering jobs left in the country?
May be a few, LW, but if you look here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9474443/University-rankings-the-10-most-popular-degree-courses.html?image=9
You will find that the most popular degree course is business and management studies, so yes, that says it all really, although, I’m not sure that all these people will find jobs after graduation.
So much for encouraging sport:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9478635/Keep-the-Flame-Alive-A-million-pupils-could-lose-sports-fields.html
The government are now making it easier to build classrooms on playing fields which haven’t already been sold!
Interesting discussion. There seems to be a conflation of a couple of issues in the original article. First of all there is this current obsession with ‘risk.’ It seems to me that this is yet another bureaucratic problem. Any activity carries a risk. Something like 0.8 people* per month die in an accident just getting out of bed. Question. No that you know that are you going to get out of bed tomorrow morning? Six people are killed every day in road accidents. Are you going to cross any roads, or drive a car today?
Injuries happen in sport. Children also injure themselves in play. A friend – a keen, fit sportsman – tore an ankle ligament when he stepped off a low curb in Hong Kong. Accidents happen. Should we take steps to minimise the risks posed by accidents? Of course, where it makes sense to do so – wear a seat belt when you’re in the car, look both ways before crossing the road – simple stuff. The problems begin when ‘risk’ is institutionalised and you start to get instances like the one Araminta describes above. Or a council takes down hanging flower baskets in case they injure someone – or a harmless fisherman becomes an armless fisherman:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9469217/Jolly-Fisherman-loses-his-welcome-in-health-and-safety-redesign.html
Insofar as children are concerned I like to see ’em at the end of the day, sweaty and a bit smelly, dirty and with maybe the odd bruise or scrape – it signifies they’ve probably had a good day.
Next you have to consider the attempted elimination of any hint of competition from our schools. ‘No child left behind,’ has morphed into ‘no child gets ahead.’ It is seen in all aspects of the school curriculum, not just sport. Streaming is anathema. Brighter children are constrained to the same pace as the rest of us. It is a fact, however, that if you look at the steps leading up to the door of an old church, you will see a standard distribution curve worn into them – and also into the aisles, where the centre are brighter and the sides duller. If you measure any aspect of endeavour, the bell curve is, invariably, what you get. Any of us can learn to play tennis, but few are going to reach Wimbledon standards. We can all run, but there are very few Roger Bannisters or David Rudishas**. There is a corollary to this thought also – someone is always going to come last – though coming last in the Olympic 800 metres final is an achievement in itself, isn’t it? You cannot legislate or bureaucratisate*** that simple fact away. If there is a prize for achievement in any activity at all, someone is going to win it and the rest of us aren’t – we ought to learn to live with that, and most of us of a certain age have done so. In our schools at the moment, sad to say, too much emphasis is placed on telling our children that they are as good as anyone else – which is true, of course, for certain values of the expression – and not enough on preparing them for the actual hard facts of life, which are that it takes effort to succeed, at anything.
Then you have the competing bureaucracies and politicians. ‘Obesity is a problem, we need to exercise more.’ ‘Sell off the school playing fields.’ ‘We need more sports in schools. ‘Don’t let our little darlings do anything that might get them hurt.’ Someone needs to make up their minds – but I’m not holding my breath.
I would favour a good dose of healthy physical exercise in the school curriculum. It does not necessarily all have to be competitive, but I think there ought to be an element of competitive activity included.
For those with the talent to progress beyond the basic levels of activity in any sport, why don’t we harness the volunteer spirit that was evident in the Olympics and provide volunteer assistant coaches to our schools and (expanded) sports facilities – basic training in first aid and sports injury avoidance is not that hard, (squaddies can hack it, for pete’s sake.)
*Yes, I know, but you know what I mean 🙂
** You all thought I was going to say Usain Bolt, didn’t you?
*** Well, I think it’s an excellent word 🙂
Hi Bravo.
Many thanks for your detailed comment. Yes, the risk factor is present in most human activity, and accidents do happen, but that is no reason to ban competitive sports or school trips.
As you rightly point out, we cannot all succeed to Olympic standards; it requires as awful lot of hard work and dedication, but children should all be encouraged to find something that they are good at, and take it to whatever level suits them, or they can achieve.
Arrers, exactement!! 🙂
Ta, Janus. 🙂
Ara, good evening.
Your post and the comments thereon are why I like being here. I was not going to bother lobbing my effort in but I see that all views are being expressed dispassionately and are all being respected.
So, for what it’s worth, I am not bothered about a sport being competitive and seriously hate it when it is deliberately non-competitive. I have never had a problem with grasping that somebody else might be better than me at something. Equally, I have never worried about the possibility that I might be better than others at something else.
But. for me, competition is not as important as team involvement when it comes to straightening the shoots of our young. And that, I believe, is what our Olympic legacy should be all about.
My hope for anybody involved in a team sport is that you can come off the park in the sure and certain knowledge that you did your best, that you played for your team and that your team mates know that, even if you were total rubbish,
That’ll be a fail for KP in my eyes then! Great player. Totally keech team member.
JM re 42
I have to seriously disagree with you on the need for all and sundry to be competitive and team players.
There are occupations where the need to have the self possession to be self contained as both a person and an operative are imperative. To force all into the same mould and reject the eccentricity of the individual results in the controlled sheeple existence of most of the current denizens of the British Isles.
How else would society have arrived at such a debacle?
Eccentricity, individualism and non conformist thoughts are to be cherished not ravaged as they have been by the PC brigade and modern governments. Such, actually made the country what it previously was, Great Britain.
CO, good evening.
I hope that I am grasping what you are saying. I am not absolutely certain that I have made myself clear to you.
I really don’t believe that I said that ‘all and sundry’ had to conform or even be competitive. There should always be people who march to their own individual drum, More power to their elbows.
That is certainly one strand of what made Great Britain great . Another strand, in my opinion, was the inculcated desire to be part of a team and to ‘play up. play up and play the game.’
It has always worked for for me and I don’t think that I will change my mind before I die.
‘Vitai Lampada’ by Henry Newbolt
There’s a breathless hush in the Close to-night—
Ten to make and the match to win—
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it’s not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season’s fame,
But his captain’s hand on his shoulder smote
“Play up! play up! and play the game!”
The sand of the desert is sodden red,—
Red with the wreck of a square that broke;—
The Gatling’s jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England’s far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
“Play up! play up! and play the game!”
This is the word that year by year,
While in her place the school is set,
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind—
“Play up! play up! and play the game!”
🙂
CO, you do spoil your rants with statements like “the controlled sheeple existence of most of the current denizens of the British Isles”.
You must meet astrange cross.section of society or read only the Daily Mail. 😮
I’m thoroughly enjoying the way this post has rambled over different aspects! I find it quite interesting just how many opinions I disagree with!
Araminta – it would seem that Business and Management Studies has taken over from that other Useless Degree – Media Studies! Not that I would say that to my grandson! He, at least, has had the sense to do an Engineering Degree as well as a BAMS (!) Degree. I predict that it won’t be too long before some ‘New and Useless’ Degree will be invented to keep the next generation out of the unemployment statistics for a few years.
Bravo – I agreed with every word you said until it came to the ‘good dose of healthy physical exercise in the school curriculum.’
OK – FEEG! ‘everybody should be made to try as many sports as possible when they are young, just to see if there is one they like and/or are good at!’ What are you going to do with me who was lousy at it all and hated every single minute of it! 🙂
Once again, I find myself agreeing with Christina. I find the modern emphasis on teaching people to be part of a team – like bees in a *!*!* hive – utterly, utterly abhorrent.
There may be times when ‘team effort’ is needed, but there are also occasions when an individualistic approach is more appropriate.
Good afternoon, Mr Mackie and thank you for your contribution to this thread.
I’ve found all the various opinions interesting, and most certainly respectful. Team involvement certainly seems to be one of the reasons given by our athletes for their success in the Olympics, but I’m wondering if this team spirit is necessarily a recipe for success in other spheres. The dreaded “she’s not a team player”, rings in my ears here.
I ‘m familiar with your poem and I was going to say playing fields of Eton, until I googled him and discovered he was a grammar school boy! Ah, but then a scholarship to Clifton College.
Esprit de corps works well for the military and in times of trouble, but I agree with Boadicea in this instance, we need leaders and an individualistic approach as well.
Boadicea.
Thank you for your comment too. Without checking the thread, I’m wondering if this team business is something to do with gender!
Yes, I tend to think of Business and Management studies as a post graduate qualification rather than a first degree.
I agree, I tend to think that any course that is ‘… Studies,’ is not a degree course at all.
Agree with bravo!
The Bessarabian clog dancing with Portuguese studies comes to mind!
Or, if you were really going for it, underwater basket weaving!!!
I always rather fancied that.
Half the so called universities are full of morons and should be closed forthwith and go back to teaching courses for car mechanics/electricians and plumbers as they did in the past.
OZ
Boa, the BAMS curricula are hardly ‘useless’. Fine Arts definitely qualifies, along with (dare I say it) History. :-O
OZ, I remember that one 🙂 Further, I remember one night in the Company Bar in HK having a bit of a rant about sociology and sociologists with the OC making frantic cutting motions from the end of the bar. Turned out Madam OC was a sociology graduate 🙂
Strange then, that having a Business and Management Degree was not included in the Top 10 Degrees for getting a job….
I rest my case 🙂
If you get the chance, watch this BBC program. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01m81f5/Jet!_When_Britain_Ruled_the_Skies_Military_Marvels/
‘Jet. When Britain Ruled the Skies’. Particularly about minutes 23-27.
The Farnborough Air Show of 1952. A plane crashed killing pilot and co-pilot plus 29 spectators and injuring many more. Once the mess was cleared up, the flying continued and more test pilots took to the air. The next day, 128,000 people turned up to watch the final day of the show. Nobody was sued for the deaths and injuries. Can you imagine that happening today?
Personally I think much of the blame for the current blame culture lies with American power brokers, financial, media, legal and political, and their belief in the justice of ‘an eye for an eye’. That particularly pernicious philosophy hit Britain in the late 60s and the consequences are a society whose members take no responsibility for their actions and seeks redress from anybody who can be made to cough up.
It’s past 23.00 so perhaps I should not be posting.
Thanks, Sipu,
Yes, I agree with you. There is no such thing as an accident these days, someone is always to blame. I think we discussed this over enthusiastic use of litigation and the spiralling costs of insurance with reference to car accidents and whiplash claims. It’s easy money, and especially for the legal profession.!
Absolutely right Sipu. The Olney Pancake race has been run since the 14th C – it was threatened (I don’t know whether it was actually banned) by the Stop-the Fun-in-case-someone-trips over-a-blade-of-grass Brigade….
I have just spotted the unwitting irony in my comment. I seek to blame those who blame.
Well, as you said, it was rather late when you wrote it, Sipu. 😉