Summary and Critique In Amanda Ripley’s article, “The Case Against High School Sports,” she insists that sports have an insignificant role in schools and, consequently, harms students, their performance in school, and the schools themselves. Ripley believes that students without sports programs benefit from the exclusion of sports and schools can also benefit or improve with the excess funds from sports (1-3). While Ripley’s argument has some merit, at least at first glance, the main ideas are lacking solid evidence and are cherry picked. Ripley believes that schools in the United States that have a sports program are immediately behind other schools academically and the students are more likely to focus on sports than they are academics.
…show more content…
Ripley believes that if schools didn’t have to pay for sports, they would be able to spend more money on academics, which could better academic programs (2-5). Ripley states that, “ Football at Premont cost about $1,300 a player. Math, by contrast, cost just $618 a student.” She also provides some numbers on how much it would cost to start up and maintain sports in school districts. This information is cherry picked and is a generalization. Schools do not have to pay all of the costs that she lists, such as keeping a field maintained for football (qtd. in Ripley 2-4). She also includes a small paragraph on schools hiring coaches that are unqualified as teachers, but are only hired for their coaching abilities. Ripley quoted Marcia Gregorio in her article, saying that “You hire a teacher, and you sometimes lower the standards because you need a coach.” Ripley stereotypes coaches by making them sound like they are incapable to teach in her article, “The Case Against High School Sports” (qtd. in 5). Ripley makes the assumption that schools only lose money, and do not acquire enough money from sports, fundraising and concessions, for them to be affordable for the school, so instead, she believes the money could be used in other ways
Ripley believes that if schools didn’t have to pay for sports, they would be able to spend more money on academics, which could better academic programs (2-5). Ripley states that, “ Football at Premont cost about $1,300 a player. Math, by contrast, cost just $618 a student.” She also provides some numbers on how much it would cost to start up and maintain sports in school districts. This information is cherry picked and is a generalization. Schools do not have to pay all of the costs that she lists, such as keeping a field maintained for football (qtd. in Ripley 2-4). She also includes a small paragraph on schools hiring coaches that are unqualified as teachers, but are only hired for their coaching abilities. Ripley quoted Marcia Gregorio in her article, saying that “You hire a teacher, and you sometimes lower the standards because you need a coach.” Ripley stereotypes coaches by making them sound like they are incapable to teach in her article, “The Case Against High School Sports” (qtd. in 5). Ripley makes the assumption that schools only lose money, and do not acquire enough money from sports, fundraising and concessions, for them to be affordable for the school, so instead, she believes the money could be used in other ways