Amanda Ripley The Case Against High School Sports Essay

The Response to the Case Against High School Sports

I remember, freshman year, I was scared, none of my middle school friends went to my new high school, and I didn’t know anyone. I was a shy girl and had been shoved out of my comfort zone. So as the weeks and months went on I made only "school friends", basically just acquaintances you meet and only talk to in school. Eventually soccer season came around, and of course my dad convinced me to continue playing as I definitely did not plan on putting myself out there like that. Not only did playing soccer on my high school's team introduce me to my best friend, but I've met some of the best people, made memories I'll never forget, and learned extraordinary lessons I couldn’t have learned any

other way. To think that many people like Amanda Ripley debate on whether high schools should have sports teams is absurd in my opinion.
In the article written for the Atlantic called, "The Case Against High-School Sports," the author, Amanda Ripley, argues that high schools should not fund or provide sports teams.

Ripley argues that sports teams at high schools are a waste of the money that schools could use on improving academics. She claims that tax payers shouldn't be paying for something that’s harmful to students, can cause brain damage, or that distracts them, and that the large amount of money from schools shouldn’t be spent on the minority (population of students playing for sports), over the majority (the students who focus on academics). Ripley brings up the fact that America is lagging in international rankings and is falling too far behind the 30 countries in front of us. Ripley gives several examples, one being of a school who nearly got shut down due to insufficient funds and increased failings in academics, but who instead terminated all sports. Lastly, Ripley closes with the story of the same school and the great success they’ve had with repairing their academics and budget issues all by eliminating sports. Although Ripley made a few valid points, the fact that they are assumptions and they are avoidable prompt them to be

insignificant.
My personal experience causes me to disagree with the assumption Ripley made about sports being a distraction to students who play and even those who don’t.

All schools require students to maintain a certain minimum GPA, attendance, and discipline standards in order to be permitted to continue practicing and playing with the team. Coaches push the point that school comes before the sport. Although it takes self-control to finish things on time during sports, a student who doesn’t do homework during their season most likely doesn’t do it the rest of the year either while they don’t have a sport. Whereas a student who cares about their grades and regularly does their homework and focuses in class will continue to do just that no matter their extracurricular activities during the season. One of the lessons I've learned from playing a sport is how to manage my time and keep an organized environment. In my opinion nothing could have given me the same motivation to figure this out besides wanting to do well while playing soccer. Making an assumption like this is not fair nor valid when there are different types of

students.
One point Ripley mentioned but downplays in her article is that playing sports has many benefits and playing them is a rite of passage. Sports teach students how to work as a team with people they may not want to work with, gets students to be active, to not give up, and provides just simple entertainment and pleasure. Playing sports helps kids use their energy in positive ways, keeps students out of trouble and teaches discipline. Playing sports gets students involved in their school's activities and gives them reason to attend every day. These might seem like they have very small importance over the fact that sports are expensive, but if there is no students at a school because they skip, the students aren't involved, or the students are just blatantly acting up, getting in trouble, and then so failing their academics anyways, how good of a school could it be?
Although I support high school sports, I have to agree with Ripley's point that schools spend more money on sports than necessary. She uses evidence from Premont to support her claim that schools can spend over $67,000 on sports, while spending significantly less on academics. For example, she claims it costs over a thousand dollars per football player to be on the team and the admission prices to games don’t even begin to cover this. Ripley argues that schools shouldn't spend tax dollars on activities that could potentially harm the student athletes with brain or bodily injuries. The chances of extreme harm may be less likely; however, I know I need more than two hands if I wanted to count the number of teammates I've had get concussions and sport related injuries. Although these types of things are unfortunate, they are bound to happen at one point or another to kids and teens who enjoy being active, whether it be in school or at the park with their friends.
Flash forward 3 years of soccer later, Ive made memories, I made friends, and became more outgoing. While Ripley has done her research and made her points, I still support high school sports. After reading and responding to this article, I can now understand the oppositions point of view, however being afraid that kids with get hurt is extremely vigilant and also, unavoidable. Assuming students at every school in the country get distracted by sports is extreme when most students are motivated enough to get their work done no matter the circumstance. When it comes to cost, it’s the school's responsibility to balance their budget enough to provide both academics and extracurricular sports or clubs, and students can help with this as well by paying dues to play sports. I will be doing all of this in the spring, and I can't wait.