Funding More Underachievers
I disagree with the editorial by principal Terry Collett in the Bay News, and here is why!
Handing out un-earned sums of cash in funding and grants would be detrimental to the achievement of our athletes. I believe you will just be funding more under-achievers. This is where the saying "easy come, easy go" comes into play. It is also where the politically correct notion of "participation is more important than winning" raises its ugly head. If it is hard work financially for an athlete to afford to compete on the big stage, providing that their "highest value" is to "win," and not just participate, then they will settle for nothing less! If the money is so hard to come by for them to compete, they will not entertain wasting all their hard-earned efforts in fundraising, and training by just participating - they will want to compete and win, because of the effort involved. On the other hand, athletes taking un-earned handouts would be more likely to go just for the experience of it all, and have the attitude of "oh well, maybe I'll do better next time." The experience has cost them nothing, so it has "no value to them." If you want to encourage winners rather than just participants, then if you really feel it necessary to hand out the booty stolen by the government from the taxpayers of this country, then perhaps it would be better spent giving it only to those participants who "win!" - now THERE is an incentive for you! I believe what you propose is similar to the NZ on Air funding of music. Have you noticed what happens to many of those bands that are artificially inflated by the cash handouts of this outfit when NZ on air pulls the rug out from underneath them, and stops the cash flow? - They come crashing back down to where they were "before" the cash artificially inflated their profile. If you are good at what you do, or want to do, and your highest value is to win or succeed, you will do so (providing you have the skills and aptitude required) because you will accept nothing less
I am also disturbed by your statement "there is no reason why both participation and competition cannot sit side by side." So long as strong competition is encouraged, winners are rewarded, and participants acknowledged for just that, then there should be no problem, but in government-run schools in our politically correct climate of today that just aint gonna happen is it? As for the statement "we will never be a nation of winners while many of our young people sit idle in front of computers" try telling that to the young guy that just sold "Trade-me for $700 million!
Handing out un-earned sums of cash in funding and grants would be detrimental to the achievement of our athletes. I believe you will just be funding more under-achievers. This is where the saying "easy come, easy go" comes into play. It is also where the politically correct notion of "participation is more important than winning" raises its ugly head. If it is hard work financially for an athlete to afford to compete on the big stage, providing that their "highest value" is to "win," and not just participate, then they will settle for nothing less! If the money is so hard to come by for them to compete, they will not entertain wasting all their hard-earned efforts in fundraising, and training by just participating - they will want to compete and win, because of the effort involved. On the other hand, athletes taking un-earned handouts would be more likely to go just for the experience of it all, and have the attitude of "oh well, maybe I'll do better next time." The experience has cost them nothing, so it has "no value to them." If you want to encourage winners rather than just participants, then if you really feel it necessary to hand out the booty stolen by the government from the taxpayers of this country, then perhaps it would be better spent giving it only to those participants who "win!" - now THERE is an incentive for you! I believe what you propose is similar to the NZ on Air funding of music. Have you noticed what happens to many of those bands that are artificially inflated by the cash handouts of this outfit when NZ on air pulls the rug out from underneath them, and stops the cash flow? - They come crashing back down to where they were "before" the cash artificially inflated their profile. If you are good at what you do, or want to do, and your highest value is to win or succeed, you will do so (providing you have the skills and aptitude required) because you will accept nothing less
I am also disturbed by your statement "there is no reason why both participation and competition cannot sit side by side." So long as strong competition is encouraged, winners are rewarded, and participants acknowledged for just that, then there should be no problem, but in government-run schools in our politically correct climate of today that just aint gonna happen is it? As for the statement "we will never be a nation of winners while many of our young people sit idle in front of computers" try telling that to the young guy that just sold "Trade-me for $700 million!
posted by The Tomahawk Kid at 8:36 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home