quote:This is a good point. The situation is a little bit like what a high school chemistry teacher faces. He knows that most of the students won't go on to be scientists or doctors, so should he prepare them all as if they all might go on into science as a career?
It's not a fair comparison because a basic understand of chemical principals is beneficial to most everyone in a modern society, even if they don't go on to study advanced chemistry. Those principals can be valuable to anyone who needs to read a food label, takes a prescription drug, paints their house or participates in community decisions about things like pollution, energy or climate change.
You just can't say the same thing about learning how to shoot and dribble.
And its not a valid comparison because it presumes that lower level chemistry curricula are designed based on the content of advanced level curricula. In truth, it works exactly the opposite way. The content of college level general chemistry class is designed in part based on what skills can generally be expected from entering students.
Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that at every level of basketball, only a very small fraction will move on to the next level. That isn't true except in very basic introductory level courses and in those courses we intentionally do not try to teach the skills people will need to pursue careers in science and engineering. Instead, we try to gear those courses to teaching things that will be most useful to the average citizen who will never take an advanced chemistry course. On the other hand, in a course with a title like "General Chemistry for Scientists and Engineers), it's a very good assumption that better than 95% of the students in the class are there because they want to pursue a field of study that requires mastery of certain skills. I've been on enough curriculum committees to know that a lot of effort goes into identifying which skills people in those classes are most likely to need in their advanced course work. I'm not saying we succeed, but we try.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a good point. The situation is a little bit like what a high school chemistry teacher faces. He knows that most of the students won't go on to be scientists or doctors, so should he prepare them all as if they all might go on into science as a career?
It's not a fair comparison because a basic understand of chemical principals is beneficial to most everyone in a modern society, even if they don't go on to study advanced chemistry. Those principals can be valuable to anyone who needs to read a food label, takes a prescription drug, paints their house or participates in community decisions about things like pollution, energy or climate change.
Isn't Tresopax's point here that there is a choice for the introductory course - one could teach a very grounded real world course focusing on everyday ways in which chemistry would be useful, or you can start teaching academic chemistry? My school went the latter route even though chemistry was only mandatory for the first year.
quote: Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that at every level of basketball, only a very small fraction will move on to the next level.
It depends what you mean by next level. If you're talking about 12 year olds, while many won't (I guess) play a higher level of organized basketball, I would guess a high percentage will play pick-up, which is just a lot more fun if reasonably adept at basic basketball skills (having been part of successful pressing team wouldn't carry over).
quote: That isn't true except in very basic introductory level courses and in those courses we intentionally do not try to teach the skills people will need to pursue careers in science and engineering. Instead, we try to gear those courses to teaching things that will be most useful to the average citizen who will never take an advanced chemistry course. On the other hand, in a course with a title like "General Chemistry for Scientists and Engineers), it's a very good assumption that better than 95% of the students in the class are there because they want to pursue a field of study that requires mastery of certain skills. I've been on enough curriculum committees to know that a lot of effort goes into identifying which skills people in those classes are most likely to need in their advanced course work. I'm not saying we succeed, but we try.
You're talking about at the college level. Colleges can do this- "physics for pre-meds" vs. physics 101, "calculus for business majors" vs. calc 101 etc. are pretty common examples of segmentation where you can tailor a course to meet the expectations of the audience. At least where I went to secondary school there was no possibility of segmenting the chemistry offerings into classes for those with a mild curiosity and those more serious.
Edited to add: this was just to say that this tension does still exist in teaching an academic subject. However, I do think that intro chemistry in secondary school should be taught rigorously. I don't give a huge amount of credit to someone deciding to press in a youth league; there is a downside. However, losing by 40 points every game is not a lot of fun, so if pressing makes a team competitive then go for it.
posted
Much of what I learned in high school chemistry I've never used as a person who doesn't work in the sciences. I assumed the reason they taught it to me is that it might have been a necessary foundation if I later went into the sciences.
Regardless, even if you don't like that analogy, my point remains the same: Many coaches feel it is important to teach young players the fundamental skills they'd need if they move on to more advanced levels of basketball. For a 12 year old girl youth league player, "more advanced" might be WNBA, or it might be high school, or it might just be 13 year old youth league basketball. A significant number of players do come back and play at one higher level or another, if you are talking about all higher levels from the pros to adult pickup games to older youth leagues.
It's not just coaches who feel that way. Many players and/or their parents feel this way too. That's why developmental leagues like this one exist - there is a demand for it.
My philosophy is that this (aiming to help players improve and move towards a higher level) is a good approach to take towards youth sports - but not because I actually expect most young athletes to move on to the most advanced levels. It IS true that most young players won't move on to play for a high school or a college or the pros. In the case of basketball, the chances of playing for the pros are similar to the chances of being struck by lightning. That's not why I like the developmental approach to the game. I think the developmental approach is a good approach because I think players get far more out of trying to become better players, even if they never end up playing at an advanced level. Those who approach it as just something fun to fill their time enjoy themselves, but the value in playing ends as soon as they leave the court. In contrast, those who approach it with the intent to improve as a player tend to come out with a sense of accomplishment, greater confidence, and seem to enjoy it more. They tend to be the ones who end up valuing the sport enough to keep playing as they get older. Or to put it another way, the pursuit of the goal is more important than actually reaching the goal, because pursuing a goal is enjoyable in itself.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found in high school that the foosball equivalent of the full court press was very effective against better players. I always played front, and most of the people playing back, the ones I would be directly up against, were used to people carefully setting up a shot, taking aim, and then shooting. Thus, they had time to line up their guys to defend.
I, on the other hand, shot wildly and rapidly, fielding balls from the backboard quite often, as my wild shots went wide, and sending them into the goal before the defender even knew what was happening. It was indeed an effective way for unskilled me to score points against skilled defenders. I threw them off their game, this way, and left them rather flummoxed and unable to use their superior skills effectively.
I guess this adds little except to say that this strategy really works, in more diverse circumstances than described in the article.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The best swordsman in the world fears not the second best, but the worst; for who knows what the fool might do?"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
