Football player James Harrison has been in the news because he gave back his kids' participation trophies from sports, saying he believes such rewards should be earned. So, does the guy who gets paid millions of dollars a year regardless of whether he wins or losses have a point? It's made a lot of people angry, and earned praise from those who agree with his philosophy.
I think this is one of those cases where a few extreme incidents have pushed people to overreact. We get a few shock stories about kids' sports where everyone gets the same trophy or they only allow cooperative sports, and suddenly everyone demands no participation trophies at all. Really? You're saying that I shouldn't have gotten the three-inch participation trophy for minor soccer at age eight? Getting handed that little trinket just before the top scorer on the team got a giant trophy? That ruined my perspective forever?
But I also have another perspective on the rewards-for-achievement debate that I've never heard before, and that is, um, why? Look, I received very few trophies for sports, but plenty of the rewards for academic achievement (whether awards or high marks) so I've seen it from both sides, and I have to ask what good are either of them? Sure there are some awards that are difficult to win, and indicate genuine achievement. But we're not talking about the Superbowl or Nobel Prize here, we're talking about kids. Most of their awards are just the strongest kid getting a trophy, or the smartest kid getting an A. All those awards do is tell everyone who the strongest and smartest kids are. But everyone already knows that, so what's the point? So unless we're talking about very high-level athletics/academics, those genetically blessed kids are getting their recognition for doing little more than showing up. Essentially, they're just receiving their own participation trophies.
No comments:
Post a Comment