my commentary

Shawn Tan (28) 3C
Summary
This article from The Guardian informs the reader of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s decision to bring back and once again encourage competitive sports in schools. Competitive sports were frowned upon by both parents and the government in the 1980s. The decision to bring back competitive sports, in Minister Brown’s own words, is simply a correction of “the tragic mistake of reducing the competitive element in school sports.” In support of his action, he claims that in sport, only by pitting yourself against others will there be improvement, and also that the upcoming Olympics require a fostering of competitive spirit.
Commentary
Competitive Sports - Lifelong Trauma or Lessons in Life?
Picture yourself being a young child, 8 years of age (if you are indeed above the age of eight). You are playing your first real soccer match against another school team, and have never had any real evaluation of your soccer playing skills. You look forward to the game, the thrills, excitement of playing the sport competitively. Not only do you not enjoy yourself, you end up losing the game, devastatingly, 15 to 1. Are you traumatised, do doom yourself to failure and never compete in sports again, or do you decide to buck up and topple the opponents in the next season? Liberal British parents, sociologists and politicians are worried about the possibility of the former, and thus are very much against British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s recent decision to increase funding for the sports communities in public schools. During the 1980s, competitive sports were frowned upon by the then liberal government and parents. This resulted in the closure of school sport clubs and facilities. The decision to bring back sports into British school life is a controversial one. This commentary aims to discuss the benefits and harmful effects of competitive sports, and discuss how in the end the benefits of competitive sports outweigh the harmful effects.
There are many benefits to competitive sports. First of all, students who take part in competitive sports tend to be more healthy and athletic. This is because competitive sports require routine training and rigorous exercises. This is also very much evident in the statistics across Europe, in which Britain, the only country which frowns upon competitive sports in education, has an obesity rate of 24% amongst teenagers. This is compared to only 11% for Sweden and Denmark; both have healthy ice sports communities in schools. Also, competitive sports cultivate a sense of the importance of sports in students, and the upcoming Olympics in Britain are a celebration of competitive sports. It is thus important to implement competitive sports in schools, for their physical benefit towards students and the upcoming Olympics.
Secondly, competitive sports also have an intangible benefit, which is that they encourage youths to look past failure and it can also harden them against the disappointment of failure. Failure is something that everyone must face in their lives, be it in education, sports competitions and one’s career. By preventing a child from facing failure, the child is unable to build up the correct mindset of correcting their mistakes and will be even more susceptible to trauma due to failure, since they do not have a mechanism to deal with failure. Failure is inevitable, and it is important that youths learn how to face failure. One good way would be the medium of sports. Not only does it allow for students to cultivate a way of dealing with failure, it also encourages students to go all out to win the prize. This results in better sports and higher pinnacles in sporting performance. One example would be British BMX rider Shanaze Reade, who literally crashed out of the competition in Beijing, but came back with full force in later legs to reclaim her title. In her interview, she attributed her success to a drive which came from losing. We can thus assume that sports can teach youths that losing is not synonymous with failing and that coming in last is not a show of failure, it is a lack of hard work and drive.
Many parents have said that competitive sports are like a “pet hate” in students. Students who are not athletic are often picked on and this treatment is insensitive to the feelings of children with little athletic ability. However, these parents fail to realize that sports are not for everyone. Although sports are implemented for everyone in public schools, only those with the natural talent are brought into competition. There are other niches for students with different callings. They could do arts, music, humanities and even info communication technology.
In conclusion, competitive sports definitely have more benefits than harms. They can bring about healthier youth, youth who are more resilient to failure and are able to look past losing and aim for higher success. Even though there can be detrimental effects, when done in moderation, there can only be benefits in competitive sports.

Commentary on Eugenics

Envision a future where supposedly “superior” genes were sold as commodities to anyone who could afford them. In such a future, one could mix and match prototypic traits to create their perfect “designer” baby. For a subscriber to the theory of eugenics, it would seem perfectly plausible. However, a skeptic, like myself, would find such a prospect disturbing.

Firstly, how is it possible to give an objective measure to superiority? There have been many studies by noted psychologist,Howard Gardner showing that there are many types of intelligences, including musical, didactic and spatial intelligence, which have no bearing on a person's IQ. Many studies also show that different ethnic groups excel in different types of intelligences. Also, some autistic people have been termed autistic savants, which means that they have peculiar talents although they are termed “mentally or physically disadvantage”.

An example would be Kim Peek, who not only has photographic memory, but also perfect pitch and is able to single out any instrument in any particular orchestra piece and play the chords and notes it plays perfect from memory. Is he really “disadvantaged”? Would it be wise to implement sterilization laws if we are unable to define inferiority or superiority? Are there really traits so inferior they need to be eliminated from the gene pool? Also, such tinted views on intelligence and its quantifier may have devastating impacts, especially when it is used to justify actions such as sterilization.

The theory of eugenics is based on the premise that all actions of a human being are controlled by whatever genes he or she was born with. That means not only are the person's biological features controlled by genes, even the person's intelligence, choice of spouse and future profession are premeditated, all in the womb. There have been studies that show that this is not the case, and that it is more a case of nurture over nature. An example would be how children with a lack of a certain protein cannot process phenylalanine in their bodies, resulting in mental retardation due to toxic buildup. However, if they stay away form foods containing phenylalanine, they bodies grow to be able to withstand such toxic buildups. There are many more examples of nurture over nature scenarios.

However, there are an equal number of studies that show that there is a correlation between intelligence and biological factors, which include height, race and even vocal Fach. The most dangerous assumption would be that race correlates to intelligence. Some studies have shown that in terms of intelligence quotient scores, East Asians and Caucasians score higher than Hispanics and Black people. However, these studies fail to include experimental controls like social conditions and income range. One study in the 1970s shows that when put in the right environment, 99 Black children scored(In terms of IQ) in the same range as Caucasian children of the same age. Racially tinted views on intelligence should not be condoned in the field of academic study.

In conclusion, eugenics is wrong because it stands on grounds of superiority in different groups and also assumes that superiority is quantifiable.