<p>A Newsweek article provides scientific evidence that exercise and athletics makes you smarter:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662246/site/newsweek/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17662246/site/newsweek/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>what is the most jockish high school athlete? a football player.</p>
<p>Also usually has the worst grades.</p>
<p>The problem with the study is that it shows correlation not causality. Are fit kids smarter or are smarter kids fitter? You can’t tell on the basis of the test conducted.</p>
<p>There are some definitional issues … are all athletes jocks?</p>
<p>If I can add my .02:
My two sons could not be more different. S1 is smart, intensely academic, and excels in school. He can read a big novel in a few hours, is a political junkie, wants to be a lawyer and built his own computer. He worked hard at his one weakness, writing, to become a very good student. He was on Varsity baseball for 2 years, and Cross Country for 2 (got into the states) but does not live for athletics. Grades are extremely important to him. He reads voraciously for fun.</p>
<p>S2, while much younger, has always thrived on activity. Also a very bright boy, he ran ever since he could walk and hates to sit down. He has played Pop Warner football since age 5 (is now 11) and is much less bookish. He really doesn’t read much for fun (despite my best efforts!), although he enjoys reading together with me and once in a while gets into a book like Harry Potter or Artemis Fowl. He learns best in a hands on, practical kind of situation. He can memorize numerous football plays, knows the stats of every NFL prospect and most of the NFL roster players. He gets decent grades in elementary school, but works hard for them. Sitting in a chair listening to someone talk is like death for him. Last year, his wonderful teacher had the kids learning everything from reptiles to ecology to history in a very hands on way, and he got all As.</p>
<p>I think that those who are drawn to sports tend to be very active people, that don’t shine in the sit-down-and-listen-to-the-lecture type environment. They will work incredibly hard to excell in athletics, but it can be torture for them to learn in a static environment.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, most of our public schools don’t know how to educate students who don’t learn in the traditional way.</p>
<p>Interesting. I am a little skeptical, though, because you can control for SES, but I don’t see how you can control for diet or for hands-on parental involvement. Giving your kid a Twinkie to shut him up and parking him in front of the TV is bad for both his body and his mind.</p>
<p>Actually, I think there are a number of studies that show that physical activity does improve peoples ability to learn and also slows down cognitive decline with age. My problem with the study you cite is that it doesn’t really make your point.</p>
<p>MoonMaid, My Jr. S is just like your youngest, been playing football since 11 years old. Hates discussing novels in English class but loves watching the Chem teacher blow someting up to illustrate a point! And that is what he remembers and comes home talking about.</p>
<p>Packmom, slightly OT (sorry to others!) I once watched a documentary about the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman. Although far from a jock, he was one of those always on the go types. Don’t think that he liked to sit still much. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t a ‘jock’ in high school, but I was a three-sport athlete. I found that during season, I was MUCH better with time management, and was able to prioritize my school work. just an anecdote.
Also, I’d say that out of the top 30 students in my class, I’d guess that at least 20 were on some sports team (and of course being overachievers, they excelled on the field too)</p>
<p>Busy people are generally better at time management than those who are not busy. There is a saying: “If you want something done, give it to someone whose already busy.” I don’t think this is specifically a sports issue, anything will do.</p>
<p>It depends on what your definition of ‘jock’ is. Football players are the most ‘jockish’ in high school? Not surewhat that meant! Sorry to be so ‘Clinton-esque’! Still, I find the topic interesting. There are other studies that illustrate the relationship between exercise and mental capacity as related to aging. The technology involved with actually studying mental effects of exercise is fascinating.</p>
<p>I don’t think sports make you smarter. I think some smart people just tend toward sports, the same way other smart people might gear themselves towards music or art. I say this because, yes, I know very smart jocks (2400s on SATs and the like). But aside from said smart jocks, the rest all entirely fit the “dumb jock” stereotype.</p>
<p>There is nothing to suggest, since I have known these people, some since elementary school, that sports made the intelligent exactly that… they’ve always been intelligent and stayed intelligent all these years! Their intelligence is probably what makes them excel at sports, whether it’s a factor on their determination, motivation, approach to playing sports, etc. Alternatively, the “dumb jocks” have always been exactly that, too; sports haven’t made any of them smarter. In fact, many seem to be making more immature decisions the more mature they get.</p>
<p>There is also something to be said about how people who do not take care of their bodies are not very smart either. I exercise under the idea that, if I am healthy, I’m at a reduced risk of developing anything from diabetes to heart disease. Plus, exercise is fun! I think this is a smart approach, so wouldn’t some very smart people not only have the same philosophy but possibly be able excel at sports they play for exercise?</p>
<p>Why wouldn’t the converse of what the article states be true? “The kids with the fittest brains are the ones with the fittest bodies.”</p>
<p>My son’s val is the star football player. I think #2 in his class is a state ranked basketball player and soccer player. Good grief AZN don’t make generalizations, it’s ignorant and ■■■■■-ish…</p>
<p>This is actually not new information. There is a famous longitudinal study, I think called the Terman Study, that followed smart, jocks over many years. It disproved the nerd vs athlete idea and found that the kids who were smart also excelled in sports. I learned about this in school more than 30 years ago.</p>
<p>Overall, jocks recruited for the big revenue sports are signficantly behind their peers (in the general student body) with regard to academic achievement (not to say that there aren’t cases of high academic achievement among big revenue sports athletes, but they tend to be the exception).</p>
<p>And even among more obscure sports like lax or soccer, the academic achievements (particularly in HS) lag a bit behind their peers at the most selective universities/colleges.</p>
<p>The best write-up on the Terman study (which is probably NOT the study for the point mentioned) is </p>
<p>[Terman’s</a> Kids](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Termans-Kids-Groundbreaking-Study-Gifted/dp/0316788902/]Terman’s”>http://www.amazon.com/Termans-Kids-Groundbreaking-Study-Gifted/dp/0316788902/) by Joel Shurkin, which should be available in any good public or academic library and is a great read.</p>
<p>Ok, cool. So stop giving athletes preferential treatment in admissions, free tutoring/answers, and a million excused absences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All very true, and exactly the reasons why jocks have a reputation for being academically challenged. But in case 1 (mainly large, D-I schools), many people accept that a few superbly talented athletes can be admitted, not change the culture of the school, and bring all sort of other benefits to the college.</p>
<p>In case 2 (mostly selectiive, small D-III schools) the problem is almost the reverse. Once a college commits to fielding a football team, or lacrosse team, it takes a disproportionate % of the student body to field a team that’s competitive and doesn’t put the players in danger of physical harm. That often involves an academic compromise for a few position players, who, in turn, contribute to a program that can attract top scholar-athletes. </p>
<p>In other words, there’s no contradiction in beliveing that athletes, in general, perform at or above the level of their non-athletic peers, and recognizing that colleges, for other reasons, admit some athletes who are well below their peers academically.</p>