Children Need To Play Not Compete

In “Children Need to Play, Not Compete” by Jessica Statsky, argues that children need to have fun in the games they play, not compete in them. She talks about how parents push their children into being competitive and some try to live through them. That then causes the kids to not like the game because they get hurt. Statsky says that children complain their stomachs hurt and force themselves to throw up so they do not have to play in the game. Not all Statsky says is bad, she does claim towards the end that some kids choose to play competitive sports because they want to. Lastly, Statsky says they may benefit from the competitive sports they choose to play, but others may be better off and gain more benefits from just learning to have fun …show more content…
In “More Testing, More Learning”, O’Malley gives many reasons as to why giving more tests would benefit the child. Where in “Children Need to Play, Not Compete”, Statsky does not seem to give an abundance of reasons as to why children need to play and not compete. O’Malley says “..they provide feedback to students on how well they are doing..” (O’Malley 484). She also claims it will “..improve their study habits” (O’Malley 485) and “They would study more regularly..” (O’Malley 484). The more they study, then the higher the grade they will receive. O’Malley believes the more tests that are given, the more people will study and will know just how hard and much they need to study because of the feedback given. She also states how it will reduce stress levels and decrease the anxiety in someone that would typically have high stress and anxiety right before a test worth so much. O’Malley gives all this reasoning as to why more testing is needed. Statsky in “Children Need to Play, Not Compete” says that in competitive sports “..children can be both physically and psychologically harmful” (Statsky 349). She says how kids will fake sickness and just not want to play because they’re not having fun. Statsky also states that competitive sports are “..highly selective, very few children get to participate” (Statsky 351). She believes that kids will feel like the failed and have …show more content…
In “More Testing, More Learning”, O’Malley gives arguments against what arguments could be made against his proposal. Where in “Why Not a Football Degree?”, Shughart doesn’t give any. O’Malley says “Some believe that such exams take up too much of the limited class time..” (O’Malley 485). She then backs that argument up with one of her own. She says that taking a short exam only once a week is only “..one-fifth of each week’s class time” (O’Malley 485). O’Malley also says that someone may give the argument that “..they take too much time to read and grade” (O’Malley 486). She then argues that they could just read over the quickly, use a scantron so they don’t even have to read or grade it, or they could make them really short. Lastly, another argument that could be given against her proposal she says is “..frequent exams seem to some professors to create too many problems..” (O’Malley 486). She then says to argue that “..implement a program that would improve study skills” or “..provide frequent study questions for students to study” (O’Malley 486). O’Malley’s proposal and argument was best because he argued against what could have been argued against him. In “Why Not a Football Degree?” Shughart just argues why “..four-year degree programs in football and basketball..” (Shughart 460) are needed. Also, why athletic scholarships need extended time beyond just the two years and