Jocks in High School end up work menial jobs?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the stereotype that high school athletes, particularly jocks, tend to end up in menial jobs after graduation, while non-athletes, or "nerds," are believed to achieve greater financial success. Participants explore various perspectives on the validity of this stereotype, examining the potential impacts of high school sports on future career outcomes, social skills, and intelligence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that jocks often end up in low-paying jobs, while others argue that their average income is comparable to non-athletes.
  • One viewpoint suggests that participation in sports fosters discipline and teamwork, which may lead to better job prospects.
  • Another participant claims that social skills gained through sports can outweigh intellectual capabilities in the job market.
  • Concerns are raised about the negative aspects of "jockism," including a potential lack of focus on academics and a tendency to pursue physically demanding jobs.
  • Counterexamples are provided, such as successful individuals from athletic backgrounds, challenging the stereotype.
  • Some participants argue that the stereotype is overly simplistic and does not account for individual differences in intelligence and ambition.
  • Discussions also touch on the financial implications of sports programs in universities, with differing opinions on their profitability and value to education.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the stereotype of jocks and their career outcomes. While some believe the stereotype holds true, others contest it, citing personal experiences and examples that contradict the generalization. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of predicting career success based on high school experiences, noting that many factors, including personal ambition and marketable skills, play a significant role. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about intelligence, social skills, and the impact of sports on future opportunities.

  • #31
Hey, at least I speak from experience. I used to be the nerd who hated jocks and thought they were all idiots who will be losers in life. Until I started actually playing sports. The "jocks" turned out to be normal guys and I got an increase in self-esteem since I started playing.

And it's not like kids are even taught anything in school these days. It's just lame busy work. Screw that. Let them have some fun.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
WarPhalange said:
Hey, at least I speak from experience. I used to be the nerd who hated jocks and thought they were all idiots who will be losers in life. Until I started actually playing sports. The "jocks" turned out to be normal guys and I got an increase in self-esteem since I started playing.

And it's not like kids are even taught anything in school these days. It's just lame busy work. Screw that. Let them have some fun.

Can't argue the second point. From my experience with sports, the jocks at both schools weren't very stupid, they were heavy drug users. Win a game? Let's get high. Get to state? A little coke won't hurt. But the schools I attend(ed) are strange, so probably just coincidence.
 
  • #33
moose said:
Those are the ones that stand out in your mind. There are many interviews with atheletes who speak perfectly fine. Once again, that's not what this thread has been about. This thread is about what kind of jobs they will have in the future.

Cyrus: Maddox has many amazing articles. Not sure if you've read them, but some of his stuff is hillarious.

The only one that stands out in my mind is Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling. He even has his own blog and he articulates on his sport pretty well. All the other ones resort to cliches formulated 1000000 years ago.
 
  • #34
moose said:
Those are the ones that stand out in your mind. There are many interviews with atheletes who speak perfectly fine. Once again, that's not what this thread has been about. This thread is about what kind of jobs they will have in the future.

Or, rather, it helps support the argument that dumb jocks don't end up in menial jobs. If they're on a pro-sports team, raking in big bucks, and getting interviewed for news sound bites, even if they are dumb as a brick, they're sure doing quite well for themselves. If a professional athlete who can't string a few words together to make a sentence DIDN'T participate in sports in high school, how successful would they be?
 
  • #35
Moonbear said:
Or, rather, it helps support the argument that dumb jocks don't end up in menial jobs.

It does support the argument that they're dumb though. At least most of them are.
 
  • #36
LightbulbSun said:
If you want evidence that most jocks are dumb, just listen to pre and post game interviews for professional athletes. They can't even articulate on their own sport without resorting to 10000000 year old cliches for christ sake.

Just because something is a cliche doesn't make it false. You can imagine interviewing a mathematician after he proves a theorem:

Mathematician: "And then I used induction on n..."

Viewer: "haha this guy can't even do math without resorting to 1000 year old tactics like induction. And then integration by parts? Man, so cliche."
 
  • #37
LightbulbSun said:
It does support the argument that they're dumb though. At least most of them are.

No, it really doesn't. A few pro-athletes who can't give a good interview 1) doesn't really mean they're dumb, just that they don't interview well (let's face it, some of those questions deserve cliche answers, "How did you feel when you fumbled the ball that lost the game?") and 2) doesn't mean all other or even a majority of other athletes are dumb. You might want to take some time to meet the athletes at your school to appreciate this.
 
  • #38
I don't know of any study tracking the lifetime earnings of jocks v. nerds, but I do think that the NCAA is a fundamentally bad organization. At top tier universities the student athletes bring in huge amounts of money. That money goes to all sorts of people and organizations, but per NCAA rules none of it goes directly to the athletes who are the principal earners of the money. IMO, that is just wrong.
 
  • #39
CareerBuilder.com asked over 6,000 full-time workers age 30 and older to categorize their high school persona, and then compared those personas in terms of job level, salary, industry and job satisfaction. Categories included personas such as student government, athlete, geek, honor society, cheerleader, drama club, teacher's pet and class clown.
...
Student government and honor society members and athletes ranked highest among those who earn an annual salary of $50,000 or more at 49 percent, 47 percent and 45 percent respectively.
...

Source: Study by Career Builder
 
  • #40
maze said:
Just because something is a cliche doesn't make it false. You can imagine interviewing a mathematician after he proves a theorem:

Mathematician: "And then I used induction on n..."

Viewer: "haha this guy can't even do math without resorting to 1000 year old tactics like induction. And then integration by parts? Man, so cliche."

There's a difference between a cliche in mathematics, and a cliche in sports.

Q: Thoughts on the upcoming season?
A: We want to win it all.

What a waste of time even asking the question. The person asked for thoughts, not goals.
 
  • #41
OrbitalPower said:
Plus, they have the added benefit of being from upper-class backgrounds, and thus have more connections.

What are you talking about? Why do you think that most jocks come from upper-class backgrounds? I don't think that most of them do.
 
  • #42
Moonbear said:
No, it really doesn't. A few pro-athletes who can't give a good interview 1) doesn't really mean they're dumb, just that they don't interview well (let's face it, some of those questions deserve cliche answers, "How did you feel when you fumbled the ball that lost the game?") and 2) doesn't mean all other or even a majority of other athletes are dumb. You might want to take some time to meet the athletes at your school to appreciate this.

I had a bad experience concerning athletes when I was in high school. Let's just say they didn't help any to disprove the stereotype.

I agree that sports journalists ask some of dumbest questions which only deserve a cliche in response.
 
  • #43
LightbulbSun said:
There's a difference between a cliche in mathematics, and a cliche in sports.

Q: Thoughts on the upcoming season?
A: We want to win it all.


What a waste of time even asking the question. The person asked for thoughts, not goals.

Whats wrong with that answer? What would you have responded with?
 
  • #44
maze said:
Whats wrong with that answer?

1. They didn't exactly answer the question. The question is not about what they want to accomplish, but just thoughts on the upcoming season.

2. If you're being ask to articulate a little, they should try not to resort to a cliche.
 
  • #45
maze said:
What would you have responded with?

A: Well, we're playing a tough schedule this year. Our opponents record is around .550 so to expect us to win 60% of our games is being a bit idealistic. I'm hoping that if we win at least 58% of them then we'll have a shot at the postseason, possibly the division. I just think when you combine the fact that we probably have the toughest schedule in the league, along with the fact that we didn't really make any significant upgrades, that you shouldn't be too idealistic about the outcome of this season.


Of course, if you were a professional athlete and you gave that type of answer you'd be chastised for it because only cliches will suffice.
 
  • #46
LightbulbSun said:
A: Well, we're playing a tough schedule this year. Our opponents record is around .550 so to expect us to win 60% of our games is being a bit idealistic. I'm hoping that if we win at least 58% of them then we'll have a shot at the postseason, possibly the division. I just think when you combine the fact that we probably have the toughest schedule in the league, along with the fact that we didn't really make any significant upgrades, that you shouldn't be too idealistic about the outcome of this season.


Of course, if you were a professional athlete and you gave that type of answer you'd be chastised for it because only cliches will suffice.

That answer (basically "dont get your hopes up") is a very bad mindset for a competitor to have. Not just sports, but anything compeititive (chess, etc). Tiger Woods (generally considered a pretty smart guy), had the following to say about that subject:

Interviewer: "Do you expect to win?"

Tiger: "I expect to win yes, always."

Interviewer: "Every time?"

Tiger: "Yes. It's just a belief you have to have. As an athlete, as a competitor, you have to have that belief in yourself."

Question is at about 1:20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
maze said:
That answer (basically "dont get your hopes up") is a very bad mindset for a competitor to have. Not just sports, but anything compeititive (chess, etc). Tiger Woods (generally considered a pretty smart guy), had the following to say about that subject:

Interviewer: "Do you expect to win?"

Tiger: "I expect to win yes, always."

Interviewer: "Every time?"

Tiger: "Yes. It's just a belief you have to have. As an athlete, as a competitor, you have to have that belief in yourself."

Question is at about 1:20


It doesn't matter what he believes, he should recognize that winning every time is near impossible. No amount of superman thinking could overcome that fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
LightbulbSun said:
It doesn't matter what he believes, he should recognize that winning every time is near impossible. No amount of superman thinking could overcome that fact.
No, if you are competing, you need to believe that you will win every time. It should be obvious that believing you will fail is not going to help you win.
 
  • #49
I'd bet that one of the jock's teammates could get him a job somewhere. Generally though, nerds make more money than average.

Can't a person be both a jock and a nerd?
 
  • #50
dimensionless said:
I'd bet that one of the jock's teammates could get him a job somewhere. Generally though, nerds make more money than average.

Can't a person be both a jock and a nerd?

What do you mean 'generally though nerds make more on average'.

No, they DONT. Where are you coming up with these bogus statistics?
 
  • #51
Where are yours?
 
  • #52
Evo said:
No, if you are competing, you need to believe that you will win every time. It should be obvious that believing you will fail is not going to help you win.

It's not believing you will fail. It's putting things into perspective. I don't understand how putting things into perspective suddenly makes you lose your competitive edge? :confused:
 
  • #53
LightbulbSun said:
It's not believing you will fail. It's putting things into perspective. I don't understand how putting things into perspective suddenly makes you lose your competitive edge? :confused:
To win you can't have doubts. You have to know that you are doing your best, you have to be doing your best. I work in an extremely competitive field where you have to win constantly in order to just keep your job. If you aren't the best and you don't know you are the best, you might as well quit. Winning as a living is the toughest thing you'll ever take on. There are high rewards, but there are high costs emotionally.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
Evo said:
To win you can't have doubts. You have to know that you are doing your best, you have to be doing your best. I work in an extremely competitive field where you have to win constantly in order to just keep your job. If you aren't the best and you don't know you are the best, you might as well quit. Winning as a living is the toughest thing you'll ever take on. There are high rewards, but there are high costs emotionally.

Hmmm...well as a competitor I was always the analyzer/putting things into perspective. It never really hurt my overall performance.
 
  • #55
Gokul43201 said:
Source: Study by Career Builder

Finally some stats! And, if we assume the usual 3% margin of error for survey results, that means the honor society members (i.e., nerds) and athletes are roughly doing equally as well as each other. Of course, there is some overlap in those groups too. We had several athletes in the honor society.

LightbulbSun said:
A: Well, we're playing a tough schedule this year. Our opponents record is around .550 so to expect us to win 60% of our games is being a bit idealistic. I'm hoping that if we win at least 58% of them then we'll have a shot at the postseason, possibly the division. I just think when you combine the fact that we probably have the toughest schedule in the league, along with the fact that we didn't really make any significant upgrades, that you shouldn't be too idealistic about the outcome of this season.


Of course, if you were a professional athlete and you gave that type of answer you'd be chastised for it because only cliches will suffice.

More important, your interview wouldn't be televised, because it wouldn't fit into the 15 sec space they have time to squeeze your sound bite into. Some of them are simply playing to what the reporters want.
 
  • #56
LightbulbSun said:
Hmmm...well as a competitor I was always the analyzer/putting things into perspective. It never really hurt my overall performance.
Really? I never had a loss in 5 years. Can you say that?

Seriously, I do not think you understand the competitive mindset. Read some books by people that are successful in sports. I don't like sports, but it will give you an idea how successful people think when they compete.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
WarPhalange said:
Where are yours?

Im not the one making outragous claims, you are. So back them up, sport.
 
  • #58
dimensionless said:
Generally though, nerds make more money than average.

Cyrus said:
No, they DONT.

Cyrus said:
Im not the one making outragous claims, you are. So back them up, sport.
Clearly, both of you have made equally unsubstantiated claims.
 
  • #59
LightbulbSun said:
It doesn't matter what he believes, he should recognize that winning every time is near impossible. No amount of superman thinking could overcome that fact.

I play ping pong in competitive events. You know how many times I've gone against someone who I knew was better than me, but I won because I knew in my head that I would win? In my mind, I was very sure that I would win, and wouldn't allow myself to make mistakes because of that. The moment you think "chances are I will lose, because this person has been a far better player than me", you will lose. If you make a slight, tiny mistake, you will think "Damn, what a great player he is, forcing me to make mistakes like that". I don't know if any of this is getting through to you, but I have won far more games than I should have, through mental aspects alone.

EDIT:
dimensionless said:
Generally though, nerds make more money than average.

Jocks become CEOs while the nerds are his minions.*

*Disclaimer, I'm making claims I cannot back up with anything. I may also be completely making things up to allow for further conversation... who knows.
 
  • #60
moose said:
I play ping pong in competitive events. You know how many times I've gone against someone who I knew was better than me, but I won because I knew in my head that I would win? In my mind, I was very sure that I would win, and wouldn't allow myself to make mistakes because of that. The moment you think "chances are I will lose, because this person has been a far better player than me", you will lose. If you make a slight, tiny mistake, you will think "Damn, what a great player he is, forcing me to make mistakes like that". I don't know if any of this is getting through to you, but I have won far more games than I should have, through mental aspects alone.

Hmmm I could come up with many examples (backed by performance data) of mediocre players remaining mediocre throughout their career, but people highly praised them because they had a mental edge to them. So how do you explain the countless examples of people considered to have a mental edge, but end up having a mediocre professional career?
 

Similar threads

News Surviving without College Education: The Struggle of High School Grads
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
10K
Graduate Is this a Formal (Statistical) Fallacy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Should I double up on math courses next school year?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Starfield: New First-Person Epic Role-Playing Game by BGS
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Does a college degree result in a job?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
News Would a 32 hour work week help create more jobs
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
Other Any Virtual Summer Research/Internships for High-school Graduates?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Engineering I’m having second thoughts about my job position. How can I proceed with it?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Math Should I Teach High School Before Pursuing a PhD?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Job Skills Recent BS in Comp Sci graduate looking to get into fusion
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K