Jocks in High School end up work menial jobs?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the stereotype that high school athletes, particularly jocks, end up in low-paying jobs, while nerds achieve greater financial success. Participants argue against this notion, suggesting that jocks often develop valuable skills such as teamwork, discipline, and self-esteem, which can lead to career success. Some assert that high school experiences are poor predictors of future success, emphasizing that many athletes go on to have fulfilling careers outside of sports. The conversation also touches on the financial implications of college sports, with some arguing that sports programs can be a financial burden on educational institutions. Overall, the stereotype of jocks failing in the workforce is challenged by examples of successful individuals from athletic backgrounds.
stickythighs
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Throughout my life, I've heard and read many people assert that the jocks in high school (football players, basketball players, and wrestlers more so than other sports, I think) almost invariably wind up having minimum wage, menial labor type of jobs when they go into the real world. And people often say that the nerds in high school make more money in the real world than the jocks. The only example I can think of off-hand from pop culture of this stereotype is when a guy who is being interviewed in the documentary Bowling For Columbine basically states this stereotype.

I don't believe that jocks tend to wind up making substantially less money than the average high school graduate. I imagine that the average income of the average former high school football player is approximately the same as the average income of the average person who never played high school football. What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stickythighs said:
Throughout my life, I've heard and read many people assert that the jocks in high school (football players, basketball players, and wrestlers more so than other sports, I think) almost invariably wind up having minimum wage, menial labor type of jobs when they go into the real world. And people often say that the nerds in high school make more money in the real world than the jocks. The only example I can think of off-hand from pop culture of this stereotype is when a guy who is being interviewed in the documentary Bowling For Columbine basically states this stereotype.

I don't believe that jocks tend to wind up making substantially less money than the average high school graduate. I imagine that the average income of the average former high school football player is approximately the same as the average income of the average person who never played high school football. What do you think?

They probably make more money than a person of similar intelligence that never played a team sport. They learned some discipline and how to work as a team, which is a good asset in any career.

I think the stereotype is based on the idea that a person with below average intelligence can still be very successful in a very physical sport (Mike Tyson in boxing would be the perfect example even though he's not a football player). He's unlikely to duplicate the success he had in sports, but he'll still be more successful than other guys of his intelligence (well, except for Mike Tyson).

Besides, the stereotype definitely falls apart for football players with average or above average intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Jocks end up more successful because they gain self-esteem by playing sports. They get used to both winning and losing so they aren't afraid to take risks. They learn how to work in a team.

More often than not, social skills > intellect. I see smart people all the time stuck in crappy jobs because they are too afraid to risk asking for a raise, risk switching jobs, or whatever. Or they don't want to deal with people, etc.
 
Jockism can be both positive and negative, like anything.

First of all not all jocks have good "social skills." Social skills means you can often discuss things intelligently, make witty points, make poignant points, ramble on about your business, and so on.

This often comes with a thorough understanding of art, history, business, English, etc.

Anyway, the negative is that jocks will be too unfocused on anything outside of sports etc., and will wind up in muscle bound jobs like a mover or a refidgerator repairman, maybe a plumber.

The positive is that they will have good self-esteem and good social skills, when they are able to control their tempers and so on, and with their charisma and self-confidence they will major in business and do good.

Plus, they have the added benefit of being from upper-class backgrounds, and thus have more connections.

It's really a gamble though, some jocks do fail, and fail hard.
 
Wow, sterotypes just go on and on in here so far.

The biggest guy in our football team in high school ended up going to Harvard. I don't think he's going to be lifting and fridges...

This is yet another poor question, like the one about making a book if the world ended.
 
Last edited:
One guy doesn't disprove a stereotype. From my experience the stereotype is true.

I think they should get sports out of school, esp. at public Universities. My University has lost millions on the football team, and studies of revenues show there is similar connection at other places.

A school is a place to learn, not for taxpayers to subsidize certain sports.
 
A guy on our Univ. football team was a fellow engineer.

You ARE making sterotypes.

I would say the majority of them end up like anyone else, normal jobs normal pay.
 
Lost millions? I was under the impression that the only reason sports are at universities is so that they gain millions. Universities aren't charities, they wouldn't do it "for the benefit of the students" if it costed them millions a year.

And sports teach plenty. They teach that you can't always win in life and NO, not everyone is "special". Some people just suck at a particular thing and need to make up for it. Sports build character.
 
Lot's of things "build character," that doesn't mean the government should subsidize them.

For many Universities they only make profits after you include the state subsidies (like for stadiums) and tuition fees that go to sports, a lot of which come from the public endowment. Take them away, and the school sports actually LOSE money.

If they're all profitable, I would gladly support them running them PRIVATELY, with absolutely zero help from tax payers -- and those that can't succeed will fail. You'd probably lose half of college football teams.
 
  • #10
No, the stereotype isn't true. There are plenty of intelligent athletes too. Indeed, those who balance schoolwork and athletic training well, and earn the recognition of scholar-athletes are really likely to go far.

Are there "dumb" jocks? Sure. There are also plenty of dumb non-jocks around. If anything, someone who has no other marketable skills might benefit from athletics to develop some marketable skills like being a good member of a team. And, not all high school athletes continue athletics beyond then, it's just the way they spend their spare time in high school. I've had med students who were on track teams, I have colleagues who were high school football and baseball players, my boyfriend is a lawyer and was on his high school wrestling team, the quarterback of my high school football team was in my honors classes with me. Heck, even the non-athlete kid in my high school class who we thought was most likely to spend his life cleaning gas station bathrooms wound up filthy rich as a stock broker much to everyone's shock (he seemed to divide his time in high school between cutting classes and in-school suspension).

In the long run, high school experiences in general seem to be a pretty lousy predictor of what people end up doing with their lives, the jobs they get, and how successful they are. My class valedictorian is working as a chemical engineer, but in a dead end job that he's content to stay in...for all the ambition he had in high school, he no longer has that ambition to advance in his career now.
 
  • #11
OrbitalPower said:
Lot's of things "build character," that doesn't mean the government should subsidize them.

That's just stupid. Public schooling is about education and sports do things that book learnin' can't. If anything, it should be expanded, along with music and other "humanities" extra curricular activities.

For many Universities they only make profits after you include the state subsidies (like for stadiums) and tuition fees that go to sports, a lot of which come from the public endowment. Take them away, and the school sports actually LOSE money.

A lot of things take place in the stadiums, not just sports. Have fun telling all the parents that their kids' graduation ceremony is taking place in the parking lot.

If they're all profitable, I would gladly support them running them PRIVATELY, with absolutely zero help from tax payers -- and those that can't succeed will fail. You'd probably lose half of college football teams.

I'm wondering how fast the first major school that stops its sports programs closes down.
 
  • #12
OrbitalPower said:
One guy doesn't disprove a stereotype. From my experience the stereotype is true.

I think they should get sports out of school, esp. at public Universities. My University has lost millions on the football team, and studies of revenues show there is similar connection at other places.

A school is a place to learn, not for taxpayers to subsidize certain sports.
People who end up with crappy jobs are ones who don't go to college and/or don't have any drive. Many jocks go to college and are very driven (doesnt need to be an academic drive). Some don't go to college but still go out and do something and end up with a decent job.

Well, at my university football and basketball make a profit, so no money is shifted away from academics to go towards football. This, by the way, has NOTHING to do with this thread. Not sure why you brought that up.

I also know of several jocks who didn't follow up with sports in college, but are in various frats. Say what you will about fraternities, but they make a ton of connections.

EDIT: Yeah, this means every sports team other than football and basketball require additional funds. Do I care? No. I'm glad we have those sports. A university isn't strictly for academic learning. If we didn't have sports apart from football and basketball, the popularity of the school would go down.

EDIT2: Sports also help keep alumni interested in their alma matter.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
It doesn't take a "stadium" to have a graduation cermony. The better colleges around here (i.e., the private ones) do not have any sports team.

And can you show a study confirming that there is a huge amount of education experience that comes from sports?
 
  • #14
moose said:
I also know of several jocks who didn't follow up with sports in college, but are in various frats. Say what you will about fraternities, but they make a ton of connections.

Which is very important in business and law, etc. More important than what you learn in class, definitely.
 
  • #15
moose said:
I also know of several jocks who didn't follow up with sports in college, but are in various frats. Say what you will about fraternities, but they make a ton of connections.

EDIT: Yeah, this means every sports team other than football and basketball require additional funds. Do I care? No. I'm glad we have those sports. A university isn't strictly for academic learning. If we didn't have sports apart from football and basketball, the popularity of the school would go down.

The fact that so many sports teams lose money, particuarly third-tier Universities (which you can google, there are numerous studies out there confirming this), is indeed a very bad thing because that money could go to real academics.

It has to do with the thread because a lot of these guys get into college in the first place in academic scholarships, taking the place of people who are more qualified for academic life.
 
  • #16
OrbitalPower said:
And can you show a study confirming that there is a huge amount of education experience that comes from sports?

Some of it is simply the community bonding experience of everyone going to a game and cheering for the school team.

Just having the motivation and stamina to try-out for a team, get through practice, and stay on the team are indicators one will be successful later in life. People who like to sit on their butt and not work too hard and content with mediocrity rather than striving for success don't tend to be attracted to sports, and are likely to wind up in menial jobs.
 
  • #17
stickythighs said:
Throughout my life, I've heard and read many people assert that the jocks in high school (football players, basketball players, and wrestlers more so than other sports, I think) almost invariably wind up having minimum wage, menial labor type of jobs when they go into the real world. And people often say that the nerds in high school make more money in the real world than the jocks. The only example I can think of off-hand from pop culture of this stereotype is when a guy who is being interviewed in the documentary Bowling For Columbine basically states this stereotype.

I don't believe that jocks tend to wind up making substantially less money than the average high school graduate. I imagine that the average income of the average former high school football player is approximately the same as the average income of the average person who never played high school football. What do you think?

I think it depends on the person and their connections. Tons of jocks that I knew growing up ended up working for family businesses or used their family ties to get good jobs. Also, depending on the town, playing football for a certain school can be an "in" to some companies. Of course, there are plenty of jocks who don't go to college and don't have any of these connections. So, I think it comes down to a lot more than what you do in high school.
 
  • #18
OrbitalPower said:
It doesn't take a "stadium" to have a graduation cermony. The better colleges around here (i.e., the private ones) do not have any sports team.

Private = better?

And can you show a study confirming that there is a huge amount of education experience that comes from sports?

LOL someone's never played sports eh?

For one physical activity increases endorphin levels in the brain which makes you happy, and supplies oxygen, which will also let you think better. By having sports at dedicated time slots, kids will consistently get benefits from it.

Second of all, I don't know if you've jut been ignoring me or what, but I keep telling you kids learn that losing is a part of life and learn to shrug failure off when it happens. They also develop better concentration skills and learn how to work in a team.

No, that's not the same as working in a team on a project, because when you do it while playing sports, you are constrained for time and under adrenaline. You basically learn to trust people.

What, are you like 500lbs or something? Didn't you ever play sports? Even for fun?
 
  • #21
I used to played sports all the time, including basketball, but now not so much...

I live in Salt Lake City, Utah and like to snowboard, getting a season pass every year and I go up about 30 to 40 times a year.

I also ran track and run at Olympus High school every weekend to this day.

That doesn't mean I want the government to subsidize my activity because it stimulates brain activity, or "builds skills."

You could give that "stimulating brain activity" argument for anything. Numerous psychologists have also noted a vast amount of conformatiy, hysterical jingoism, and other unthinking traits that are common of sports and actually recommend only a moderate amount of sporting activity.

Just because I don't want the government subsidizing my sports doesn't mean I'm overweight. That's ridiculous.
 
  • #22
I also love how much sports bring everyone together. There is nothing better than being at the student section of the stadium during a home football game.

People who think that colleges should be strictly for academic studies (going to class, studying your textbook, etc), usually (I'm making an assumption) are the ones who will never get ahead in their careers. They might be making millions for the company, but they sure as hell aren't seeing any of the money.

EDIT: The government uses tax money on many things far worse and less logical than sports.
 
  • #23
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.
 
  • #24
Daniel Y. said:

hahaha.

I agree with Maddox completely.

Interestingly, he attended the same school I go to now.

Cyrus said:
Who wrote that website, some loser from high school that's holding a 10 year grudge? Probably still a loser in life as an adult.

LOL. His name is George Ouzounian, he lives here in Salt Lake and he's probably made more money from his book than you ever will.

My name is Jerry Wick and I attend the U as well.

If you want proof that not everybody thinks the government should subsidize sporting events you're free to look either of us up and come visit any time.
 
  • #25
OrbitalPower said:
Just because I don't want the government subsidizing my sports doesn't mean I'm overweight. That's ridiculous.

You just seemed like the typical "I got wedgies so I hate sports boo hoo" type of nerd. Those are the people who never play sports and say how much they hate them.
 
  • #26
OrbitalPower said:
hahaha.

I agree with Maddox completely.

Interestingly, he attended the same school I go to now.



LOL. His name is George Ouzounian, he lives here in Salt Lake and he's probably made more money from his book than you ever will.

My name is Jerry Wick and I attend the U as well.

If you want proof that not everybody thinks the government should subsidize sporting events you're free to look either of us up and come visit any time.

Oh boy, he made more money than I EVER will! Woop----------de--------doo.
 
  • #27
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.

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.
 
  • #28
WarPhalange said:
You just seemed like the typical "I got wedgies so I hate sports boo hoo" type of nerd. Those are the people who never play sports and say how much they hate them.

Wow, if you don't agree with sweeping statements about jocks being idiots, you're certainly doing enough to create your own stereotypes. :smile:
 
  • #29
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.

Yeah the one about women wearing red lipstick looking like ronald mcDonald made laugh! Some of it is good :smile:
 
  • #30
Daniel Y. said:
Wow, if you don't agree with sweeping statements about jocks being idiots, you're certainly doing enough to create your own stereotypes. :smile:

Fair AND balanced...
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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?
 
Back
Top