This discussion is closed.
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
The type of activity you have in PE - everyone playing rugby / football for 50 minutes - isn't necessarily well adapted to meeting the needs of those who do have more challenging needs, whether they are the result of mental or physical impairment. In reality, schools don't have very good sports facilities (some Conservatives thought it a good idea to sell off playing fields) and so the variety on offer in PE is limited and often serves to put people off physical activity. Bleep tests, soccer, and the inevitable humiliating shouts from a PE teacher who is incapable of teaching anything intellectually taxing? I think not. Evolution may have primed us for physical activity but it also created brain-dead PE teachers.
But again, what type of physical impairments are we talking about here? Being fat and useless isn't one, and is in fact the very thing that PE should cure.
0
Observatory
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 7 years ago
#62
He's sort of right - PE in this country means that the class plays a sport for an hour, at least that is what it was for me and everyone I knew. What you seem to be talking about is more like physical training, and that's not done partly because it is too labour intensive for supervision, and partly because it is seen as a cruel way to treat children (whether it is or not).

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
(some Conservatives thought it a good idea to sell off playing fields)
Not really. To start with playing fields aren't owned by Conservatives/the central government, they're owned by a hotch-potch of local government institutions and private organisations (the Church of England being the biggest) that own the schools, and while Labour required the approval of ministers to sell state school playing fields, they continued to sign off on hundreds of sales. So I don't see a partisan angle here at all frankly.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by Smack)
But again, what type of physical impairments are we talking about here? Being fat and useless isn't one, and is in fact the very thing that PE should cure.
That is not what I was referring to. Physical impairments are numerous and I'm pretty sure you can think of some. Being fat is not one I had in mind, you can be certain of that.
0
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
That is not what I was referring to. Physical impairments are numerous and I'm pretty sure you can think of some. Being fat is not one I had in mind, you can be certain of that.
Provide some examples of the type of physical impairment you're referring to, and explain why they are numerous in today's population yet weren't in the youth of older generations.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by Smack)
Provide some examples of the type of physical impairment you're referring to, and explain why they are numerous in today's population yet weren't in the youth of older generations.
Odd that you're so fervent on this subject. I never claimed that those with, for example, muscular dystrophy are more numerous in today's population than in the past. Simply, and I reiterate simply, that PE lessons are not adequate for the purpose. They do not encourage love of physical activity, nor do they particularly impart knowledge either. The youth of the past left school at 14 or 15 and went into physivcal jobs. That's why fitness levels were higher than today.
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
They do not encourage love of physical activity.
What are you on? I loved PE and I felt it encouraged me a lot
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by tehFrance)
What are you on? I loved PE and I felt it encouraged me a lot
And what intellect did it give you?
0
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Odd that you're so fervent on this subject. I never claimed that those with, for example, muscular dystrophy are more numerous in today's population than in the past. Simply, and I reiterate simply, that PE lessons are not adequate for the purpose. They do not encourage love of physical activity, nor do they particularly impart knowledge either. The youth of the past left school at 14 or 15 and went into physivcal jobs. That's why fitness levels were higher than today.
So are you claiming that PE isn't up to the job because it doesn't cater for the tiny, tiny minority of people born with legitimate physical disorders?

Are maths lessons that do not encourage the love of maths not fit for purpose either?
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#69
Report 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
And what intellect did it give you?
What does PE have to do with intellect? :holmes:
0
Matthew_Lowson
Badges: 17
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
What about Key Stage Five subjects (Which are AS, A-Levels) In most institutions there is at least one course (other than General Studies) that unless studied in depth by candidates must be studied in a short-course, i.e. 1 hour a week.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
(Original post by Smack)
So are you claiming that PE isn't up to the job because it doesn't cater for the tiny, tiny minority of people born with legitimate physical disorders?
No, not at all. My complaint is that PE does little for most people. There is a wide variety of sport that could be taught, which could grab attention from anyone, but instead we have PE which teaches merely soccer or rugby. We have PE staff who are bullies with a whistle. We have, in short, a subject unfit for purpose.

Are maths lessons that do not encourage the love of maths not fit for purpose either?
Essentially. Most people need very basic maths, fail to engage them there and the subject is defunct.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#72
Report 7 years ago
#72
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
And what intellect did it give you?
Ah Adorno, it's called sports science in some places now - it must give you knowledge and make you more intelligent because it's a science - it's no marketing ploy at all.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 7 years ago
#73
(Original post by toronto353)
Ah Adorno, it's called sports science in some places now - it must give you knowledge and make you more intelligent because it's a science - it's no marketing ploy at all.
But PE and sports science are quite distinct. Would that aspects of sports science actually form the basis of PE teaching schools. But no. Bullies with whistles instead. And thick bullies at that.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#74
Report 7 years ago
#74
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
But PE and sports science are quite distinct. Would that aspects of sports science actually form the basis of PE teaching schools. But no. Bullies with whistles instead. And thick bullies at that.
I don't know - they gave up with me quite early on when they released they weren't going to get anywhere or teach me anything.
0
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 7 years ago
#75
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
No, not at all. My complaint is that PE does little for most people. There is a wide variety of sport that could be taught, which could grab attention from anyone, but instead we have PE which teaches merely soccer or rugby. We have PE staff who are bullies with a whistle. We have, in short, a subject unfit for purpose.
If by "does little for most people" you mean "give them an easy ride" then yes. Some sports just aren't physically demanding enough to warrant being likely the week's sole bit of exercise to a majority overweight population.

It's unfortunate that athletics isn't more widely taught, though.

Essentially. Most people need very basic maths, fail to engage them there and the subject is defunct.
But some things just aren't going to be fun for some people. Maths is one of those things that many aren't going to like. It's just something that has to be learned whether it's engaging or not.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#76
Report 7 years ago
#76
(Original post by Smack)
If by "does little for most people" you mean "give them an easy ride" then yes. Some sports just aren't physically demanding enough to warrant being likely the week's sole bit of exercise to a majority overweight population.

It's unfortunate that athletics isn't more widely taught, though.



But some things just aren't going to be fun for some people. Maths is one of those things that many aren't going to like. It's just something that has to be learned whether it's engaging or not.
Athletics was one of the few sessions of PE that I enjoyed. I agree with you about athletics.
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report 7 years ago
#77
(Original post by Smack)
If by "does little for most people" you mean "give them an easy ride" then yes. Some sports just aren't physically demanding enough to warrant being likely the week's sole bit of exercise to a majority overweight population.

It's unfortunate that athletics isn't more widely taught, though.
What of swimmimg? Kayaking? Yes, athletics. What of a multitude of sports - I'm not thinking of darts here am I - that give different opportunities? PE as it is today is completely pointless no matter what people like you, who seem to be one of those who denounce anyone with a body fat over 10%, say.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#78
Report 7 years ago
#78
I think that PE is important for fostering other skills, such as team-working, confidence, non-academic and communication skills - it's character-building. It's also extremely healthy for an increasingly unfit population. However, I do agree that it's such a sensitive lesson insofar as it more closely judges people's physical abilities - I can imagine that it's not nice to be a fat lass running around for a guy with a whistle. That just requires reforming the way PE lessons are conducted, rather than abolishing it altogether.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 7 years ago
#79
(I should declare that I have a brother-in-law who studied sports science and did a PGCE in Primary Education).
0
tehFrance
Badges: 15
#80
Report 7 years ago
#80
(Original post by Smack)
It's unfortunate that athletics isn't more widely taught, though.
Unless it is just the school I went to in this country, athletics is taught greatly (not things like Javelin though, deemed too dangerous), we did more athletics than football and rugby.
(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
What of swimmimg? Kayaking?
Most schools don't have swimming pools or lakes for them to use in PE, it is unfortunate though as swimming is one of the best ways to get into shape.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (153)
59.3%
No I haven't decided yet (60)
23.26%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.44%

Watched Threads

View All