This weekend, much of the nation is watching the Final Four. I was particularly glued to my seat yesterday to watch a couple of supposed underdogs, Butler and Virginia Commonwealth University, battle to see who would take on more traditional powers UConn or Kentucky in the college basketball championship.
Those programs are both headed by hot young coaches that universities will be throwing two to three million dollars toward, if not more, to try to lure them to head their basketball programs.
At the same time that all of this was going through my head, yesterday morning my father sent me an article written earlier in the week by Bill James, who generally is a well-regarded baseball writer and a member of the writers’ wing of the baseball hall of fame for his baseball history and statistics.
His article appeared in Slate Magazine and is excerpted from his latest book “Solid Fool’s Gold.” The article is entitled, “Shakespeare and Verlander: Why are we so good at developing athletes and so lousy at developing writers?” (For those unversed in baseball, Justine Verlander is a prominent pitcher for the Detroit Tigers).
Mr. James writes, “The population of Topeka, Kan., today is roughly the same as the population of London in the time of Shakespeare, and the population of Kansas now is not that much lower than the population of England at that time. London at the time of Shakespeare had not only Shakespeare—whoever he was—but also Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson, and various other men of letters who are still read today. I doubt that Topeka today has quite the same collection of distinguished writers.”
Why is this, he asks?
He argues there are two theories to explain this. “One is that the talent that assembled in Shakespeare’s London was a random cluster, an act of God to locate in this one place and time a very unusual pile of literary talent,” he argues. “The other theory is that there is talent everywhere; it is merely that some societies are good at developing it and other societies not so good.”
Mr. James takes the side that “London at that time was very, very good at calling out the literary talent of its citizenry, whereas most places and most times are not nearly so effective along this line.”
Thus he believes, “I believe that there is a Shakespeare in Topeka today, that there is a Ben Jonson, that there is a Marlowe and a Bacon, most likely, but that we are unlikely ever to know who these people are because our society does not encourage excellence in literature. That’s my opinion.”
It is a disconcerting thought and certainly one with some merit. Though I think for the sake of modesty, there is probably not a Shakespeare in Topeka. But we are certainly not getting all that we can out of the academic talent of our youth.
And I think his main point is right on. That “we are quite good at developing and rewarding inventiveness. We are pretty good at developing the skills necessary to run a small business—a fast food restaurant, for example. We’re really, really good at teaching people how to drive automobiles and how to find a coffee shop.”
But we are not good at developing great writers and he argues that this is because “we don’t need them.” He argues, “We still have Shakespeare. We still have Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson; their books are still around. We don’t genuinely need more literary geniuses. One can only read so many books in a lifetime.”
Skipping down here is the take-home point, at least for me. Why do we develop good athletes?
He argues the following: “First, we give them the opportunity to compete at a young age. Second, we recognize and identify ability at a young age. Third, we celebrate athletes’ success constantly. We show up at their games and cheer. We give them trophies. When they get to be teenagers, if they’re still good, we put their names in the newspaper once in a while. Fourth, we pay them for potential, rather than simply paying them once they get to be among the best in the world.”
Now I will point out there is more than just this. Because, when I was in school, I competed in various academic contests, won various awards, but unlike the athletes who were celebrated, the academic stars were mocked and called nerds.
So you learned that you had a choice, you either got stuffed into a locker or you hid your academic prowess from your fellow students. Now I understand that does not occur in Davis schools, but in most places that is reality.
We put millions of dollars of resources into athletics – and I am not putting them down, I am the biggest sports fan in the world. When we need a new football stadium the donors come out, but they do not come out to fix the roof of the high school multipurpose room.
They may come out to fund a new coach at a major university, but except in Davis, they do not come out to save the jobs of teachers.
Mr. James continues, however, “The average city the size of Topeka produces a major league player every 10 or 15 years. If we did the same things for young writers, every city would produce a Shakespeare or a Dickens or at least a Graham Greene every 10 or 15 years. Instead, we tell the young writers that they should work on their craft for 20 or 25 years, get to be really, really good—among the best in the world—and then we’ll give them a little bit of recognition.”
The average city may produce a major leaguer every 10 to 15 years, but not a Shakespeare or in this age a Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols who would be perhaps the equivalent to Shakespeare, or at least to Mark Twain.
Even Mark Twain, for all of his greatness, was a failure financially, whereas people like Albert Pujols will be looking to get paid $30 million for one single year.
Bill James makes some other interesting points as well.
He writes, “The sporting world, meanwhile, gets criticized constantly for what we do so well. People get squeamish about young people being “too competitive,” as if somehow this would damage their tender souls, and complain about the ‘undue attention’ that is focused on young athletes. The grossest example is on the issue of race.”
He then notes, “People in the sporting world in 1950 were just as racist as people in other parts of society—but people in the sporting world got over it a hell of a lot faster, because we cared more about winning than we did about discriminating.”
“Look, it’s not our fault that the rest of the world hasn’t kept up. It’s not our fault that there are still barriers to black kids becoming doctors and lawyers and airline pilots. Black kids regard the athletic world as a pathway out of poverty because it is. The sporting world should be praised and honored for that. Instead, we are more often criticized because the pathway is so narrow,” he writes.
He concludes, “We are very good at producing athletes, and maybe we are too good at producing athletes. Sometimes the cost is too high. We should do more to develop the next Shakespeare and less to develop the next Justin Verlander.”
But he adds, “But this situation is not a failing of the sporting world. Rather, it is that the rest of society has been too proud to follow our lead.”
And on that point I agree. We need to find a way to encourage not just the next Shakespeare, but the next Einstein, the next Locke, heck, even the next Bill Gates.
Instead, what we are doing is we are destroying what remains of our educational system in an effort to balance a temporary shortfall in the budget caused by the worst economic downturn in this nation in the last 80 years.
The Davis Enterprise, if they got one thing right, it is that we are all hurting economically. But despite this, we still have priorities. Educating the next generation should be our priority and it has been in Davis. We need to ensure that the rest of this nation follows Davis’ lead and we can preserve what is left of our educational system and our future.
If we don’t, we can forget about finding the next Shakespeare and we can forget about our future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Interesting article. Let me make some personal observations. To some extent, I think the “free market system” has been allowed to take over our universities, which has been to their detriment. Let’s face it, athletics is big in schools bc it often generates huge amounts of money when it comes to basketball and football. Colleges/universities have essentially become farm teams where talent is honed for professional athletics. Now the excuse for allowing this in universities is allegedly that big bucks gained from basketball/football brings in funding for other athletic programs. Which means it only perpetuates athletics, and not other academic disciplines. And frankly, from my limited experience, the funding mostly is plowed right back into the football/basketball program that generated the funding.
Also, society as a whole rewards athletes w big bucks. But it doesn’t reward good writers to the same extent, except for a very, very few writers like Rowlings (sp?) who invented the Harry Potter series that was successfully made into movies. Nor are writers rewarded in Hollywood much either. Certain mega-stars who recite the lines of the writers are paid millions, while the writers who gave the actors the lines to say are paid peanuts relatively speaking. A prime example of this inequity is Jay Leno of Tonight Show fame, who eventually crossed the picket lines of striking writers, when it became clear he could not continue his show if he didn’t. After all, the man only has an airplane hanger full of cars and motorcycles in his possession, one to ride for just about every day of the year.
So to is it in the music world. It is not uncommon for the composer of music to get paid peanuts, while the singer who croons the words is paid mega-millions. Society is not rewarding real talent, important achievements, as it does the faces that produce the achievement for mass consumption. Student athletes are having their images used in video games, but not reaping any of the profit from the sales of such products. They produce the talent, but the only monetary reward goes to the video game creators. Why? Bc 17 year old kids are forced to sign contracts that their images can be used for any purpose throughout the universe in exchange for the privilege of being allowed to play a team sport.
If you want good writing to be a top priority in colleges and universities, then you need society to pay top dollar for excellence in prose. But it seems as if certain groups like clothes designers, singers, actors, movie studios, athletes, athletic team owners, financiers have the market cornered for the big bucks, while scientists and writers are paid relatively modest salaries in comparison. I would argue society needs to have a better set of priorities…
“When we need a new football stadium the donors come out, but they do not come out to fix the roof of the high school multipurpose room.”
lol! thats quite ironic coming from you, because I remember arguing precisely that point with you and you had every excuse in the book as to why we needed a new stadium. If you had argued for something more important than the new stadium to begin with, maybe some pressure could have mounted to produce that roof or some other necessary expenditure. And the school board didn’t exactly try to push for something else either, which showed me their lack of leadership on this issue. And the davis schools foundation, if memory serves me correctly, also raised money for this rather than save it for something more important. you’re all culpable in my book.
its called priorities.
ERM
Well spoken. A new set of priorities would be great. I would also promote a new vision of “the American dream” not solely based upon economic achievement as would now seem to be the case, but rather of individual pride in how our unique abilities in whatever field, contribute positively to our society as a whole. OK , it’s Sunday and I am allowed to dream.
To Musser: Nice hit about the DHS issue!
To medwoman: To dare to dream is essential to achieving dreams!
To Musser: correction: Nice hit about the DHS stadium issue!
David Musser: “
lol! thats quite ironic coming from you, because I remember arguing precisely that point with you and you had every excuse in the book as to why we needed a new stadium. If you had argued for something more important than the new stadium to begin with, maybe some pressure could have mounted to produce that roof or some other necessary expenditure. And the school board didn’t exactly try to push for something else either, which showed me their lack of leadership on this issue. And the davis schools foundation, if memory serves me correctly, also raised money for this rather than save it for something more important. you’re all culpable in my book.”
You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I don’t have a problem with the stadium, it was a health hazard and it needed repair. My point was that people were willing to come forward and donate money to that which is a good thing, but people are not organizing to come forward to repair a MPR roof. The problem is the latter not the former.
dmg: “My point was that people were willing to come forward and donate money to that which is a good thing, but people are not organizing to come forward to repair a MPR roof. The problem is the latter not the former.”
Perhaps an indication of mixed up priorities?
[i]”I would also promote a new vision of “the American dream” not solely based upon economic achievement as would now seem to be the case, but rather of individual pride in how our unique abilities in whatever field, contribute positively to our society as a whole”[/i]
Hmm… well I see this as already being the dream achieved. You can pursue any profession or career in this country. Can you provide me an example of where this is not the case so I can understand your point?
I agree that high-quality education should be one of our top priorities. Athletics should be a component of education. Frankly, I learned more about how to grow and be prosperous from organized sports, than from my high school and college English classes.
JB: “I agree that high-quality education should be one of our top priorities. Athletics should be a component of education. Frankly, I learned more about how to grow and be prosperous from organized sports, than from my high school and college English classes.”
I don’t think the argument is for no sports, but for more balance. We need both – English and sports. But too much emphasis in this country has been placed on some sports, like men’s basketball and football at the college level, and perhaps even at the high school level, at the expense of English. And judging from the poor grammar that is used today, especially by our youth, I would say our mixed up sense of priorities is showing. If I hear the word “like” used one more time instead of a slight pause, I think I am going to scream!
[i]”If I hear the word “like” used one more time instead of a slight pause, I think I am going to scream!”[/i]
Elaine, I am with you on this point. Also on the need for balance. I worry about our boys though. They can’t help that God loaded them with testoterone and a need for physical activity. Title-IX and defunding athletics will accelerate the decline in their gradution rates.
Humans have not been designed to sit for hours listening to droning lectures… we need physical activity and interaction with the physical world to supplement our learning capability. Although extreme in his views, I think John Dewey was more right than wrong.
To Jeff Boone: You won’t get any argument from me that sports are important, especially for young men full of themselves. However, where I do draw the line is when large amounts of money are spent on the stadiums, and operating expenses of a few sports – namely football and basketball. I used to attend the U of MD, when Coach Lefty Dreisell made basketball a stunning game there. Completely turned around the program so we were close to No. 1. But in doing so, the school spent inordinate amounts of money on a new parking garage for the basketball arena, etc., while students had to park down by the cow barns in dirt lots. Can you imagine what it was like slogging through the muck back there on rainy days? Eventually Lefty would be fired for giving his players extra illegal perks. ‘Nuff said!
“You completely missed the point of what I was saying. I don’t have a problem with the stadium, it was a health hazard and it needed repair. My point was that people were willing to come forward and donate money to that which is a good thing, but people are not organizing to come forward to repair a MPR roof. The problem is the latter not the former.”
I know you don’t have a problem with the stadium. That is the problem. The MPR roof needed to come first, which means you, the davis schools foundation, and the school board all needed to come together to support that FIRST. but you did not. so your position here is quite hypocritical.
in short, your support for other things over althletics like the MPR roof is a day late, and a dollar short.
JB
No, I cannot provide an example of a career or profession that one cannot peruse since that had nothing to do with my point.
My point was that monetary gain seems to have replaced other values such as creativity, honesty, work or study for it’s own sake. Thus we tend to both idolize and disproportionately compensate athletes, a few top musicians, movie stars, and other entertainers while neglecting to nurture and reasonably compensate other professions.
[i]I know you don’t have a problem with the stadium. That is the problem. The MPR roof needed to come first, which means you, the davis schools foundation, and the school board all needed to come together to support that FIRST. but you did not. so your position here is quite hypocritical.[/i]
Hindsight is always 20-20.
I saw the school board meeting where this was decided. Twelve people got up during public comment to speak in favor of the stadium. Blue & White foundation spoke of matching funds. Not one person got up to speak against, or for either of the other two projects in the running — renovating Emerson and the DHS MPR. If you are indeed prescient, then please show up at a school board meeting the next time and explain that and say something.
[i] London at the time of Shakespeare had not only Shakespeare—whoever he was—but also Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson, and various other men of letters who are still read today.[/i]
Back to the original commentary. First, I wonder if Shakespeare’s work was valued for more than entertainment in his time. Keep in mind that neither Shakespeare nor Marlowe were from London originally. They moved there, because that is where they could develop their careers.
In a similar way, though, it’s possible that future generations will comment about how George Lucas, Martin Scorcese, Stephen Spielberg, and Francis Ford Coppola all ended up in Hollywood at about the same time and made all those good movies. When their movies have come out, I think few thought of them much more than entertainment. It’s possible that they will be studied as art for many years to come. But they have certainly earned plenty of money for themselves and others. Art isn’t quite dead yet.
[i]”My point was that monetary gain seems to have replaced other values such as creativity, honesty, work or study for it’s own sake. Thus we tend to both idolize and disproportionately compensate athletes, a few top musicians, movie stars, and other entertainers while neglecting to nurture and reasonably compensate other professions.”[/i]
medwoman: I don’t think I understand your point here. Steve Jobs is a very creative and reasonably honest person that has done work for his own sake and made a lot of money. I think the money is/was secondary to the thing he wanted to accomplish… as is the case with most people that earn a lot of money.
What other professions are not reasonably compensated?
“Perhaps an indication of mixed up priorities?”
Perhaps but I found Bill James story compelling, the problem is not what sports people do, it is what non-sports people do not do.
wdf1: “I saw the school board meeting where this was decided. Twelve people got up during public comment to speak in favor of the stadium. Blue & White foundation spoke of matching funds. Not one person got up to speak against, or for either of the other two projects in the running — renovating Emerson and the DHS MPR. If you are indeed prescient, then please show up at a school board meeting the next time and explain that and say something.”
The problem I have w this analysis is twofold: 1) DJUSD did know about the problems w the MPR and Emerson at the same time they were touting the fix for the stadium. They chose to fix the stadium first. 2) Citizens rely on their school board to make those kinds of judgments, as better informed about those things that need fixing. Fixing the stadium first, rather than the MPR, was a bad mistake, showed a poor grasp of proper priorities, and had nothing to do w “hindsight”…
I agree with elaine. the school board is culpable here. if they had told the residents about more pressing needs, then they would have fixed the stadium instead. The school board determines what needs fixing and what does not. they are the gate keepers. and like the decision to close valley oak, showed screwed up priorities and recklessness with our money.
correction, I meant fixed the MPR instead.
[i]2) Citizens rely on their school board to make those kinds of judgments, as better informed about those things that need fixing. Fixing the stadium first, rather than the MPR, was a bad mistake, showed a poor grasp of proper priorities, and had nothing to do w “hindsight”…[/i]
But we also expect our elected officials to respond to the voiced concerns of the constituents.
In this case, what also surprised me was not the lack of discussion over the MPR, but the lack of advocacy for upgrading Emerson. Emerson parents and staff had come to school board meetings before to speak on upgrading Emerson, but failed to show up on the vote that counted.
JB
Teachers, many preachers, home health care aides, nursing assistants, field workers …..just to name a few. Basically anyone who puts in a full days work, often at hard physical or emotional labor necessary or more valuable to our society than many of our entertainers or celebrities, but who barely make a living wage is not reasonably compensated in my opinion.
JB: [i]What other professions are not reasonably compensated?[/i]
In agreement with medwoman, teachers help create wealth that they may never directly get compensated for.
medwoman/wfd1: Only the great teachers are not paid enough in my opinion. You can thank the union mentality for making seniority and the achievement of useless higher degrees the only measurement that varies pay. To calculate their fair pay, you also have to consider the total value of their benefits and the 9.5 month work year… but I agree that the great teachers are worth more than they are paid.
However, that misses the main point. You are not born to a profession like you are born with a skin color. If you are not paid enough then find another employer or career. If the employers for this positions cannot find enough qualified employees at the compensation they are offering, they will naturally raise their rates of pay to the level that attracts enough candidates.
Getting back to the teacher issue… If K-12 education was privatized, you would see plenty of six-figure salaried teachers. They would be the great teacher in demand with private education companies competing to hire them.
You and others seem to disregard market forces and the fact that we are all free to chose our profession. I love how people enter these lower paying processions and then become victims of being undercompensated. Frankly, it is a lazy and risk-averse approach to whine about compensation. Go do something else that pays more if you are that unhappy! It is a current left-leaning mindset to legislate fairness based on some social-value measure… and it is just Marxism in hemp clothing. It foments a form of laziness that destroys a society.
You cannot simply say that an athlete or actor is not worth what they are paid. These extraordinary talented people by their pursuits create hundreds and thousands of jobs for others.
I have discussions with my sons about their career choices. The key is that they be happy doing what they love to do… and as long as they can make enough to have the lifestyle they want, things will be fine. However, if they chose a career that does not compensate them enough for them to be happy with their lifestyle, then it might not be a viable career, and they need to start thinking of something else to do.
[i]Getting back to the teacher issue… If K-12 education was privatized, you would see plenty of six-figure salaried teachers. They would be the great teacher in demand with private education companies competing to hire them.[/i]
There already are private schools in the U.S. Apparently they are of value to the parents who pay for them, mostly wealthier parents. Within that private school system, are there better teachers who regularly make 6-figure salaries?
Because if there are, then your argument begins to make sense. But usually I hear that private schools pay less and have lower standards for teachers.
wdf1: Here is a good reseach study on this topic.
[url]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/pdf/teacher_compensation.pdf[/url]
The problem with looking at data trends for proof is that there is still a lack of competition as the vast majority of kids are captive customers of the public school monopoly. Instead of requiring evidence of data that do not exist, just consider all other for-profit industries that compete to hire the best and brightest… they have to compete on a great number of things… compensation being one.
It is really quite a simple concept. Consumer choice creates competition which increases the value-proposition of the product or service being sold (because the low and marginal competitors go out of business). Those employees best able to help a successful company succeed will be rewarded the most.
There is a supply-demand issue too… if there are a large supply of quality teachers, then they won’t be able to demand as high of pay than they might in a short supply. I think there is currently a short supply of quality teachers, and if the K-12 education “industry” was privatized, the quality teachers would be better off… both in gross compensation and a myriad of other tangible and intanglible things that would cause them to be more satisfied with their career choice.
Note also that the compensation data on private schools includes many church-connected schools with small budgets and big hearts.
Jeff B: I think what is working against having a competition based education is a strong desire for families to attend a neighborhood school. A school is a local center of neighborhood activity. It is a way to meet neighbors and playmates for your kids. I think you assume that parents would be absolutely open to traveling more significant distances out of a local neighborhood than they would prefer.
When you have a resource that is neighborhood based, then I think you’ll get something a little more “socialist” than you’d like.
I’m disappointed that your link didn’t show any instance of extraordinary salaries (6 figures).
The way I see it, there are bound to be some exclusive and expensive prep schools that almost guarantee their graduates a ride to a college of their choice. I figure if such a school can do that, then their faculty might be worth something a little more extraordinary than a public school salary scale.