I agree with some, but not all, of the sentiments expressed by John Donegan in “Participation trophies” (April 8). I don’t like the idea of mindlessly handing out trophies to one and all.
On the other hand, I recall that when my oldest son was 9 years old and played an entire season of Little League baseball without winning a single game, the coach got all the kids and parents together for an end of year pizza party and handed out cheap little trophies to every kid. He managed to find something positive to say about every kid. The kids had worked reasonably hard with little to show for it, and my take then and now was that the little award ceremony showed them that their efforts and accomplishments were significant and noticed, even though they may not have shown up on the scoreboard.
When my son was 12, the team, with many of the same players, won their league championship. Was it because of the award ceremony (which was repeated every year)? Probably not, but who knows? In any case, I loved it. I would have been fine without the trophies, but I liked the recognition of effort and improvement.
Certainly, I would not want to be treated by a doctor who failed his classes, but this seems like a straw man, since nobody is suggesting this kind approach. I get the argument that maybe too much importance is attached to “self-esteem” at times, but that doesn’t mean that kids who struggle should be kicked to the curb. When I was growing up, not everybody made the team, even in recreational leagues. Kids who were small, unathletic, or inexperienced often got no chance to play on organized teams. Today, any kid who is willing to try can usually find a place to play and learn.
I can relate to Donegan regarding his guitar. I have been playing for years without the benefit of a lot of talent, but I enjoy it, and I plan to keep doing it. Every now and then I find a willing (or maybe just polite) listener and/or somebody else to play with, both of which add to my enjoyment. I also play golf badly, and thanks to the handicap system, I occasionally win.
At this point I don’t need any trophies, but for 9-year-old kids, maybe they help to motivate them to keep trying. If so, I’m good with that.
Bob Dignan
SLO
This article appears in Apr 15-25, 2021.
Who in the heck even cares about trophies? If you want one go ahead and get one. Start handing them out on street corners. I see absolutely no harm in that. I think it will be fun. Blue ribbons also. They are cheap enough. it’s not like we don’t have enough for everybody. If you want one, have one. No problem. 🏆 🏆🏆🏆🏆👌
Mr.Dignan is hopefully correct when he says that no “participation trophies” are being advocated to turn incompetent medical students into doctors, but they are being used to turn incompetent law students into lawyers. Starting last summer, the passing grade on the Bar exam was lowered so that more aspirants could achieve their dreams of being lawyers. Apparently, the powers that be felt that too many were being disappointed by the previous standards, so they lowered them to “fair”. This lowering of standards doesn’t seem to be addressing any public need, as I have never heard anyone complain of a shortage of incompetent lawyers, or of lawyers generally. And I have noted that many colleges are doing away with using objective criteria like test scores in admissions, because demonstrating competence seems problematic for many educational aspirants. “Trophyism” is thriving.
It is ironic that some of the very same people who constantly complain their freedoms are being taken and regulations are oppressive are now wanting to see policies enacted that make it more difficult for minorities to become lawyers.
What the heck do trophies have to do with passing the bar or becoming a doctor? Once again false equivalencies are being promoted to oppress minorities and divide our community.
@rightword; Should standards be lowered to enable anyone, minority or not, to be licensed as a doctor or lawyer? No one has suggested that it should be made harder for a minority to become a doctor or a lawyer, only that ALL aspirants should objectively demonstrate the same necessary skill level. Suggesting that standard be lowered in order to obtain a desired racial proportion is itself racist, as it assumes that some groups are incapable of obtaining and demonstrating the necessary skills. It also assumes that the minority communities that may be served by underqualfied doctors and lawyers are somehow less deserving of medical and legall competence.
Instead of focusing on race, focus on making sure that the standards match the task and are fair to all. I’m not suggesting lowering any standards. I’m suggesting keeping them where they are unless we have good reason to change them.
Nevertheless, it’s conservative extremists who continue to complain about regulations except when they tend to oppress minorities. It’s part of the systemic racism that we hear so much about but don’t do nearly enough to recognize and cull from our society.
Is it really too much to ask that standards be fair for everyone and not be inherently unfair to certain segments of our community? Why is that so difficult for some people to accept?
How is requiring EVERYONE to demonstrate the same minimum level of knowledge and competence “systematically racist”? The licensing testing covers the knowledge which is required to competently practice law or medicine, and all of the”cures” proposed for “systemic racism” involve lowering standards. The core principle of affirmative action is lowering the bar for certain aspirants to achieve the desired quota. Why do minority communities deserve less competent doctors and lawyers? The primary reason that government is empowered to regulate is to ensure public safety.
The laws and regulations regarding obtaining credentials to practice law in California ARE the same for everyone. I don’t know of anyone posting here who is suggesting that be changed.
Trying to reframe the situation to promote bigoted attitudes and denial of systemic racism is not helping anyone in the long run.
Let’s focus on love and compassion and uplifting those who have been less fortunate and underserved.
A brighter day is coming. We have so much to be grateful for. Love all, serve all.
@rightword: YOU were the one who suggested that objections to lowering the standards for the Bar exam were an effort to “make it more difficult for minorities to become lawyers”. It was not mentioned in the column about “trohpy-ism” – it was a connection that YOU made. It really comes down to the issue of what the purpose of professional licensing should be: An effort to protect the public by requiring that at least a minimal level of professional competence be demonstrated, or instead just a process to ensure that everyone got their “fair share” of professional licenses.
Sorry, I’m not in a position to evaluate the effectiveness of the state bar examination system. I’m not sure if you are approving of it or are critical of it, but I will leave it to others to make final decisions on whether there needs to be any substantive changes in the standards to make them fair and equitable. I will let the lawyers argue it out. That’s pretty much their specialty.
By the way, this is not about me. Im just a messenger. And, yeah, I do misspell things. But I wont blame that on my teachers who taught me to write. They tried to teach me better but proofreading I denied. That leaves only be to blame cuz my teachers tried.
Rightword2 has his head up it’s ass
Dude, it’s not about me. I’m just the messenger.