Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The studies I've seen involved HS students (and, in at least one case, 8th graders) -- it's not just a college issue.

But, yes, I agree it's not a question of athletics per se. Which is why the "no required sports" = "druggier school/kids" equation doesn't make any sense to me.

Ok, how about this: no required sports=higher than average number of students with free afternoons=druggier school

Doesn't work very well at schools with highly motivated kids who tend to be involved in extra-curriculars. Not a lot of slackers at GDS they would have been counseled out in Middle School.

We've already had the "idle hands are the devil's workshop/ playground" discussion.

There's a wealth of other activities and obligations that keep GDS kids busy in the afternoons (and evenings). They're not living the kinds of lives where if you don't have a team practice, you have nothing to do -- except maybe drugs.

Anonymous wrote:The studies I've seen involved HS students (and, in at least one case, 8th graders) -- it's not just a college issue.

But, yes, I agree it's not a question of athletics per se. Which is why the "no required sports" = "druggier school/kids" equation doesn't make any sense to me.

Ok, how about this: no required sports=higher than average number of students with free afternoons=druggier school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise was that mandatory participation on a sports team would decrease/prevent drug abuse. Kids who are only involved in athletics when required aren't kids who dream of the Olympics or going pro or even NCAA.

And, of course, the whole my body is a temple analysis glosses over both the issues of performance-enhancing drugs and of prescription painkillers.

You seem to have the pre-determined idea that the ONLY reason kids at schools which mandate sports participation, participate in sports IS BECAUSE it is mandated, not because they happen to love their sport or have dreams and ambitions in it. Many , many kids do have big athletic dreams. Most kids do not consider sports a drudgery and most kids feel pretty good about themselves after reaching an athletic goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise was that mandatory participation on a sports team would decrease/prevent drug abuse. Kids who are only involved in athletics when required aren't kids who dream of the Olympics or going pro or even NCAA.

And, of course, the whole my body is a temple analysis glosses over both the issues of performance-enhancing drugs and of prescription painkillers.

You seem to have the pre-determined idea that the ONLY reason kids at schools which mandate sports participation, participate in sports IS BECAUSE it is mandated, not because they happen to love their sport or have dreams and ambitions in it. Many , many kids do have big athletic dreams. Most kids do not consider sports a drudgery and most kids feel pretty good about themselves after reaching an athletic goal.

Oops, sorry -- you've misunderstood. I've been responding to (and referenced, but increasingly obliquely) a claim made earlier in this thread that GDS is (or is perceived to be) druggier than other local privates because it doesn't have mandatory sports participation. So, in comparing mandatory vs. voluntary sports participation (e.g. the variable) and asking what difference it makes, I'm focusing on the kids whose behavior would be different if the policy changed. At GDS, those are the kids who would be on teams only if coerced and, at schools where team participation is mandatory, the kids who are only on teams because they're forced to be. These kids (the unwilling athletes) aren't likely to experience any sports-induced substance abuse prevention effect if that effect is a function of serious and disciplined athletic aspirations. They don't have those aspirations.

I'm certainly not claiming other kids don't have such dreams (or making any guess about how many kids fall into which category or suggesting that schools with mandatory participation have fewer such kids). I'm just assuming that, for the kids who do have serious athletic aspirations, whether or not their school requires team participation is pretty much irrelevant in terms of the whole "My body is a temple"/"I'm in training" thing.

(FWIW, I've got a serious athlete at home. And since DC's sport is a club sport, not being required to be on a school team will be what enables DC to retain/pursue her athletic aspirations. I know because, in MS, participation on a school team IS pretty much mandatory at GDS and the time pressure can get brutal.)

Anonymous wrote:21:28, you seem a little nuts (no pun intended). I know GDS AD. Perhaps you mistook her suggestion as a directive. I simply don't see her lecturing prospective parents on diet.

FWIW, not every family groks GDS. It is all right that you did not get it. There are folks who get GDS and don't get Beauvoir. But they don't post ad infinitum on this blog on how it is such a horrible place. They simply don't apply.

On the drug and drinks front, I know a lot of folks who were casual drug users in JH, H school, and college. Nearly all of them are quite successful now. The challenge is that there will be a few who proceed from casual to substance abuse - that's the fact that terrifies me.

Above poster:

I didn't say " GDS is such a horrible place" . PP asked if GDS is a place with an overly PC culture. I shared one of the many experiences I had there that indicated to me that GDS is a place that thinks they alone are politically correct. I have others. Were I inclined to go on "ad infinitum" I could list 4 or 5 other examples of what the AD also lectured me on. Shall I ? You seem to be in the weeds defending the school as it is.

Anonymous wrote:Is this all about the LS AD who left several years ago? She was awful. But she is gone.

No, this was this year ( 2011-2012) . Do we have a trend ?

Anonymous wrote:The premise was that mandatory participation on a sports team would decrease/prevent drug abuse. Kids who are only involved in athletics when required aren't kids who dream of the Olympics or going pro or even NCAA.

And, of course, the whole my body is a temple analysis glosses over both the issues of performance-enhancing drugs and of prescription painkillers.

You seem to have the pre-determined idea that the ONLY reason kids at schools which mandate sports participation, participate in sports IS BECAUSE it is mandated, not because they happen to love their sport or have dreams and ambitions in it. Many , many kids do have big athletic dreams. Most kids do not consider sports a drudgery and most kids feel pretty good about themselves after reaching an athletic goal.

Is this all about the LS AD who left several years ago? She was awful. But she is gone.

DC got accepted to GDS and Beauvoir for pre-K. We though the GDS AD was friendly, professional, and very knowlegeble about the GDS curriculum. The only advise we got was to read to DC every day, which we appreciated.

21:28, you seem a little nuts (no pun intended). I know GDS AD. Perhaps you mistook her suggestion as a directive. I simply don't see her lecturing prospective parents on diet.

FWIW, not every family groks GDS. It is all right that you did not get it. There are folks who get GDS and don't get Beauvoir. But they don't post ad infinitum on this blog on how it is such a horrible place. They simply don't apply.

On the drug and drinks front, I know a lot of folks who were casual drug users in JH, H school, and college. Nearly all of them are quite successful now. The challenge is that there will be a few who proceed from casual to substance abuse - that's the fact that terrifies me.

The premise was that mandatory participation on a sports team would decrease/prevent drug abuse. Kids who are only involved in athletics when required aren't kids who dream of the Olympics or going pro or even NCAA.

And, of course, the whole my body is a temple analysis glosses over both the issues of performance-enhancing drugs and of prescription painkillers.

Anonymous wrote: As for participation in athletics deterring drug use: having been an athlete with ambitious athletic goals in HS, I would never have used drugs or smoked. I would have viewed it as destructive to my body and ultimately my ability to reach my potential and all my dreams in my sport. To that end, involvement in a sport is good , provided it is one that demands a high level of fitness. Football , for example, does not. You can be fat and incapable of running a mile in under 7 minutes ( my definition of an out of shape person)and still be a linebacker . And , yes, football players drink, but I do not think that translates to swimming, running, crew or other highly aerobic and physically demanding sports.

This definitely rings true to me as the parent of 3 HS and college varsity athletes. Not saying that you won't find a single swimmer, runner or rower who drinks or does drugs, but definitely far fewer in those sports than in football. PP is correct in attributing this to the "body as a temple" nature of the sports that require high fitness levels, but I'd also say that my kids appreciated being able to cite this as an excuse when their friends urged them to drink or do drugs. It might have been uncool to say they just didn't want to partake, but they didn't get any crap from their friends if they said, "I'm in training." And, BTW, swimming and running are year-round sports, so they are always in training.

1) What percentage of kids at your private high school are drinking or have tried pot. (don't bother identifying the school please, it will just lead to another forum riot)

20 percent

2) Do you think/know if your kid has tried alcohol or drugs? (no names please) Never

3) If your kid is in middle or lower school, do you expect that they will experiment in 9th or 10th grade? Highly unlikely

Anonymous wrote:I'm not (and never have been) employed by GDS. And I only have your account of how the AD behaved. Given the way you've represented yourself here, I don't think of you as a reliable narrator. So I'm not going to pass judgment on the AD's behavior (much less on an entire school) based on your characterization of a single interaction with a single individual who isn't available to offer an alternative interpretation. OMMV.

PP Above:

And I would make it up because ???? I posted my negative experience with an overly "PC" culture at GDS in response to PP asking if the school really had an overly PC culture. My experience, of which there were many, but I listed just one illustrated to me that the AD thought, among other things, that she should rightfully advise parents on what to feed their children( not at GDS) but at home. I call that being overly PC. You defend the school not by taking on the substance of what the AD did, but trying to question the validity of the example that I provided. I provided it as a response to a question posed on this thread.

If there was no obnoxious comment from an AD, followed by her five minute lecture of me, there would be no memory and nothing to share. Your defensiveness and lack of open minded willingness to discuss the substance of the matter reflects poorly on the school with which you are OBVIOUSLY associated.

I'm not (and never have been) employed by GDS. And I only have your account of how the AD behaved. Given the way you've represented yourself here, I don't think of you as a reliable narrator. So I'm not going to pass judgment on the AD's behavior (much less on an entire school) based on your characterization of a single interaction with a single individual who isn't available to offer an alternative interpretation. OMMV.