Ranking Gladwell

Cars. Colleges. Countries.  These are just a few of the things we routinely rank-- and they are the three examples Malcolm Gladwell draws upon in his most recent New Yorker piece, "The Order of Things." (I'm assuming the alliteration is coincidental.)

His argument, in a nutshell, is that in any ranking system the formula matters.  That means both the variables in the formula that produces the rank and who the people are who write these formulas.  People are inevitably influenced by their own biases, as are the formulas and the rankings themselves. Nothing groundbreaking there.  Besides the element of, "So, what?," what I dislike most about the article is that no alternative is suggested.

The reality is, whether we like it or not, we are always going to have rankings.  And, with better technology available, it is both easier to quantify a range of things and rank them, and to spread the news of those rankings.  We famously now have national rankings for 11-year-old basketball players at sites like The Hoop Scoop and HoopsUSA.

Speaking of children, from the moment they enter this world they are ranked and ordered, by their Apgar score.  After that they routinely receive a number that represents their percentile rank for height/length, weight, and size of head at doctor's visits. Soon enough these kids enter the educational system and they receive percentiles that rank them based on what goes on inside those heads.  And, of course, then comes the all-important SAT score, and the list goes on.

Being ranked is a part of modern life.  Understanding what those numbers and rankings actually mean should be our goal, and list makers should be as transparent as possible about how numbers are produced.  Turning away from rankings isn't realistic at all.  And we should continue to study rankings, especially how institutions respond to them and how those numeric signifiers can actually shape behavior (For great work on this subject check out the work of sociologists Michael Sauder and Wendy Espeland.  Sauder is someone Gladwell should have spoken with-- though, full disclosure he is my officemate, so I'm a bit biased!).

I think Malcolm Gladwell is one of our best writers social scientists-- I certainly rank him in my top three.  But overall, this particular effort, by my evaluation, doesn't rate very high in the order of his work.

Females Down for the Count

How much is a victory worth if you didn't win?

On Thursday Cassy Herkelman had to confront this question as she became the first female to "win" a match in Iowa's state wrestling tournament for high school students.  Her opponent, Joel Northtrup, a favorite in the 112-pound weight class, defaulted rather than face a girl on the mat.  Northtrup cited his religious convictions (he is a student homeschooled by his evangelical minister family, but he wrestles on his local public school's team [the legal fight that allowed homeschooled students to participate on sports teams is interesting, if you are ever interested]).

None of Herkelman's other opponents refused to face her and she was eliminated after losing two matches. The other female competitor, Megan Black, also lost all of her matches, with no opponents declining to face her.  So it's possible Northtrup was afraid to lose to a girl and his religious beliefs were a convenient excuse (I am in no position at all to judge the strength of his convictions, I'm merely suggesting an alternative hypothesis in the tradition of Larry Summers).

Is this Title IX run a muck? Should males and females be segregated even if there isn't a separate but equal system in place?

Based on my research on gender, sports, and injuries, I believe that boys and girls should have separate competitive outlets when it comes to physical sporting activities.  This is especially true after puberty when male and female bodies start to drastically differ in their amounts of body fat and muscle (at younger ages I have actually observed, and some research has shown, a bigger advantage for girls because they tend to have more mental acuity to pick up rules of the game and teamwork than their male peers).  Sure in wrestling there are weight categories, so it is a fairer fight.  But a 112 lb. female body and a 112 lb. male body at age 15 usually look quite different.

However, I certainly do not believe that wrestling should be off-limits to females because it is a "violent, combat" sport-- as described by Joel Northtrup. On the contrary, I believe girls capable of impressive performances in any sport, developing physical strength and character skills that will help them compete with men in other arenas later in life.  When competitive outlets don't exist for females though, they need to face males to develop their skills so they aren't shout out completely, either in the present or in the future.

But as more and more girls hit the wrestling mats, female wrestling tournaments will develop.  Even before this Iowa wrestling story broke, this week the Daily News in Brooklyn ran a story on Wingate High School, which has eight female wrestlers. Their coach recruits females, touting the numerous benefits women get by participating in wrestling in high school.  Two of these young women won conference titles, beating out male competitors, and they will soon be able to compete against many other female wrestlers at the City's first all-female tournament.

By the way, no word if Black and Herkelman ever faced off in Iowa. Given that they were the only two females to qualify,  perhaps they could have wrestled for the female state wrestling title after their elimination.  That would have been a victory earned.

The Eight-hour (play) day?

In last week's post about sports injuries a reader commented, "But how do you regulate the number of hours a kid engages in these activities? For better or worse, it's kind of up to the parents, no?"  The answer to this question is, "Yes, but..." It is true that in the US the family is recognized both legally and culturally as the institution with the most control over childhood. However, the state plays an important role in two areas--education and employment-- and it has done so for nearly a century.  The state mandates that children go to school (compulsory education in this country became law in 1918) and not work more than a certain number of hours each week (federal child labor laws passed in 1938), both efforts that came out of Progressive-era politics (along with labor protections like the eight-hour work day, passed in 1916). Time spent in these domains is almost always outside of the family home, subjecting it to regulation by the law and non-relative adults.

Child performers historically faced scrutiny, though they received an exemption in the 1938 child labor laws, and this scrutiny continues today-- especially as the boundaries between entertainment, family, and work become more porous (I have written about this issue elsewhere as it relates to reality television shows).  The number of hours kids can be on-set is heavily regulated and monitored by on-set advocates.  Tutors are also provided to help them keep up with their studies.  Earnings are also partially protected, at least until a child turns 18.

Just as the boundaries between entertainment, family, and work have blurred, so have the boundaries between education, work, and play for kids.  I argue that children's afterschool activities should be seen as a new form of child labor (you can read an academic article I wrote on this topic in Childhood), which then subjects participation to regulation by the state, protecting children from overwork, physical injury, or other forms of exploitation.

Knowing there is precedent to regulate children's involvement in activities outside of the family home, what can practically be done? Given the role of the educational system we might think there is some role schools could play. However, many children who are overly involved in a particular activity-- be it chess, academic bees, performing, music, or sports-- are educated outside of the formal school system, as their families opt for homeschooling or special academies (like Spring Creek Academy in Texas or IMG Academies, which I have written about elsewhere).

The onus then falls on those who run afterschool programs. These teachers and coaches would be responsible for proving they are creating a safe environment and that they are certified to run their programs. Currently some small insurance companies that insure sports clubs, gyms, and dance studios fill the void created by the legal radio silence on this issue.

That most athletic coaches and teachers in extracurricular activities often have no formal educational credentials or certifications in their area is deeply problematic.  This remains a stumbling block in legitimating many afterschool activities and should be part of any comprehensive reform of the afterschool hours and how this time should be safely spent.  I will get on my blog soapbox about this particular issue-- which puts children and families at risk in a multitude of ways and hurts those teachers who are superb and dedicated to their students-- about this soon!

Concussed Tiger Parents

I know what you are thinking: "Another Tiger Mom post?! What could anyone possibly add to that discussion at this point?" I generally agree, so I'll be brief.

Last week as I was checking out at CVS, this cover caught my eye. What I found most interesting was the smaller headline at the top: "Health Special: Kids and concussions."  I don't normally read Time (given my weekly reading of The Economist, The New Yorker, Sports Illustrated, and People [quite a diverse collection, I know], not to mention my monthly magazine subscriptions and my daily Internet routine, I have little, well, time) but the juxtaposition of these two stories meant I had to pick up the issue.

In the magazine itself the two stories appear back-to-back. I figure on some level this must have been deliberate by the editors. But, then again, maybe not, given that the concussions piece was likely in the works for some time. In any event all these youth concussions, on some level, are the result of American Tiger parents enrolling their kids in competitive sports in the hopes of snagging an NCAA scholarship or a spot in the pros.  Before the professionalization of youth sports (think paid coaches, year-round seasons, and early specialization) concussions were the result of child's play on playgrounds and during recess. Now they are the stuff of lawsuits and stress.

Interestingly, in that same week's issue of The New Yorker, Ben McGrath wrote a great piece on concussions and the NFL.  The youth component is implied, but the connection between excessive competition, athletics, and injury is clear.  When will others see the connections and start devising solutions, like better credentialing of trainers/coaches in youth sports and a limitation of the hours kids can engage in these fun but dangerous activities?