Should Everyone Get a Trophy?

In the October issue of Northern Connection magazine, I started the conversation regarding participation trophies due to Steeler James Harrison being very public about returning his sons’ participation trophies. ESPN gives a great account of what happened: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13447657/james-harrison-pittsburgh-steelers-takes-away-kids-participation-trophies-says-awards-earned.

What do you think about Mr. Harrison’s viewpoint? After all, there is only one Vince Lombardi Trophy for the Super Bowl. Just as there is only one Mirror Ball Trophy awarded to the winner for Dancing With The Stars. Of course, baseball gets a bit confusing – even if you don’t win the World Series, you still get a pennant for winning the league, which depending on the stats for the two leagues, a team with more wins in a more difficult division may actually not make it to the World Series. Ultimately, making the World Series NOT a competition between the two best teams. This baseball discussion might have to be a future blog!

But getting back to the main point; Mr. Harrison feels participation trophies send a wrong message to children and leads to an entitlement attitude. Participation trophies did come from parents wanting their kids to get “something” for trying their best and giving their time and effort. But I believe the debate is whether the “something” should be a trophy which equates to an achievement. Why can’t the “something” be as simple as a ribbon or a team hat or “something,” does acknowledgement for participation really need to be a trophy?

Some competitions have even changed the “scale” of awards. For example, in many dance competitions, they have changed bronze, silver, gold medals, as in the Olympics, to gold, high-gold and platinum. I can’t help but ask, "why?" Every participant knows if they don’t get platinum, they aren’t eligible for top awards and scholarships, so why change the scale?

I think I’ll stick with my bake-offs – a blue ribbon is still a blue ribbon.

But, as always, what do you think? Feel free to leave comments below or email me at NorthCon@consolidated.net.

What do you think of the Cursive Controversy?

Is writing in cursive a thing of the past? In this month's issue of Northern Connection magazine, I point out that schools today just don't have the time to teach both cursive and keyboarding so they have been put in the difficult position of choosing the future over the past. Understandable, until you spend some time with the younger generation and realize that they can't read your writing - no matter how good or bad your penmanship is.

What does this mean for future generations? Are we cutting them off from the past?

And what does this mean for the whole industry of handwriting analysis?

As always, I am interested in your thoughts on the subject! Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below: