Competition is often a motivator to do better and/or your best. Who wants to be last? So we try harder so that we are not the last. This is often a harsh lesson, but sometimes we need that harshness. The role of the leader/teacher is to assure that those who come in last are not ridiculed and show that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. There is a time and a place for competition and when used wisely is a very effective tool
no they need to learn that there are winners and losers it is a fundamental fact of life this bs taht everones a winner is crap
Sadly we now have a generation of spoiled children that feel they are "important" and should be rewarded for mediocrity. We need competition to encourage them to work hard and achieve in both school and sports...we can't socialize the world were everybody gets a trophy. We they get to the real world they will be sadly disappopinted how tough it is.
Competition isn't bad for children, losing is. It becomes a habit, demotivates them and undermines their confidence.
No. It teaches you confidence. It teaches you that you can't win all the time and that it is perfectly fine to lose...that is always good and is preparation for when they grow up. People are going to grow up sore losers/wimps if they aren't exposed to competition as kids.
I don't see it as "bad", per se. There is a certain amount of competition that is instinctual, primarily for mating and survival, and thus no child needs to be "taught" or "provoked" to compete - this competition is only called upon in real need, and is reactive. And yet adults once again have to share their sickness by trying to provoke and emphasize competition to pit kids against each other for their own amusement.<br />
In this sense, the word competition can be substituted with "fear", "anger" or any other reaction that is routinely exploited by adults to push a kid's buttons for fun and profit. Schools are paid money so that teachers can play their sick little games with kids. While it isn't "bad" for children, it does put them in a conditional punishment/reward system where competition is glorified and self-esteem depends on authority-figure approval, and the heinous "labeling", i.e., "best", "second-best" and so-forth. This is - like many of the other forms of child subordination that is commonly practiced - is quite harmful and, like most of the hijinks that go on in today's public schools, is designed to create slaves. Just because most adults and teachers have completely destroyed self-esteems doesn't justify leaving one's kids in their care and this is just another of the many perils of the public school system.
A competition is based on winning and loosing. I think there is a certain age when children should be allowed to enter competitions, when they are old enough to see reason.<br />
Its not good for younger children as they dont understand about winning and loosing and they could then get a complex for being the loser, which in turn makes them feel like a failure and gives them low self esteem which leads into adult hood.
That is such bull crap, what happens when those kids grow up and have to face reality?
No. A true winner knows what it is like to lose and appreciates what it takes to be a winner. However, all children should be given an equal opportunity to excel, like in team sports, dividing up skills equally. Second place is not so bad, and most kids simply enjoy recognition for trying.
yes it teaches them that someone must lose, children don't need competition in their young life<br />
it teaches them to measure themselves against others ability
I think it is only bad when you are judged harshly on whether you win or lose and whether you win or lose defines the way everyone treats you---like if you lose, now you have no friends for a year, or if you win, then you get exceptions to the rule made for you. I think that people that win shouldn't be immune to rules but people that lose shouldn't be immune to respect...so to speak.