Well obviously (actually, apparently not obviously) the existence of 'greater' wrongs doesn't mean 'smaller' wrongs cease to be wrong.
That something is wrong doesn't mean it ceases to be hilarious. But I agree, great wrongs don't make smaller ones less wrong. Yet… if we have to choose between the two, take the smaller wrong over the greater.
So how do you decide whether society should choose in favour of education?
In favour of education over what, exactly?
Education in favour of immediate employment? Well, it produces a more-skilled labor force, for one. With an education, one will earn more money over the course of one's lifetime, thereby being able to both produce and purchase more goods and services, stimulating the entire economy, allowing more individuals to have a higher standard of living.
Education in favour of sports? Basically the same reason as above. Perhaps some sports talent will go undeveloped, and sports are a major industry in the united states, but it makes up for that in other economic stimulation.
Mind you, however, that society isn't always right in its implementation. Education is more important, but a specific implementation of an education system might actually produce fewer benefits. In a perfect world, a good education is always a good investment and so, in a perfect world, a good society would always be interested in a good education.
Though perhaps you don’t agree that activities like band, theater, or clubs provide the analogous opportunities of socialization, leadership, and teamwork.
I don't see how these particular examples would provide leadership skills, but I shan't take you up on that, as there are undoubtedly examples that do.
Interesting... now I know you didn't take me up on that, but I find it very interesting that you don't see leadership roles in these activities. Why don't you think that these things involve leadership?
It seems clear that I do see such a role in these activities, but perhaps the opportunities for leadership aren't as obvious as I think they are (or perhaps we have different ideas of what leadership is)?
Every club I was ever a part of had a club president, and most had a vice president, a treasurer, and other such leadership roles. They were usually more varied in their activities than a sport so even those without a fancy title could still propose an idea and take ownership of it, leading it (and the rest of the club) to implementation.
Band I can see being a little more dubious. I don't have personal inside experience, but I was always under the impression that First Chairs had a small leadership role (certainly not anywhere near the same level as a team captain in sports of a club president, but still a leadership role). First Violin, for example, to my understand is the one who sets the pace for the rest of the band (the position of conductor evolving from that, historically speaking).
Marching bands have a few more options for leadership, as the color guard usually had a student "leader" and the various formations that they might take were also developed by students.
Theater is the one I can see the most as having no obvious leadership role, especially if it is part of a class. The teacher is usually the one who decides the play, organizes it, and so on and so forth. But there are the various duties that the teacher has to delegate almost out of necessity. S/he might decide what the set will be, but usually that actual implementation is given to a team of students (and which usually produces a team leader). As for those acting, no single individual might become an official leader but it seems like in rehearsals (especially ones not directly overseen by the teacher) leadership roles still develop as each individual attempts to move the group to develop that individuals part (though the leadership shifts back and forth between the members of that group). And certainly, acting helps an individual develop confidence and public speaking skills, hallmark skills of leaders.
Really, I'm not disputing your claims, but simply skeptical that the matter is as simple as your seemingly nonchalant first post in this thread suggested, and wish to test them. And, although I failed to consider your referring to sport individually in context, you also seemed to downplay the significance of sport in a general context without considering the uniqueness of sport (specific skills, athletic prowess and competition are not present in any other activities like they are in sports, so far as I can tell).
True, sports does teach specific skills, and in all likelihood I am undervaluing them, but what skills do they teach that are unique to them and also useful? For example, throwing a football, shotput, or a baseball accurately and with power is certainly a skill, but a rather useless one outside the context. To be fair, teamwork is a very valuable skill that sports teach, but I'd argue that one could develop that skill just as well in theater, a club, or even band.
Athletic prowess is very nice, but I'd argue being part of a marching band requires a good deal of athletic ability as well (and some clubs do as well, though certainly not as a whole; my old high school actually had a paintball club and a rock climbing club). So that really isn't unique to sports, though sports certainly are more universal in developing it. However, in turn, why is that so desirable? It is wonderful if you can run a 6 minute mile, but that doesn't really relate to the rest of one's life all that much. Or perhaps you didn't mean specifically prowess but athletic engagement? Getting exercise (which most sports certainly provide) often, and developing that as a habit, is certainly something everyone should do and it is one of the things that doesn't have a good alternative in other activities.
As for competition, I would argue how useful that actually is (though I suspect my own position on the matter is more of a result from my personality than real objective analysis). There is some benefit to it, admittedly, but I don't think enough to make it a significant loss. Indeed, a little less competition in society (such as between political parties, people groups, and nations) might be rather nice.
I may just have to since it completely disagrees with what I had said.
I suppose it might be nice if I actually explained the philosophy a little (gives you more reason to actually check out the book).
Basically, the author argues that it is more important to develop your strengths than to worry about becoming a well rounded individual (since being well rounded requires on to work on weaknesses to). If you are great at organizing things but suck as coming up with ideas, the book argues that you shouldn't worry; focus on developing your organizational skills even more, rather than trying to become the idea man. You'll be happier since you will be doing something you are good at and you'll stand out from the crowd more, making you an invaluable person to be on a team.
Or in other words, if you love to write and hate math, develop your writing skills and ignore how much you suck at math. People remember Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, King, and other authors because of their abilities to write, not because they were math wiz's.
Essentially, develop your strength and work around your weaknesses.
