Most jocks are jerks? Well, I guess that depends on how you define “jock”. If the qualification for being a “jock” is to be on a high school sports team (bowling, winterguard, and chess excluded) then I would have to say a resounding “no”. If your definition of jock is one who is entitled to slack off academically and misbehave because the school sports team can’t do without them and is given unfair favors and privileges because of their athletic ability, well then you can imagine that most of the young men brought up that way end up being entitled little jerks. But how common is that, really?
I went to a very large, public high school. Athletes were required to meet a standard of at least consistent mediocrity in order to play. There were more than enough students that nearly any sports star could be easily replaced. They had to start making the grade in middle school in order to be on those teams, so not much time was invested in students who they expected were just going to be benched in high school, due to bad grades. Bad behavior was also not tolerated. In a school of 3000+ students, everyone was expendable and teachers felt no pressure to pass athletes or refrain from disciplining them. Also, the families that could afford the cost of being on these sports were generally the same ones who considered school work and citizenship at least moderately important. So, we didn’t have many “jocks”. I took nearly all honors classes and there were many athletes in my classes. In fact, there was a recent photo taken at one of our reunions of a group of ten women who had been on the varsity cheer squad the year we graduated and all of them went into nursing, which is a very strenuous course of study. It was posted on our alumni facebook page.
In short, I think it really depends on the school’s community. If athletes are pampered and given unfair privileges, they probably will be jerks. If not, they could turn out to be hardworking and moral citizens.
