An article in the SacBee today discusses a Legislative Analysts’s suggestion that junior colleges either drop PE classes, or that the colleges be paid less to offer them than the level of state funding provided for classes that are deemed more academic in content. These are the one-unit classes that are offered in subjects such as golf, tennis, and bowling. The inference is that these classes are not worthwhile and don’t deserve to be subsidized at the same level as other classes.

This seems like an odd standard to apply. As the article points out, students wanting to graduate or transfer are typically required to have one of these classes. What the article doesn’t point out is that that requirement is set by the state that subsidizes that education, precisely because teams of experts have determined that these are in fact worthwhile. It’s not like they showed up by chance or accident.

Another distinction suggested is that these are simply classes for fun and not as valuable as the more academic and vocational classes taken elsewhere in a college career. But if you examine some of the other, more esoteric classes that students routinely take, it may very well be that golf, bowling, and tennis are more likely to be used in life, or even in a career path. Try telling Tiger Woods that golf isn’t vocational. One of the students referenced in the original article was taking bowling multiple times attempting to improve his game enough to compete in tournaments. I wonder if any of his other classes are preparing him for national competition. There may very well be as many students who will use golf, for example, in a business setting, as those who will use <insert subject of your choice here>. And there are many students taking other classes for fun, personal enrichment, or without a specific utilitarian end in mind, and they aren’t single-credit classes.

The article also compares the PE classes and their subsidy rate with fitness classes for senior citizens. One could easily ponder whether or not we would need to teach physical activities to seniors if we taught younger students such life-long activities as, say, golf, bowling, and tennis. Oh, right, we are – for a reason.

During the working years of an adult life, most people will engage in work and other obligated activities for about a third of their week (very rough fractions), sleep for another third, and engage in activities of their own choosing, if they’re lucky, the rest of the time. When they hit retirement, the proportions will shift suddenly. We spend a lot of time and money preparing students for the work portion and we spend a lot of time and money medicating people for sleep. What we tend to spend less on is teaching people how to ensure that the remainder of their lives are rewarding and meaningful. What the article doesn’t point out is that the one unit of PE is just one out of 39 units of general education associated with transferring colleges or 60 units of work associated with graduating from a junior college. That’s about 2% of the class time dedicated towards the leisure and recreation that will ultimately dominate an average lifespan.

And let’s not forget that these activities are also inherently vocational for a great many careers. Unless of course you think the following run themselves: municipal parks and recreation departments, after-school programs, physical education classes, boys and girls clubs, recreation programs for special needs populations, and (you probably know by now that I’m going to say this…) golf courses, bowling alleys, and tennis clubs, amongst the vast array of recreational programs and businesses that exist in our communities. In a state that relies so heavily on recreational activities and related tourism, it’s amazing to think these classes are considered superfluous.

The irony is that it’s exactly this kind of attitude that makes running businesses and agencies in the parks, recreation, tourism, and hospitality fields so difficult – people treat them as though they are disposable or unnecessary when they are often the things that add meaning and value to lives that are otherwise bleak and unfulfilling. Building an appreciation of these activities is not only valuable on an individual level but is beneficial at a societal level and the more active and confident people are in such pursuits, the less likely we are to throw ever larger amounts of money at public healthcare, problems such as obesity, and related diseases and conditions.

If the great fear is that students will simply repeat these classes, time after time, on the taxpayers’ dime, then cap the number of times they can be taken under state subsidy – we do that in other ways for other classes. Let them take three one-unit classes if they want to – a single three-unit class in any other topic, whether degree or vocation-related or not, wouldn’t even attract the attention of the bean counters. Indeed, one could take several classes in other subject areas or even repeat them without anybody questioning those choices. But if they’re going to start labeling which classes are inherently worthwhile and which aren’t, I think we’re going to have a much deeper discussion about a far wider range of subjects.