Are the athletes really as dumb as they are made out to be?

Are the more studious types really so boring?

Or is it just something writers use to make their stories easier/more interesting.

Let me know your ideas and opinions.

Unfortunately, yes. I'll give two examples to the examples given.

Are the athletes really as dumb as they are made out to be?

Some of them can be, haha. But most of them just act like idiots (referring to male "jocks") to assert their masculinity to their friends. For reference to this, watch the movie "John Tucker Must Die". There's a locker room scene that will help you further understand that bit. A guy in my newswriting class is a jock. He reads really slow out loud, so I assumed he was completely illiterate. But after editing his article for him, I saw he proved me wrong and actually writes very well, so I learned not to take them for granted any more.

In girls, though, I noticed all the female athletes are really studious and "goodie-goodie" role models....

Are the more studious types really so boring?

Like the athletic type, some really can be.... My friend Tracy is rather dull. She's all about studying. I don't really think they're boring, though. More than likely, these two stereotypes are just something to make their stories easier to understand and relate to. Some stories that break out of the stereotype-box are actually much more interesting than the others. I praise them.

Honestly, when developing characters in cliques, it'd be best to give them qualities that are not completely stereotypical, such as a dumb jock and a boring nerd, for lack of a better word.... So, yeah, there's my two cents on the whole deal. Sorry it turned out so long, ahaha....

In my school, there are actually a few sporty types who are very intelligent. A majority of them though, seem to have problems with dealing with authority figures. But I do go to an all girls school.

But there are few girls who are really intelligent, get top grades in the class and are still popular and really down to earth as well. They seem to be forgotten.

Yes. In my HS, the real exaggeration are probably on the Goths and the Rappers. I know a lot of the Goths there, and they are actually the Japanese-Goths, which is a form of sublulture, not a religion, so people probably don't understand until you meet them. My Choices teacher likes to refer to them both as "rebels".

the only group really exagerated is the "freaky" drama kids...trust me i kno...i'm considered one of them and a "smart girl" as our teachers call them

o and we have 'bouncers' those are the kids who fit everywhere...friends in every circle...ie...ME

and cheerleaders get a pretty bad rap...but my friends a squad leader and she has a 4.3!

but yeah...highschool is all drama any way...so why not exagerate in some cases?

NC

At my school its all very mixed.

there're 1300 students, approx.

It goes like this

Okay, so in MY year group.

There are a minority of 'studious' people, who can be quite funny if you know them.

There are the people that the majority make fun of-the grebs/goths who like alternative music and guys have long hair.

The majority are quite, 'chavy' they're split however and it all depends really.

There are others, of course. . .

Anyways, athletes in my year vary. In the 'studious' types, there's around three who are PE orientated. There is a handful of just generally nice, popular people who are quite good, quite intelligent pretty etc. The rest, however are chainsmoking idiots, who could be very intelligent but choose not to be, okay some are really thick, but most aren't. They get into trouble alot and sleep around.

So, I guess, you have your American Tv/novel stereotypes, and your English reality stereotypes.

It depends on why you're writing, who you're writing for.

Truthfully, alot of people live up to their stereotypes, but there're one or two exceptions who you need to get-to-know.

When I first started to read stories with cliques in them, I was a little surprised because it had been the first time that I've been introduced to such dramatic clique attributes.

But back to your questions... The traits of cliques are really too exaggerated. I understand that it makes the story, but I'd really love to see a story where there's more to the characters rather than being extremely gorgeous and ditzy or the stereotypical dumb jock. In reality, it's really not true. Perhaps i'm just a realist?

I totally agree with you. Well, to tell you the truth at my school it's pretty brutal, some girl had her head slammed in the girl's bathroom but I guess that's just my ghetto school. I think we just enjoy the idea of a stupid jock and a geek girl getting together. What I see very often now is the skater boys and their bad boy reputation.

Can we see something different now?

2. No, athletes are not as dount as they are made out to be. I had at least two cheerleaders, a guy who plays soccer (and he said he played football), a few swimmers, tracks runners, and such in my classes. And an AP (advanced placement, college-level classes) student! And they get good grades at that, too! They are NOT stupid, and I'm sure that there are lots of other athletes who are very intelligent.

3. Studious types are NOT boring. 4/5 of my classes are AP classes, and nobody in my AP classes are boring. They all have different personalities. And no one likes homework or tests. Some people (me included) don't turn in tests anymore, and some pretend to do their homework, and some actually complete assignments. It depends on the person.

4. It is something writers use to make their stories what they think to be easier or more interesting, but is in reality un-interesting and unjust.

A: I think so. People tend to emphasize stereotypes, especially of what's popular (or percieved popular) in high school subculture. This means bright hair and spike overload for goths, ditziness for preps, and complete insanity for anime otakus. There's also an excess of brand name-dropping. I've seen a lot of Abercrombie, Hot Topic, and other such brands mentioned... and band references. Converse was used a lot, but -thankfully- seems to be going out of style again.

Q: Are the athletes really as dumb as they are made out to be?

A: This depends. In my school, most of the basketball players are really smart. The same goes for track (their collective GPA is 4.0), and the quarterbacks. The rest of the football team is incredibly dumb. :( I don't mean to sound mean, but it's true. I suppose it's because football doesn't really require much brain effort or speed. It's slow and brutal (unless you're running, of course). Most athletes seem really smart. I suppose because the same competiveness that drives their accomplishments in sports also compels them to study.

Q: Are the more studious types really so boring?

A: I'm more studious than some, and I find them to be extremely funny and interesting. Discussion tends to be more engaging because they know so much more. I tend to find less studious types harder to be around because all they really talk about is what they did over the weekend (getting smashed and parties) and what they plan on doing next weekend (more of the same). Again, that's just me. I love nerds. ^-^

A: Or is it just something writers use to make their stories easier/more interesting

Q: Writers want their stories to be "popular" so they delve into the sterotypes they're familiar with. Since a sterotype is a basic caricature of a person, or group of persons, theoretically, they have a better chance of establishing a connection and making their character easy to identify with. Of course, what generally ends up happening is a fluffy improbable romance with some name-brand blonde and a purple-haired "punk". Blah. Thank god for college next year.

The athletes one is slightly overdone but not really because in my school the kids on the sports teams tend to be happy with seventies on tests while the 'smart group' would have seen a ninety as barely passing. More than stupid, athletes are shown as jerks; that one is overdone. Most jocks are shown as the kind that get drunk at a party every weekend at and go through girls like a kid goes through m&m's in a bag.

Most of my friends have 3.8 and up but have personalities; they're not boring and they hate certain subjects too. Discussions are more engaging because everybody's on the same page and has a real opinion backed up by facts, not just where they think something is. You can also use long words, florid sentences, ans subtle insults and not have to explain what they mean. Studious people are also often written as teachers' pets, which is not true. We disagree and ** about the teachers too.

Another big stereotype is cheerleaders and those who kind of belong with them. These are mostly true but most of them aren't bitchy like they're shown. I know some really sweet cheerleader-y people.

Writers do this because it's expected. We have come to expect the jocks to be stupid, the nerds to be boring, and the cheerleaders to be bitchy. But the thing is...rules were made to be broken, expectations meant to be risen above.

The stereotype that all athletes are stupid is one that drives me crazy. I play both varsity soccer and varsity basketball at my highschool, and at the same time I'll be unhappy with a B+. The valedictorian for this year's senior class played three varsity sports and was captain of two of them.

Also, not all guys who play sports are gods who have girls falling down at their feet, just as not all girls who play sports are tough, butch tomboys.

I could start to rant... but I guess I'll refrain.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)