 The other day, I ventured into McEwen around 2 pm searching for a quick afternoon snack before my final class of the day. Seeing two of my friends, one of whom is a talented musician and the other a varsity athlete, I sat down to join them as I ate. Little did I know, they were in the middle of heated discussion about the differences between music and athletics at Hamilton. The root of the argument lay in the fact that participation in Hamilton’s orchestra awards the student with academic credit, but Hamilton athletes receive no academic credit for their participation in sports teams. My athletic friend argued that sports require much of the same physical and mental elements that orchestra does, and therefore she should receive academic credit. My musician friend disagreed, claiming that music is inherently more academic than athletics. At the time of the argument, I had been up since 7am and already been to three classes so my brain was quite fried, but I found the argument nagging at my mind, so I decided to formulate my own opinion.
There is no denying that music and sports have some overlap. Both music and athletics require the body and the mind. Musicians must learn how to read music as well as how to play their instrument of choice. Similarly, athletes have to learn the rules and techniques of their game, plus develop the muscle memory needed to play. Just as athletes go to a team practice once a day and maintain physical fitness individually, musicians practice their instruments regularly on their own as well as with their orchestra or group. Mentally, both musicians and athletes must learn how to deal with stress during a performance and reach a thorough understanding of their game or score. Clearly, music and sports have similar demands for those who choose to participate in them.
Despite these similarities, society treats music and athletics differently; tending to value music as more academic and sports as more extracurricular. I think that to some extent this differentiation occurs because many people think music allows for more analysis than sports, which is usually evaluated based on accuracy rather than content. Contrastingly, how accurately a musician plays a piece is not the only criteria for a good musician. A good musician should create music that makes the listener feel something and requires analysis. Although it might not seem so at first, an athlete also facilitates this kind of analysis. An athlete is primarily evaluated based on how well they play, but they also are analyzed for how they react to the unexpected struggles of the game, which give audiences something to analyze and feel. Therefore, claiming that music is more academic because it provides a story for analysis cannot be the only reason that society considers music more academic than sports.
I propose that the reason society values sports and music so differently relates to innovation, which is arguably the main goal of academics. Professors teach their students how to build on the knowledge they learn and create brand new ideas. Music works much in the same way. Students learn the basics of music from their teachers and then build on it, potentially writing their own innovative music. Essentially, music is only limited by what the mind can comprehend and there is no limit to the mind’s ability to conceive new ideas. Contrastingly, sports are tied mainly to the body, which limits innovation. A sports coach can teach their athletes as much as possible about a sport, but ultimately the athlete can only reach a certain physical barrier of greatness. Therefore, orchestra and music are more academic than sports because more new, innovative thought can be achieved within the subject and society values revolutionary ideas.
So should athletes receive college credit for playing on Hamilton’s sports teams? I say no. Although the two subjects have similarities, they ultimately have very different goals, one of which relates more to academics than the other.