Hoop Dreams

I think Hoop Dreams shows a sort of a different way that students, schools and education in general are commodities than was discussed in the readings. Hoop Dreams, which follows the lives of two black high school students in Chicago, really shows how a school uses its students as a commodity to help build its own brand, in this case, the basketball program at St. Joseph's High School but also how the students depend on this in order to get a worthwhile education and be able to make it to the NBA (or first, a division one school.)

The kids, William and Arthur, are found in their respective Chicago neighborhoods by a scout who specifically looks in low income areas for new talent. They are both invited to attend St. Joseph's to join their basketball program, and benefit from an education they will never be able to receive in their own neighborhoods. They both receive financial help but the help they receive is a direct reflection of their basketball skills. William is on the Senior team receives a full ride and is essentially sponsored by a St. Joseph's alumni, a sponsorship set up by the basketball coach who has high hopes for William high school and later professional career (and how this will eventually reflect upon him.) Arthur, on the other hand, is on the Frosh/Soph team and his family has taken out a loan to supplement whatever financial aid he is receiving. At school, Arthur's skills fail to develop at the speed the coach would like (unlike William) and when Arthur's family is unable to keep up with tuition, he is forced to leave.

Both William and Arthur's school careers are dependent on their ability to play basketball and the school's basketball reputation is dependent on it's players abilities and their appeal to division one scouts. The documentary points out, with Arthur's return to public school,how basketball is sort of their only marketable quality and it becomes something they depend on to move up the socioeconomic ladder. Going to public school, this is something I never experienced but the idea of someone's effort and skill being seen as the main ingredient for success is a notion I think most American's are familiar with. I can't remember if it was explicitly stated but the coach suggests that Arthur, because he was not developing athletically as quickly as William was and in essence, he was not worth the investment and no attempt was made on the coach's part to try and find him a "sponsor".

Hoop Dreams, the readings and our discussion in class have shown that education is pretty much always tied to money. Even if you're not paying to go to school, your socioeconomic status and where you live contributes to the education you get. If you're really smart or athletically gifted a school might see you as a worthy investment. I've never heard of a C average, athletically challenged kid from a low income neighborhood receive this kind of opportunity (and I don't think busing really counts.) I guess you could look at "Kung Fu Panda" in this context since Po would probably fall under the c-average, athletically challenged category. I'm usually not one to heavily criticize kid's movies, but in the context of education and opportunity, "Panda" seems to be saying that everyone has equal access to the means of achieving greatness and success. Most of Po's success is achieved through luck or as the turtle guy kept saying, through "fate." I'm sort of conflicted because I keep contradicting myself about what is the right message to send or what the right way to go about creating balance in the education system. Is it better to have access to better educational opportunities because of academic merit and/or athletic skill or just through random selection. and which one is true to real life? I don't know..anyway you look at it, I just see it all coming down to money.