Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wants to add a fitness section to the SAT so students can score fitness tasks like running a mile or doing pull-ups and sit-ups. Ramaswamy argues that these physical fitness tests are a “beneficial solution” to the inequalities created by a college admissions environment that is unfairly prevalent in “subjective measures.” People who scored well on math and reading tests “tend to do poorly in mile runs and vice versa,” he explained. he posted on X last week (previously Twitter).
Ramaswamy recycles the outdated assumption that the pursuits of the mind and body are mutually exclusive.
The following presidential elections have been held (so far): dress up unapologetically Personal fitness After performance after performance, and even more acerbity about age and fat jokes, it’s refreshing to hear the candidate’s front-line fitness. policy not just as an opportunity for flexibility (although So does Ramaswamy). And equity in admissions is important, especially considering the demise of affirmative action, and so is fitness in these times. sedentary youth. But Ramaswamy’s plan to make fitness a high-stakes admissions category and call it a “merit-first solution” amplifies the worst aspects of both modern fitness culture and historic physical education policy. there is
First, Ramaswamy’s premise is false, as is the promise that six minutes a day of sit-ups or a few cups of flat belly tea will give you washboard abs.that’s not all not a “fact” Although success in the math and reading sections of the SAT is inversely correlated with 1-mile running speed, the data suggest that:his objection is probably true (Not surprisingly, this exact correlation has not been studied).Physical activity is actually associated with Better Academic(and mental health)result. Ramaswamy recycles the outdated assumption that mind and body pursuits are not mutually reinforcing, but rather contradictory. It’s a strange and old idea to bring it up, especially since we have a holistic understanding of their interconnectedness. physical and mental health It is one of the few ideologies with which a polarized nation can subscribe.
By framing the high-stakes physical fitness test as a “professional merit,” Ramaswamy argues that physical fitness is the unique fortress against which only well-deserved victories can be won; It embraces the illusion of being a playing field (as opposed to health law). An unfair world of exam prep tutors and conventional priorities). While this myth of self-reliance is the same that celebrates the self-satisfaction of individualism that is common among conservatives, Ramaswamy also magnifies ideas that are particularly prevalent among fitness promoters of all political affiliations. ing. “Just you and the open road,” many running ads announce. “The difference between success and failure is who gets involved,” the spin instructor calls out in class. “Either you get results or you get excuses.” Early morning Instagram warns. These are great ideas for selling gym memberships or sneakers. It is an undeniable fact that it takes willpower to exercise regularly, regardless of socioeconomic status, but a corollary to this outlook is that if you can’t stay healthy, you will lose your health. should only be blamed.
This is important because, as Ramaswamy suggests, the pursuit of fitness does not imply an egalitarian remedy for an unfair academic world. In fact, poor people of color are less likely to exercise regularly. You are more likely to suffer from obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure.and their children unlikely Participating in athletics or physical activity. This is not because they lack energy, but because movement, like other areas we often discuss, such as housing and food, is structured by inequalities. They control schedules, home and work spaces, access to parks and pools, safe streets, and even tree cover that makes a few degrees of difference. All of these conditions condition how difficult it is to go out and exercise rather than whether you can go out and exercise. Get gym memberships or pay for youth sports (both of which are exceptionally privatized in the US). Virtually superhuman and mediagenic tales of fitness transformation by inmates and super-busy stay-at-home moms might suggest that anyone who really wants to can do it consistently and successfully. Such stories tend to underestimate how low “motivation” is. “Effort” is required for those who seek the means.
These ideas don’t go away easily. As we learn more about structural inequality, it becomes intellectually unacceptable (or at least, plainly ignorant) to claim that meritocracy works. (Even Republican candidates like Ramaswamy explicitly admit that the SAT is not as “objective” as proponents have long touted.) We are just beginning to work on whether it has to do with inequality and exacerbate it. As a professor and fitness expert, I see this all the time. Socially conscious students generally understand the wealth gap between blacks and whites in America to be the result of centuries of discriminatory policies rather than a lack of ambition or talent. You’re more likely to call your lack of fitness a result of “personal choice.” Making a physical fitness test part of his SAT only perpetuates such ignorance.
Making fitness tests part of the SAT only perpetuates such ignorance.
But beyond the broken system of elite sports recruitment, putting fitness at the center of education and even admissions is a great idea. And if Mr. Ramaswamy is serious about this (and hopefully other candidates take note), he has other presidential examples and counterexamples to learn from. Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy Youth fitness is essential to a healthy society and was hailed as an avenue to help young people reach their full potential. Notably, JFK Contrasting Fitness with Competitive Sports: Inclusion in exercise was prioritized over elite programs. Because the latter encouraged children with low motor skills to be sidelined by being plagued by “spectator flames.” The point of such policies was to encourage lifelong exercise and recreational habits, especially in children who were less likely to become quarterbacks or prima ballerinas. Nearly every president since then has had some form of youth fitness policy platform. And President Obama’s White House “Let’s Move” initiative, like President Kennedy’s, has been uniquely vigorous in making the inclusive movement a top priority. Fifty years later, it focused on urban communities of color rather than white suburbs.
Candidates should take inclusive fitness seriously and emphasize the importance of public recreational facilities and physical education programs. But Ramaswamy seems to have taken the worst of these presidential precedents. Eisenhower narrowly defined fitness as a means to a single end (military preparedness), JFK rebuked “meek Americans” for laxity and betrayal of civic duty, and Obama’s policies stopped short of the target. We codified a strong exercise, nutrition and mental health infrastructure that was clearly needed by the 2010s.
As students return to school this fall and candidates formulate their own platforms, Democrats and Republicans alike should Elevate equal access to physical activity in and out of school as a national priority. Not because the earliest, most flexible students can get into college, but because we should all have the opportunity to exercise our will.
