“Walk into the bedroom of 12-year-old Lucas, a sixth-grader from New Jersey, and you might think you’ve accidentally stumbled into a sports hall of fame. There are awards everywhere: Little League trophies are lined up along his bookshelves, basketball trophies crowd his dresser, soccer medals dangle from ribbons on his bulletin board,” says “Should Everyone Get a Trophy?” by Lauren Tarshis. The trend for participation trophies started in the second half of the 20th century. There was an ambition in California in the 80s to boost the self-esteem of central city youth. They thought that if they told the kids they were great, they would believe it and then they could achieve more because they were certain that they were great. But this isn’t, and wasn’t, the way: Trophies should only be given to the…show more content… The “Tarshis” article reads, “. . . some experts suggest that giving trophies to everyone sends the wrong message. In life, most people are not rewarded for simply doing what’s required. A student doesn’t get an A just for going to class. An employee doesn’t get a raise just for arriving to work on time. Shouldn’t only the highest-performing athletes get the accolades?” The trophies are sending a misguided message when given to the athlete that didn’t overachieve, the athlete that didn’t play much or contribute much. Giving a trophy to every player doesn’t send the true, honest message. “Should Everyone Get a Prize?” by Brenda Iasevoli states, “‘The trophy has to stand for something,’ Dweck told TFK. ‘If we give a trophy to everyone, then the award has no value.’” When trophies are given to everyone, it is sometimes not fair for the athletes who played excellently to get the same reward as the players who sat on the bench nearly the entire game. Therefore, trophies send the wrong message when given to every player on the
