A good option here is to have a variety of wellness courses on offer.

E.g. some students want to get healthy. I'm in a 120 challenge course right now. I know I never would have taken it without the coercion, but now I'm glad I'm forced to do it.

Other students will want sports (tennis, soccer, etc. are options) while others want to pretend they're not just exercising (ninja training, humans vs zombies, Nerf gun battles, etc).

As the article points out, there is an innate laziness in most people. My natural tendency is laziness. Even the fit, athletic, body building people I talk to report really struggling to keep their motivation.

Even people who like exercise often have to force themselves to do it. As long as there are palatable options, the coercion here isn't going to make people any more likely to not exercise later in life because humans are already really bad at that. Ideally the coercion would help remind students of the value of exercise building lifelong habit. If that doesn't work out, at least they'll have exercised at all in their adult life.

> Forcing college students to exercise will backfire, leading many of them to stop as soon as the course is over.

Much of what we do started out by being forced to do it. We keep doing it out of habit, social pressure, and in many cases the belief that it is a good thing (brushing our teeth, eating healthy, etc.), but it's often force, habit, and social pressure ('ew, you don't shower regularly?') that got us there in the first place. Most of it is not default behavior.

Similarly, I think mandatory exercise could be very effective in normalizing exercise, which is a very important step in getting more people do do so.

Of course, the exact implementation matters a great deal. But stating that it will backfire strikes me as a unwarranted conclusion.

EDIT: also, exercise, unlike many other healthy things and unlike many things that we are forced to do, is actually fun and even addictive.

PE is mandatory in every high school in the US. Why don't we have a nation of fit, active people?

I think the real problem is exposure. I don't like running, soccer, or football -- so my years in PE were generally a waste. There are physical hobbies I enjoy but the odds of being exposed to them in high school were improbably slim.

True, but PE might have had a positive effect on many people other than you, both physically and in other ways, so at the very least it's more effective than doing nothing.

That said, I do hope of course that they offer more variety than they often do in high school. I was pretty lucky with my high school and definitely benefitted from being exposed to sports that I still engage in occasionally (rugby and ice skating).

Strange to see no one has mentioned this – just down the river, MIT has mandatory PE classes. They're not all "running around a track" though: sailing, pistols, archery, yoga, weightlifting, sailing, all sorts of really cool activities.

> Forcing college students to exercise will backfire, leading many of them to stop as soon as the course is over.

How is this backfiring, if those students would never have exercised at all without the mandatory courses? Plus, you're overlooking the cohort who had never previously been exposed to the benefits of physical activity (maybe this is more prevalent at MIT...) and end up sticking with it. Among my friendgroup the latter is more common than the former.

I loathed PE in school. If my university would have required it I probably would have gone elsewhere.

Yeah, I totally bet you would have turned down MIT because of a PE requirement /s

Well, at least Harvard has the swimming competence requirement to graduate, installed as a condition of the Widener Library family bequest (since their son Harry Widener died on the Titanic).

At least they did in 1976. ;-) I wonder if they still do?

Seems that the requirement being due to the Widener family donation is apocryphal[0], but still an interesting idea. Also, that source suggests that there was a swimming requirement for all students only from fall 1970 to spring 1975. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that it wasn't officially required in 1976 but was effectively compulsory for anyone without a "legitimate" dispension.

[0] http://asklib.hcl.harvard.edu/faq/81791

2012 grad here - the test has been abolished for many years.

>…that might be novelty, socializing, recognition, or competition

Your comment made me realize why I never liked sports. I don't really care for any of those things.

How about improved mental and emotional well being?

That would be nice, of course. I feel fine, but I guess you could always feel better. And get better sleep.

I never did enough sports or with enough regularity to get the famous serotonin/dopamine kick though.

Last time I tried running it was only pain, sweatiness and unachievement

Got to try it again, but it's hard to find motivation to do something that feels like torture.

That will only come if you're not perceiving it as an unpleasant task to get out of the way.

This isn't military boot camp level of exercise. Most universities (in the US) already offer a wide variety of fitness courses, so students have plenty of options to find something they like or want to explore. Add a requirement to take 1-3 of these courses during the undergrad period, and/or some method of exempting it (by being a collegiate athlete, or demonstrating a level of fitness on 1-3 occasions like an annual fitness test).

The coercion is to ensure that everyone at least tries something. I would bet that there is a significant percentage of people that would go in being unhappy about having to meet the requirement and come out being really happy that they did it. A well designed program will present a wide enough range of options that most people will find something of interest. And if it doesn't, then I'd say stopping as soon as the course is over is still better than not starting in the first place.

I don't think this is true, or at least not always true.

A good example is the armed forces, where recruits are forced into a very regimented routine.

My father was in the marines, and by his description they turned him from someone who lacked discipline and was not fit into the exact opposite.

When he retired, he kept up his routines: rising early, keeping fit. He's tried to instill the same discipline in his daughters - it's not as effective when it's not mandatory however.

I've never heard of a university having mandatory PE. Sounds ridiculous to me. University students are adults, they can decide for themselves if they want to exercise.

MIT has 4 mandatory quarters of PE, plus a swimming test (or a swim class).

Hmm, Soldiers are adults, but they usually have mandatory PE. But I suppose they are volunteers. If only our students weren't conscripted into their educations.

Obviously, the requirements of being a soldier are comparable to the requirements of being a student, so it makes perfect sense if both have mandatory PE. Or not.

The requirements for being a soldier are determined entirely by the institutions which select people to be soldiers. So you'd imagine that if a school required it's students to do PE, they'd have just as strong of requirements as soldiers do.