No one enjoys losing. After all, everyone wants to succeed,
win, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, the fear of
losing often accompanies the drive to accomplish, especially
for athletes that are expected to perform well regardless of
external or internal conditions that may impact gameplay.
As a result, athletes must adopt a tenacity which allows
them to handle loss, and to learn and grow from their past
mistakes or setbacks.

Often, a loss can expose what a win often hides: weak
communication, lazy habits, or poor decisions. When a team
wins, faults in individual decision-making or teamplay may
be ignored, as the guise of success and victory routinely
cover up areas of potential improvement. It stands to
reason that the losses hardest to accept are often the most
necessary. They ask you only one thing: do you have the
courage to keep going? Even at the highest level, the mind
is tested, demanded, and challenged — both on the court
and long after the game ends.

“Concentration and mental toughness are the margins
of victory” said legendary 11-time NBA Champion Bill
Russell.

Such mentality not only separates great athletes from
good ones, but also exposes the depth of an athlete’s
commitment. It’s easy to remain invested when success is
almost habitual, when confidence is high and victory comes
with ease. On the other hand, a loss commands effort and
progress that is no longer glamorous. Ultimately, a loss
forces an athlete to decide whether the result will carry
on as frustration or instill a newfound drive to be better.

The point of losing is not to just give up what you have
worked so hard for all because of a bad moment. Where
there are ups, there are downs; what matters most is what
you decide to do with your losses. For instance, in track,
immediate reflection can look like adjusting
your pace after going too fast, taking a leap of
faith in yourself to go climb up a few spots,
or choosing when to conserve energy and
when to push following a bad start.

“There’s always something you
could have done better. [I always have
to think about] what [I could have]
done better, what was out of my control,
what I [can] control, [and] what [I
can] do to come back stronger,” said
Felix Yu ’27.

However, improvement
is not only limited to
physical training. It
could also be about how
an athlete approaches an
event itself — how they handle pressure, make decisions,
and adjust in the moment. At times, what once looked
like a lack of fitness can actually turn out to be a matter
of judgement. A loss can reveal problems that came from
stressed nerves, a lack of proper preparation, or from the
way a plan was executed differently than from practice.

“A lot of times when I lose I just think to myself it’s just a
fitness issue. Now, improvement doesn’t come from better
training ... [it] comes [from] just learning how to [properly]
approach races,” said Yu.

A race is never decided by one moment alone.
Ayrton Senna, for example, did not win his first
Formula One race until his 16th start, however;
that first breakthrough became the beginning of
everything that followed. A race, in the same
way, is rarely a reflection
or summation of one’s
continued work. More
often, it is part of what
eventually makes success
possible. It can sharpen judgment,
expose weaknesses, and leave behind a clearer
sense of what must change before the next competition
arrives.

So, the next time you end a competition on the wrong
side of the scoreboard, don’t sulk over the immediate
defeat. Think about what you can learn from your
loss, and use that understanding in order to prepare
for how you might win your next game. Success isn’t the
absence of failure; it is the result of it, and the perpetual
reflection of oneself on their previous losses.

What we gain from losing

You sit down and open your computer, log into Bluebook, and get ready to stare at a computer screen for the next two, three, maybe four hours. It wasn’t always like this. For nearly 100 years, starting in 1926, the SAT has been a paper-and-pencil ritual as a Standard Aptitude Test to students across the country. The Digital SAT has only become the norm starting in March 2024 and the move to digital AP exams is still an ongoing process, with 16 exams becoming fully digital just last year.

The transition from paper to screen in education was accelerated by the pandemic. This year, the NJ Department of Education announced it would be field testing an adaptive version of the New Jersey Graduation Proficiency Assessment.

While these changes have been widely lauded by students and teachers alike, some have been quick to point out drawbacks to a digital medium. For one, a 2025 Oxford Learning study found that reading comprehension is stronger for physical books than screens — and that reading on a screen can lead readers to skim and often miss key details. This outcome could be extremely detrimental for test-takers on standardized tests, which often emphasize close reading and recalling minute details.

The physical test booklet was also a workspace. Students were taught to mark it up, underlining key parts of a passage, crossing out incorrect answers, or writing down formulas and calculations directly next to a question, making it easier to spot silly mistakes. While markup tools do exist on digital assessments, they are often more time-consuming and less intuitive to use.

Digital assessments have been long heralded for their ability to deliver results with less test questions due to their adaptive nature. While shorter test times are undoubtedly a benefit, digital test-taking can exacerbate inequalities and disadvantage students without access to stable internet or a computer at home. Lack of access means students may not be familiarized with the digital testing experience in a similar environment. This digitization systemically creates an uneven playing field based on socioeconomic status.

The issue of access also extends beyond home. Schools may lack the necessary infrastructure to support a shift to all-digital testing, including a sufficient number of computers or a strong enough Wi-Fi network for the volume of students testing simultaneously. This often causes technical difficulties, frequently evident at PHS, thus adding more stress and frustration to both students and staff.

The transition to digital mediums is seen by many as inevitable, especially in an increasingly fast-paced and technology-driven era. However, this format is much less tested and does not hold the centuries of use. So while paper-and-pencil learning may be in its waning stages, the advantages of a tangible medium prove that paper never fully lost its value.

Nishika Singh's Work