Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[Martinus]

Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.

For statements like this alone, I hope you get cancer relapse. Please die already.

[Valmy]

For statements like this alone, I hope you get cancer relapse. Please die already.

I attend probably five out of the six theatre performances the UT Fine Arts departments puts one very year and I have to say, at least on this campus, he is absolutely right.  I don't get why that is a bad thing, Texans just love football so very very much in a way that they never will love theatre or art (though I do not care for much student done art...most of it is self-indulgent crap).

[The Minsky Moment]

Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.

Yes and by the same logic Paris Hilton is making a far greater contribution to world culture than all the world's symphony orchestras put together.

Ortega y Gasset was right: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."

[Ed Anger]

Less Marti's, more Running backs that need tutors for PE classes.

[Ed Anger]

Also, Notre Dame Football sucks.

[Berkut]

Also, how does an exceptional actor or artist contribute more to academic life on Campus than an exceptional running back? The running back's performance will be witnessed and enjoyed by a much greater percentage of the student body than the artist and the actor.

Yes and by the same logic Paris Hilton is making a far greater contribution to world culture than all the world's symphony orchestras put together.

Ortega y Gasset was right: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."

Paris Hilton is an example of culture?

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

I am ok with that though - if you think Paris Hilton is all that and bag of chips, I won't tell you otherwise. Personally, I would rather watch a good football game, but I understand that YMMV.

[crazy canuck]

Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying.  Re-read the post he was responding to.  By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.

AF, I have to agree with you that bringing athletes in to simply improve the sports program defeats the purpose of a University.  Particularly if running the sports program draws off funding from other parts of the University.  Where you and I differ, I think, is that I still see benefit in giving those athletes at least some education which they would not have obtained without their ability in sports.  There is a balance to be struck there.  I guess your main point is that the balance has been struck too far in favour of sports as performance rather then as a tool to further education.

[Valmy]

There is a balance to be struck there.  I guess your main point is that the balance has been struck too far in favour of sports as performance rather then as a tool to further education.

Yeah and I think all the statistics bear that out to be false.  Being good at sports clearly does open up doors to educational opportunities that athletes, more often than not, take advantage of.

[Malthus]

The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.

I dunno how true this is, but assuming that it is true, it is a problem - because it is demonstrating some rather shady behaviour that universities are supposed to be solidly against: why should your average student uphold the values of not cheating and fair play, when the university itself patently doesn't?

That being said, i'm all in favour of athletics being a part of the university, along with the arts and all aspects of culture - one cannot neglect the body in favour of the mind, both go together.

[Valmy]

The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.

Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level).  So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.

For like 99.9% of scholarship athletes this is not a factor.

[Berkut]

Berk, you mischaraterized what JR was saying.  Re-read the post he was responding to.  By that definition Paris Hilton is the perfect example of why that line of reasoning fails.

I was being sarcastic, and illustrating that his objection was simply based on his personal definition of what constitutes "worthy" culture.

[grumbler]

Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level).  So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.

True, but there is no reason in that case to make the football or basketball players students, rather than employees.

I think that the Ivy League is the model that US university sports should be following.  Students can get scholoarships to play for the Uni if they can get accepted as students first.  No waivers, no lowered standards.

Those athlete who cannot make it into college can go to play for minor league football or basketball programs, just as baseball players in their shoes do. 

Everybody wins, and without "cheating."

[Berkut]

The basic problem is the perception that student athletics has become so popular that universities are willing to essentially bribe promising athletes to attend, by bending or eliminating the academic requirements in their favour, gifts of money etc. all in aid of having university teams perform credibly and so recruit alumni money.

What about schools that are willing to bend the rules to "bribe" promising scholars to attend, by eliminating the financial requirements for them to attend?

I dunno how true this is, but assuming that it is true, it is a problem - because it is demonstrating some rather shady behaviour that universities are supposed to be solidly against: why should your average student uphold the values of not cheating and fair play, when the university itself patently doesn't?

Because everyone knows that it isn't "shady", it is perfectly normal. I've never seen any evidence that suggests that students at major athletic universities tend to cheat more often because the schools have differing standards for athletes.

The way it works is like this, generally:

The university defines some minimum standards for admittance.
If you are not an athlete, you won't get in with those minimum standards, since admission is competitive.


Everyone needs something more than the minimum to compete. Some people are potentially great musicians, and even with not great grades/ACT/SAT, they get in anyway. Some people are kids of alumni. Some are athletes. All this varies by every school, of course.

So yeah, I don't see it is "shady" that there are things that figure into the "comptetive" entrance admissions beyond strict scores, as long as they meet the minimum. Even beyond that, at major schools with major athletic programs, nobody even maintains the illusion that the star athletes are really similar to typical students. Many of them are (after all, even at a school like Arizona or even USC, only a small fraction of the football players will ever earn a cent playing football) though, and hopefully will be smart enough to use their opportunity wisely.

[Valmy]

True, but there is no reason in that case to make the football or basketball players students, rather than employees.

Why not?  They are learning their craft.  Plus they get an education they can fall back on if they choose to take advantage of it in a very favorable atmosphere (with tutors and the like).

I suppose they could be like a graduate student who is learning but also performing services for the University and thus gets compensated accordingly.

I think that the Ivy League is the model that US university sports should be following.  Students can get scholoarships to play for the Uni if they can get accepted as students first.  No waivers, no lowered standards.

Those athlete who cannot make it into college can go to play for minor league football or basketball programs, just as baseball players in their shoes do. 

Everybody wins, and without "cheating."

Well I think tons of people get accepted to schools for reasons other than their raw test scores and grades.

In any case it is not even true.  A great way to get into Harvard is be a football player and have above average grades, grades that are good but not good enough to get you into Harvard without being a football player.

[Berkut]

Well here is the thing: this is only a problem at schools where they have big time football and Basketball programs and only with players who are so good they will probably have careers in those sports anyway (at the minor or big league level).  So everybody benefits really: the schools get their money and the athlete gets the exposure and experience to advance his career and really one of the primary purposes of College is to train people for careers anyway.

True, but there is no reason in that case to make the football or basketball players students, rather than employees.

I think that the Ivy League is the model that US university sports should be following.  Students can get scholoarships to play for the Uni if they can get accepted as students first.  No waivers, no lowered standards.

Those athlete who cannot make it into college can go to play for minor league football or basketball programs, just as baseball players in their shoes do. 

Everybody wins, and without "cheating."

The NCAA actually stipulates just that though - athletes must meet the school basic minium standards for admission.

The problem is that those minimum standards, technically, are often MUCH lower than the actual scores you need to get into a competitive school. So you can meet the standard, but still not be anywhere close to the average student in capability as far as academics.