Sonia Sotomayor for USSC?

[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.

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.

Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?

I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.

[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.

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.

Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?

I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.

Because they are in fact students, and in fact need to meet progress requirements and such for graduation.

It isn't a "charade" at all, except in those places that end up getting investigated by the NCAA or lsoe scholarships because they don't meet the requirements that it NOT be a charade.

Most student-athletes are exactly that - student athletes. A very, very small percentage are using college as a path to a professional career. Probably less than 1%, overall, and likely a lot less.

[Malthus]

Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.

http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=15962&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or

This article studies the impact of athletic scandals in higher education by examining changes in key variables including overall enrolment, number of freshman applications, overall charitable contributions, alumni charitable athletic contributions and corporate charitable athletic contributions. This exploratory study involved a case analysis of 15 universities covering an 8-year period that had been placed on NCAA probation for infractions involving their men's basketball and football programmes during the 1998–2005 academic calendar years. Preliminary results indicate that athletic scandal does negatively impact overall charitable giving and overall enrolment and that the impact is long-term in nature. However, contrary to our expectations, we found that scandal had a positive impact on alumni athletic contributions, corporate athletic contributions and total freshman applications. A set of managerial implications for colleges and university administrators as well as future research is discussed.

[Valmy]

Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?

I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.

Because they are students.  It is not a charade.  They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...).  In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football.  I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.

They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.

[Valmy]

Most student-athletes are exactly that - student athletes. A very, very small percentage are using college as a path to a professional career. Probably less than 1%, overall, and likely a lot less.

This

[Valmy]

Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.

Yes because that was exactly what Berkut and I were saying: cheating is good.

[Berkut]

Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.

Yeah, I am pretty sure that is just what we are suggesting.

[Malthus]

Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?

I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.

Because they are students.  It is not a charade.  They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...).  In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football.  I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.

They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.

The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.

This isn't my opinion alone.

http://www.amazon.com/Game-Life-College-Sports-Educational/dp/0691096198

[Valmy]

The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.

That book only talks about reformation.  It actually says pointblank that there are lots of positive advantages of College Athletics and that the problems need to be minimized.

That seems to reinforce but Berkut and I are saying rather than going against it.

[Malthus]

Heh, maybe you guys are right: athletic/academic cheating can be good for universities, they should encourage more of it.

Yes because that was exactly what Berkut and I were saying: cheating is good.

That is certainly how your response to my post read.

You said:

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.

So paying the illiterate to play football and calling them a "student" is okay?

[alfred russel]

Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?

I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.

Because they are students.  It is not a charade.  They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...).  In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football.  I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.

They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.

Admitting a group of athletes who are way below the standards the school would even consider an application from anyone else, linking them with academic counselors that can guide them into classes/professors that are more subjective in nature and not difficult to pass, assigning them tutors and minders to make sure they do the minimum necessary to stay eligible, and then condering success when more than half graduate?

How about considering the Wonderlic scores that show despite them succeeding in all those classes at some of our better colleges, many of them still test lower than the average security guard.

[Berkut]

Stanford, one of the top academic schools in the country, has 35 athletic programs and over 800 student athletes.

Out of those 800, how many will ever earn a nickel playing a sport professionally? I bet less than one or two dozen, on average. A couple basketball players, a couple football players, maybe a couple baseball players. Out of those, maybe 1 or 2 will actually have a career that makes them any amount of money that could be considered an actual living.

That vast majority of them are going to get their degrees and go on to other jobs and careers. They are just as much students as people who get in with a CV that has a variety of different criteria to determine their entry beyond strictly their grades, like musicians, artists, alumni, etc., etc.

[Caliga]

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."

The masses are asses.   That's why I don't believe in Democracy.

[Caliga]

Stanford, one of the top academic schools in the country, has 35 athletic programs and over 800 student athletes.

Out of those 800, how many will ever earn a nickel playing a sport professionally? I bet less than one or two dozen, on average. A couple basketball players, a couple football players, maybe a couple baseball players. Out of those, maybe 1 or 2 will actually have a career that makes them any amount of money that could be considered an actual living.

That vast majority of them are going to get their degrees and go on to other jobs and careers. They are just as much students as people who get in with a CV that has a variety of different criteria to determine their entry beyond strictly their grades, like musicians, artists, alumni, etc., etc.

You people should look into Howard Gardner's theory of MI before pooh-poohing athletes.

[Berkut]

Why go with the damaging illusion that they are "students"?

I disagree that no-one is harmed by the charade.

Because they are students.  It is not a charade.  They are learning how to play their sport at a high level if nothing else (and most do graduate...).  In the United States that is a necessary step in most of the big sports leagues, particularly football.  I am totally unable to concieve why it is ok for me to pay money to see a University play with student actors but as soon as I take out my wallet to pay money to see them play baseball I am suddenly harming them and worse than hitler and them playing baseball ruins the University while them being in a play is great.

They also have tremendous opportunities to get a good education with a fantastic support structure provided by the athletic department.

The problem is that the way sports are run in some universities is distorting the purpose of having a university in the first place and leads to lots of cheating.

This isn't my opinion alone.

http://www.amazon.com/Game-Life-College-Sports-Educational/dp/0691096198

Judging from the summary, that book does not argue anything at all what you are suggesting - that there is widespread cheating and some kind of systemic and serious problem with athletics degrading the mission of schools overall even outside the realm of the athletes.

And it is a rather obvious false appeal to authority to boot.