Sports Scholarships (Split from Politeness)

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:43 am UTC

Belial wrote:Hey, you know all those sports? The ones that only men are allowed to play? The ones that have more *completely fucking undeserved scholarships* going for them than any other group, ever?

Those?

Yeah. Shut up.


AFAIK, women are allowed to play football (as in there is no rule against it). At the level that much of college football (DI, not DII or DIII, but even there it's pretty competitive) is played, I'm not personally acquainted with any women who would play a viable role on a college football team. The only exception I can think of is the kicker, but I'd be surprised if too many women who aren't already playing soccer at a very competitive level would be able to produce the same kind of distance under the same circumstances as the male kickers who are already out there. And those who would be good kickers (those competitive soccer players I talked about earlier) may well be out-kicked by their male counterparts in competitive soccer. All this to say, since we've gone the way of football, we're getting into the physical differences between men and women. And I thought we already said that the best person for the job should do the job.

As for the *completely fucking undeserved scholarships,* we need to figure out exactly what you mean here. Do you mean they don't deserve to be in college? Or they don't deserve to be getting paid to play college ball? If you've got something else, by all means let me know. Until I get your reply, I'll deal with those two.

1) They don't deserve to be in college.
Now we're getting into who does and does not deserve to get into college. If it's a private school, it's a completely moot point, as the gov't has no right to say whether or not they're allowed to let a certain person into their institution. As for a publicly funded university, if this person doesn't deserve to go to a public university, then where should he go? (he because we're talking about football players) How can he get an education? Or should he just be flipping burgers the rest of his life?

2)They don't deserve to be getting paid to play college ball.
I was a scholarship kid. Academic. I got a full ride to do nothing but go to school. Do you think I was deserving of my scholarship? After all, all I did was go to school. There was a different scholarship offered that was considered significantly below the one I received in prestige. It required that the person who received it maintained a higher GPA, and do a number of volunteer activities each semester, as well as hold down a campus job. Did they deserve their scholarship? They actually had to do something besides going to school for theirs. Ok, now on to the football players. We did, indeed, have full-ride football scholarship students. They have to go to school, keep their GPA above a certain level, and attend numerous practices, team meetings, individual meetings, spend a minimum amount of time in a campus tutoring facility regardless of their GPA, play their butts off each week during the fall and early winter which could lead to a serious or even life-threatening injury that would, in most cases, void their scholarship, and keep a very strict diet. Oh yeah, and they have to perform on the field. If they don't keep making the plays they get cut and lose their scholarship. Of course, that happens if their grades drop too. Oh, and one more thing. They bring in ungodly amounts of money each year that help fund so many of the academic programs that people like you and me enjoy so much.

So I'm curious where the justification is behind the claim that these scholarships are *completely fucking undeserved.* Is it the complete lack of work that's put in? Or that they're a drain on the university? Or that it's mostly a bunch of kids who wouldn't be able to afford an education without the scholarships and would end up changing oil or flipping burgers or checking out groceries for the rest of their lives?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:06 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:So I'm curious where the justification is behind the claim that these scholarships are *completely fucking undeserved.* Is it the complete lack of work that's put in? Or that they're a drain on the university? Or that it's mostly a bunch of kids who wouldn't be able to afford an education without the scholarships and would end up changing oil or flipping burgers or checking out groceries for the rest of their lives?

Ability to play football hasn't a god damn thing to do with ability to succeed in academia or in life. Maybe instead tossing around swineskin that bunch of kids could have spent time at the library and learned something and applied that to their schoolwork and earned their scholarships that way. What about all the other people that were smart enough for school but couldn't pay because some idiot with muscles got a free ride? I don't mean to generalize every college ball player into an idiot; I doubt they all are. But there have definitely been smarter people than some of those ball players that had a greater need for that money.

It's hard work and requires dedication, yes, but football skill is not a good indicator of intelligence or of how much one deserves or needs a scholarship.

I move that we (read: a mod) split this thread since there seems to be a rather robust discussion about a new topic.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:31 pm UTC

Hey, you know all those sports? The ones that only men are allowed to play? The ones that have more *completely fucking undeserved scholarships* going for them than any other group, ever?
Have you ever heard of a little thing called Title IX?

22/7 already explained rather well why sports scholarships are more than deserved, so I won't repeat him.

Ability to play football hasn't a god damn thing to do with ability to succeed in academia or in life.
And yet, it's amazing when you look at what having a good sports team does to a college, in terms of attracting better students and more money. That's like saying spending money on nicer looking facilities is a waste of a college's money.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:43 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Ability to play football hasn't a god damn thing to do with ability to succeed in academia or in life.
And yet, it's amazing when you look at what having a good sports team does to a college, in terms of attracting better students and more money. That's like saying spending money on nicer looking facilities is a waste of a college's money.


So how does that prove my statement false? The two still aren't related.

Maybe society as a whole could wake the hell up and stop idolizing people who throw a fucking ball around for a living, but it's not looking likely since I'm about the only person who doesn't give a shit about sports teams and is (clearly) fairly bitter about the whole concept.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:48 pm UTC

CreemyNougat wrote:So how does that prove my statement false? The two still aren't related.

Maybe society as a whole could wake the hell up and stop idolizing people who throw a fucking ball around for a living, but it's not looking likely since I'm about the only person who doesn't give a shit about sports teams and is (clearly) fairly bitter about the whole concept.
But you still have to demonstrate why a skill has to be useful in academia or life for it to be worthy of a scholarship. Should we ban all scholarships for poor children, because being poor is clearly not a skill that's useful in academia or life? And, you have to demonstrate that being an athlete actually isn't useful in academia or life.

I don't give a shit about sports teams, either. But when I criticize something, I try to do it for reasons that actually make sense.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:56 pm UTC

But you still have to demonstrate why a skill has to be useful in academia or life for it to be worthy of a scholarship. Should we ban all scholarships for poor children, because being poor is clearly not a skill that's useful in academia or life?


Poor kids get scholarships on a combination of need and merit-based factors. Basically, if you're smart enough that the school wants you, but you don't have money, they'll pay for you.

Sports scholarships are neither need- nor merit-based from an academic perspective.

And, you have to demonstrate that being an athlete actually isn't useful in academia or life.


Actually, I would say that someone else has to prove that it is. Because I sure as hell can't see how throwing a football makes you better at math, science, english, the arts, or any other field of academic pursuit.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:00 pm UTC

Actually, I would say that someone else has to prove that it is. Because I sure as hell can't see how throwing a football makes you better at math, science, english, the arts, or any other field of academic pursuit.
I'm sorry, but I thought the athletes were the ones that needed things explained to them multiple times.

Sports teams make money for the school, through tickets, alumni donations, merchandise, and other methods. Sports teams raise school spirit, and attract more students (which generally means they can select from a wider pool, and thus get better students). The number of students at a school on athletic scholarships is generally a trivial percentage, so the school loses very little in academic rigor while gaining quite a bit of funding it can spend on academics (I mean the funding left over after it's paid for sports).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm UTC

Just because it's financially convenient for the school doesn't mean those kids deserve scholarships. It just means they're good cash cows.

Secondly, you didn't ask whether the scholarships were a good idea, you asked if being an athlete makes you better at academics. So check your tone.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:14 pm UTC

What's wrong with cash cows?
If giving scholarships to athletes creates more income for a university which can then be used to upgrade the facilities what's the harm?
If anything, people complaining about the football scholarships are the ones who should shut up. Short of women's basketball at Tennessee or UConn or soccer at UNC there isn't a whole lot of value to women's sports (from the Cash Cow's point of view).

Creemy's complaint about the value our society places on athletes is certainly legit as long as we're grouping ALL entertainers in there as well, from the greatest composer to Lindsey Lohan. But as long as society places a monetary value on the entertainment derived from sports then you can't fault schools for trying to capitalize. Would you argue that they shouldn't allow musicians to hold concerts on school grounds? After all, this requires resources such as campus police, etc.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:16 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Just because it's financially convenient for the school doesn't mean those kids deserve scholarships. It just means they're good cash cows.
And how, exactly, does a school buy a cash cow that is also a student, without using a scholarship?

And if they're a cash cow, doesn't that mean their scholarship is deserved (often far more so than intelligent students who can't pay) because they end up making the school more money than they cost in their scholarship, and do it quicker?*

Belial wrote:Secondly, you didn't ask whether the scholarships were a good idea, you asked if being an athlete makes you better at academics. So check your tone.
Unless I am seriously mistaken, I never asked that question. I made a suggestion to CreemyNougat that he would have to prove the reverse for his complaints to make sense, but that isn't the same. (i.e. pointing out a lack of proof is different from attempting to disprove)

*But, Vaniver, the point of a school isn't to make money! Of course it is. A school sells the service of education, and a school that can do it at a profit now has more money to invest in either more capacity for students or better quality for students. A school that bankrupts itself to prove a stellar education for five classes of students and then closes is far worse than a school that provides a good education for ten classes of students, then a superb education for fifty classes of students, and then a stellar education for the foreseeable future.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:17 pm UTC

What's wrong with cash cows?


You'll note that I never said anything about it being *bad* to have completely undeserving cash cows.

Just that that doesn't change the fact that they're undeserving. They happen to have a useless skill that for some inexplicable reason holds some ridiculous sway over society. That doesn't mean they deserve a free education, but since that's the only way the university can use them, it's what they get.

Kindof like lottery winners don't really deserve their millions, but the system is beneficial, and the system couldn't exist without winners, so they *get* the millions anyway.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:19 pm UTC

Just that that doesn't change the fact that they're undeserving. They happen to have a useless skill that for some inexplicable reason holds some ridiculous sway over society.
Just because you think a skill is useless does not make it so.

[edit]And what use does it need to have for you to call it useful? Is making money for a university no longer something that is useful?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:22 pm UTC

Here we have a fundamental disagreement on what the purpose of a school is. You see the function of education as a means of making money. I see the making of money as a messy necessity of the school's continued purpose of education.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Postby Chocceh » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:22 pm UTC

Sure, keep sports teams for the fundraising. But why give them so many things and so much money?

To get an academic scholarship, you must study very hard and put great effort into many years of school. They show that you have an aptitude for learning.* To get an athletic scholarship, you must work very hard and put great effort into maneuvering a ball around a field. They show that you can maneuver a ball around a field.* Yeah, both require effort, but for completely different results. What you chose to put your work towards says as much about you as your work. If I were to tell you that I spent six hours sweating over a video game tournament, I'm fairly certain that you'd favor the person the spent six hours sweating over a construction bench, making a piece of furniture.

*Biased? Hell yes.

solarchem wrote:Creemy's complaint about the value our society places on athletes is certainly legit as long as we're grouping ALL entertainers in there as well, from the greatest composer to Lindsey Lohan. But as long as society places a monetary value on the entertainment derived from sports then you can't fault schools for trying to capitalize. Would you argue that they shouldn't allow musicians to hold concerts on school grounds? After all, this requires resources such as campus police, etc.


I believe entertainment is good, but yeah, I'll group them all together when I say we overpay them by far. I don't see anything wrong with school-sponsored entertainment, either, but it shouldn't mix with the education.
Last edited by Chocceh on Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Okay

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:25 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Just that that doesn't change the fact that they're undeserving. They happen to have a useless skill that for some inexplicable reason holds some ridiculous sway over society.


I would argue that they are deserving. They are providing a service to the school. You can major in Women's Studies around my parts. I think the athlete bringing cash to the university is more deserving of a scholarship than someone who may be really intelligent but will serve no useful roll in society except to teach more Women's Studies majors.

What scale would you use to determine who's more deserving? Is someone who's really smart and rich more worthy than a poor kid of average intelligence? Because schools give money all the time to people who don't need it just for the prestige factor of having a higher average SAT score.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Postby Chocceh » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:28 pm UTC

solarchem wrote:I would argue that they are deserving. They are providing a service to the school.


Start giving scholarships to every guard, restaurant worker, janitor and other faculty members, and then tell me why football players should get scholarships for services to the school.

solarchem wrote:What scale would you use to determine who's more deserving? Is someone who's really smart and rich more worthy than a poor kid of average intelligence? Because schools give money all the time to people who don't need it just for the prestige factor of having a higher average SAT score.


If you're intelligent and kept your grades up, you deserve school.
Okay

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Postby ZeroSum » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:32 pm UTC

Chocceh wrote:Start giving scholarships to every guard, restaurant worker, janitor and other faculty members, and then tell me why football players should get scholarships for services to the school.
Every child of a state university worker in my state gets a full tuition scholarship.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm UTC

Chocceh wrote:Start giving scholarships to every guard, restaurant worker, janitor and other faculty members, and then tell me why football players should get scholarships for services to the school.
Supply and demand. There are a lot more people willing and able to be a guard, restaurant worker, janitor, and other staff than there are to be a star football player. And, you can also look at the product of their labor- a star football player does a lot more for the school than any specific janitor.

Chocceh wrote:If you're intelligent and kept your grades up, you deserve school.
Deserve school? School takes a lot of resources to create. I'd rather people have to pay at least part of it themselves; otherwise we get too many people who go immediately to college, change their major three times, and end up with a degree they won't use. If they didn't go because they didn't want to fork over the money for something they weren't serious about, or needed a few years to save up money while working and figuring out what they want to do with their life, then we'd have a better system. Pretending that everyone deserves a secondary education is silly and harmful for real education.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm UTC

Chocceh wrote:Start giving scholarships to every guard, restaurant worker, janitor and other faculty members, and then tell me why football players should get scholarships for services to the school.


At my school (UMass) not only can employees take classes, but their children can attend for free too.

That aside, your janitorial staff is not attracting students and money. Better athletes do. And don't kid yourself about professors. The top ones (i.e. the ones who add to the school's reputation and income making abilities) command crazy salaries and perks, such as free housing. Which to me sounds a bit like an incentive program. Kind of like scholarships.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

davej
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:08 pm UTC
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Standford.. Duke.. Pepperdine?

Postby davej » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:23 pm UTC

You are telling me that the kids that go to these schools that get sports scholorships do not deserve them? You think the schools allows people in whom do not meet their GPA standards to play sports? I highly doubt that. Not to mention that when watching different college atheletic events, there are many players whom are going to school not just for a general studies degree. But I guess since they play college sports (is football all we are talking about in this thread) they must be really stupid.

I read somewhere above someone saying that sports won't help people in life? Sure it does. It starts when a person is a kid. It gives them self-esteem, pride, and also helps them understand what team work is about. It helps keep kids away from doing bad things afterschool since they are there at practice. Later on in life, I'd have to say that though not all athletes in NCAA go to play in that sport as their life-long career, those whom did were given the chance due to, but not always, the scholorship that allowed them to go to college, play in that sport at the college, then get drafted to the respective sport that they play in. If any of you are going to gripe about anything, gripe about how the different leagues around the nation do not require a degree from these students to join there league. At least with football, the kid has to go for 3 years, giving them rather well-rounded education before they can get to the national football league, unlike basketball which now requires only one year of school.

If we are talking about how there are kids whom are not able to go to these universities due to money issues, blame the schools for that. Look at all the general studies classes students are forced to take and pay for that have nothing to do with their majors. School says it is to give the kid a well-rounded education and college experience, so does football.

I also want to note that students playing sports have to do all that any other student would have to do. From what I've heard, and those that I've talked to that play sports in college (including those in my classes), they seem not to get any more special treatment then I do. If someone replies talking about the tutors they get, then I have to say that ASU provides excellent free tutoring programs (as do most every college) that have helpd me out many times.

Sorry I was all over the place on this reply.

Sevic
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:58 pm UTC

Postby Sevic » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:27 pm UTC

You all seem to be coming from the premise that a schools only purpose is to provide only academic education. I consider this to be simply untrue. Schools are there to provide both an academic education and physical education.

Second to say that being a good football player has nothing to do with doing well academically is just proving your ignorance. The enormous amount of discipline and fortitude required to compete at the collegiate level can be easily transfered to the academic world. If said player can endure hours of painful practice, they can spend hours on the books if they choose to.
---------------------

Don't worry, the ground will break your fall!

User avatar
space_raptor
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Postby space_raptor » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:31 pm UTC

Some of this seems to be bitching from people who don't like football/sports and don't see why people who play it should be rewarded. Tough bananas. A lot of people like football. The schools are going to encourage football if it helps their image and their students. That's the way things work in the real world.

There is no requirement that schools give scholarships. It is purely their decision. If they repealed football scholarships, there is absolutely no guarantee the money would go to other, academic based scholarships. Nothing is being taken away from other potential students by the schools offering football scholarships. This smacks of jealousy.
The drinking will continue until morale improves.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:35 pm UTC

More to get to when I have time, but:

Some of this seems to be bitching from people who don't like football/sports and don't see why people who play it should be rewarded.


Reward them all you want. I believe there's already an industry for paying people sickening amounts of money for essentially useless skills.

I just don't see what the hell it has to do with an institute of higher learning.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5402
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Postby mosc » Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:51 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Here we have a fundamental disagreement on what the purpose of a school is. You see the function of education as a means of making money. I see the making of money as a messy necessity of the school's continued purpose of education.


Let me put it to you in a way it was explained to me that made sense.

EX: Student Noob is a star quarterback. His qualifications are suspect but above the limits established by your institution. You want him to go to school for many reasons but if you want to be as cold as possible about it, consider the money that student will bring to the university vs the cost of providing him a full scholarship. Given the huge rate of return on this investment, it's in the school's best interest. The money earned can be used to, say, provide academic scholarships to other students (just as an example). Now you've RAISED the academic average at your school, provided several extra worthy "smart kids" with a quality education, and helped the fiscal solvency of the school.

The cost? You have a student who otherwise wouldn't have gotten in. Don't dare say that he'll be a poor performer. Statistically that may be true but there are certainly THOUSANDS of exceptions to that rule. Also, keep in mind that MOST students who get athletic scholarships aren't going to go play basketball for Kansas and later drop out. MOST athletic students go onto jobs outside of sports.

It's a win for all sides. The smart kids, the athletic kids, the university, and the alumni. I remember an engineering professor I had telling me that the only way the school afforded to keep good professors like himself (he was a touch arrogant but very talented no doubt) was by the money brought in by athletics. My degree cost a lot more than I paid for it. It was heavily subsidized by, among other things, college football. I make sure to thank the talented football players I meet who went to my school because the money they bring in makes it a better place for everyone.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:16 pm UTC

Solarchem wrote:I would argue that they are deserving. They are providing a service to the school.


Yes. Because somehow, sports got associated with school. And somehow, they became more valuable than academics. So somehow, a football player became worth more than an academic to a hall of academia.

This is the way it is. I understand this. I understand why this is a smart decision for the school. I understand how this benefits everyone. I also understand that this doesn't make the person deserving. It's just an exploitation of a somewhat stupid system.

Solarchem wrote:What scale would you use to determine who's more deserving? Is someone who's really smart and rich more worthy than a poor kid of average intelligence? Because schools give money all the time to people who don't need it just for the prestige factor of having a higher average SAT score.


It would seem to me that, for merit-based scholarships, educating those who are good at learning would generally be the best way to go about it. For need-based, the poor kid would be the better use. Both types exist. Sports are neither.

davej wrote:You think the schools allows people in whom do not meet their GPA standards to play sports?


No. But meeting the GPA requirements doesn't usually exempt one from paying for the school.

davej wrote:But I guess since they play college sports (is football all we are talking about in this thread) they must be really stupid.


No. They're at least as qualified as the dumbest non-sport-scholarship student, unless something covert is going on (which I have heard of, but is neither here nor there).

That said, they're generally not qualified enough to get an academic scholarship, or if they are, the sports scholarship wouldn't matter.

davej wrote:I read somewhere above someone saying that sports won't help people in life? Sure it does. It starts when a person is a kid. It gives them self-esteem, pride, and also helps them understand what team work is about. It helps keep kids away from doing bad things afterschool since they are there at practice.


There are plenty of things that do that. But most of them don't earn the school money.

Sevic wrote:You all seem to be coming from the premise that a schools only purpose is to provide only academic education. I consider this to be simply untrue. Schools are there to provide both an academic education and physical education.


Maybe a high school. Of the colleges I've seen course requirements on, physical education was generally a cursory requirement, if it was one at all.

Sevic wrote:Second to say that being a good football player has nothing to do with doing well academically is just proving your ignorance. The enormous amount of discipline and fortitude required to compete at the collegiate level can be easily transfered to the academic world. If said player can endure hours of painful practice, they can spend hours on the books if they choose to.


You could just as easily argue that those hours and hours of painful practice, all the focus, discipline and fortitude, are hours, focus, discipline, and fortitude that are *not* being dedicated to study.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:25 pm UTC

This is the way it is. I understand this. I understand why this is a smart decision for the school. I understand how this benefits everyone. I also understand that this doesn't make the person deserving. It's just an exploitation of a somewhat stupid system.
"I hate sports" and "People who do sports don't deserve what other people willingly give them" are two very different things, and if you mistake the first for the second, you need to reevaluate the way you look at the world.

Other people get to decide who deserves what too. It isn't just you. *gasp*
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:28 pm UTC

Eh, it's a necessary evil. For all the reasons stated above, yeah.. they're deserving.

One of the objects is to get the sport team as full as possible of skilled athletes, as skilled athletes win more games.. more wins = more money, etc.. I'm sure there's a function of the skill of the team that year to the income provided. So it's in the school's interest to find the most skilled people they can.

You now have a person, through random chance of birth, who is naturally skilled at a certain physical task and has made the choice to expand that natural skill. The school in question takes an interest and offers him a scholarship.

This is no different than the school noticing a student who is especially gifted in chemistry and offering them a scholarship as well. Same random chance of birth gifting the person for a mind for chemistry, and they choose to exploit their gift..blah blah blah.

Now, the more money the school has (and since donations are up, donations are up overall) the more money it can expend on other scholarships.

And yeah.. the football player is worth more than an academic. Without the player, the school can afford the resources for one academic student. With the football player, the school can afford the resources for him, as well as three academics students.

As I said, though.. it's no different than courting that kid who came up with a new chemical process for treating old tires to recycle them into plastic forks or whatever. It's just that it's easier to teach Football than it is to teach Chemistry.

It's a necessary evil. And it'll stop just as soon as this country, as a whole, stops giving a shit about sports*

*Which will be about 10 minutes before the Big Crush
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:32 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:"I hate sports" and "People who do sports don't deserve what other people willingly give them" are two very different things, and if you mistake the first for the second, you need to reevaluate the way you look at the world.

Other people get to decide who deserves what too. It isn't just you. *gasp*


If I weren't actually involved in this discussion, I would delete this post on the basis that you're being a condescending prick.

That said, my personal like or dislike notwithstanding*, I am simply holding that the ability to throw a ball doesn't make you deserving of being a student in the same way that being a good student does.

*and despite what you think you've gleaned from what I've said, I've made no statements vis-a-vis my feelings about sports as a pasttime, only on their usefulness and relevance to academia.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:33 pm UTC

Is anyone going to come up with a good way to refute the fact that a person's sports prowess is absolutely and unequivocally unrelated to their academic ability or their economic misfortune?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Chocceh
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Californialand
Contact:

Postby Chocceh » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:39 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:Every child of a state university worker in my state gets a full tuition scholarship.


solarchem wrote:At my school (UMass) not only can employees take classes, but their children can attend for free too.


Fair enough, but I value the faculty above ball maneuverers.

Vaniver wrote:Supply and demand. There are a lot more people willing and able to be a guard, restaurant worker, janitor, and other staff than there are to be a star football player. And, you can also look at the product of their labor- a star football player does a lot more for the school than any specific janitor.


The things they do for the school are a biproduct of their labor. A star football player's product is that the ball moves to the other side of the field.

Vaniver wrote:Deserve school? School takes a lot of resources to create. I'd rather people have to pay at least part of it themselves; otherwise we get too many people who go immediately to college, change their major three times, and end up with a degree they won't use. If they didn't go because they didn't want to fork over the money for something they weren't serious about, or needed a few years to save up money while working and figuring out what they want to do with their life, then we'd have a better system. Pretending that everyone deserves a secondary education is silly and harmful for real education.


I had to respond in terms to the post I was replying to, which asked, "What scale would you use to determine who's more deserving?" I don't mean to say that anyone deserves school, but that was the word I had to use.

solarchem wrote:That aside, your janitorial staff is not attracting students and money. Better athletes do. And don't kid yourself about professors. The top ones (i.e. the ones who add to the school's reputation and income making abilities) command crazy salaries and perks, such as free housing. Which to me sounds a bit like an incentive program. Kind of like scholarships.


The janitorial staff keeps the campus in good shape. No one would attend a university if it was a huge dumpster.

davej wrote:I read somewhere above someone saying that sports won't help people in life? Sure it does. It starts when a person is a kid. It gives them self-esteem, pride, and also helps them understand what team work is about. It helps keep kids away from doing bad things afterschool since they are there at practice.


Whoops.

Sevic wrote:Second to say that being a good football player has nothing to do with doing well academically is just proving your ignorance. The enormous amount of discipline and fortitude required to compete at the collegiate level can be easily transfered to the academic world. If said player can endure hours of painful practice, they can spend hours on the books if they choose to.


If that were true, then just because I'm a good student I should be a good football player as well. I've tried my hardest on many occasions and to be honest, I really suck at sports. Why are you so sure that athletes can be star students based on their muscles? I sure as hell can't be an athlete based on my brain.

And it's not that I disagree with the effort that players put into their sport, it's their choice of where they put that effort into.

space_raptor wrote:Some of this seems to be bitching from people who don't like football/sports and don't see why people who play it should be rewarded. Tough bananas. A lot of people like football. The schools are going to encourage football if it helps their image and their students. That's the way things work in the real world.


Okay, but why should academics and athletics mix? If a school wants to raise money with sports, fine, whatever - but why mix?

space_raptor wrote:Nothing is being taken away from other potential students by the schools offering football scholarships. This smacks of jealousy.


What do you mean nothing is being taken away from other potential students? Potential students ARE being taken away by football scholarships.

(probably more to come, but I have to leave now)
Okay

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:39 pm UTC

Belial wrote:If I weren't actually involved in this discussion, I would delete this post on the basis that you're being a condescending prick.
I was out of line, and I apologize. But you've yet to come up with a single reason why schools shouldn't value sports and the students who play them, except that you don't think they're deserving. Well, your definition of deserving is out of line with reality.

Belial wrote:*and despite what you think you've gleaned from what I've said, I've made no statements vis-a-vis my feelings about sports as a pasttime, only on their usefulness and relevance to academia.
Belial wrote:I believe there's already an industry for paying people sickening amounts of money for essentially useless skills.


CreemyNougat wrote:Is anyone going to come up with a good way to refute the fact that a person's sports prowess is absolutely and unequivocally unrelated to their academic ability or their economic misfortune?
Are you going to come up with a good reason for anyone to care?

[edit]
What do you mean nothing is being taken away from other potential students? Potential students ARE being taken away by football scholarships.
You're assuming that each sport student provides less money to the school than the cost of another student. I don't think that's a good assumption.
Last edited by Vaniver on Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:41 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Sevic
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:58 pm UTC

Postby Sevic » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:39 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Sevic wrote:You all seem to be coming from the premise that a schools only purpose is to provide only academic education. I consider this to be simply untrue. Schools are there to provide both an academic education and physical education.


Maybe a high school. Of the colleges I've seen course requirements on, physical education was generally a cursory requirement, if it was one at all.


Your confusing education with a degree.

Belial wrote:
Sevic wrote:Second to say that being a good football player has nothing to do with doing well academically is just proving your ignorance. The enormous amount of discipline and fortitude required to compete at the collegiate level can be easily transfered to the academic world. If said player can endure hours of painful practice, they can spend hours on the books if they choose to.



You could just as easily argue that those hours and hours of painful practice, all the focus, discipline and fortitude, are hours, focus, discipline, and fortitude that are *not* being dedicated to study.


This is true, but when a school provides scholarships they award them initially off of potential. The football player has shown through their athletic achievements that they have the potential to do well academically.

Edited for formatting.
---------------------



Don't worry, the ground will break your fall!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:50 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote: But you've yet to come up with a single reason why schools shouldn't value sports and the students who play them,


Because I see the purpose of the school to educate, and as such its priority should be education of those who will make good students, and therefore merit should be placed on those who meet that requirement, not on those who, due to the whim of society, will bring in money.

The fact that they *have* to bribe students who don't qualify based on need or merit, just to satisfy their balance sheets and make the above possible is unfortunate.

Vaniver wrote: except that you don't think they're deserving. Well, your definition of deserving is out of line with reality.


Out of line with their bank statement, perhaps.

Vaniver wrote:
Belial wrote:*and despite what you think you've gleaned from what I've said, I've made no statements vis-a-vis my feelings about sports as a pasttime, only on their usefulness and relevance to academia.
Belial wrote:I believe there's already an industry for paying people sickening amounts of money for essentially useless skills.


"Useless" and "Overpaid" are not "bad". I enjoy a number of things that are useless. I think a lot of occupations are overpaid. That doesn't mean I dislike either.

Sevic wrote:Your confusing education with a degree.


But if the school's function is to provide a physical education, why wouldn't that be included in the degree requirements?

Sevic wrote:This is true, but when a school provides scholarships they award them initially off of potential. The football player has shown through their athletic achievements that they have the potential to do well academically.


If they had such potential to do well academically, wouldn't they be doing well academically, and thus qualify for academic scholarships?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:51 pm UTC

Having a sports scholarship decreases the value of the university to the customer (ie, the students). If someone is getting paid for sports, then the university is showing a preference towards sports. If you're not interested in sports at the university, then the university is now not as important to you. It also would make it less valuable to potential employers, which will also make it less valuable to you.

However, if having sports scholarships also helps increase the amount of money available, the university might be able to increase it's value to the students more than is decreased by having the sports scholarships.

So it being a good idea or not is not a simple question.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:58 pm UTC

Because I see the purpose of the school to educate, and as such its priority should be education of those who will make good students, and therefore merit should be placed on those who meet that requirement, not on those who, due to the whim of society, will bring in money.
But, if they devote a fragment of their resources towards students who pull in more money, they can accomplish their central goal of education better. It's like rejecting cups of water handed to you by spectators while running a race, saying "I'm here to run a race, not drink water," ignoring that drinking water helps you run the race.

Out of line with their bank statement, perhaps.
And in what way is the financial situation of a college unreal?

"Useless" and "Overpaid" are not "bad". I enjoy a number of things that are useless. I think a lot of occupations are overpaid. That doesn't mean I dislike either.
Generally, things you like don't sicken you when you think about them. If you can't tell that your diction is consistently hostile to sports, you need to take a step back and reread your posts.

Having a sports scholarship decreases the value of the university to the customer (ie, the students).
Unless the students care about sports. Care to estimate whether the group that cares is larger than the group that doesn't? Care to estimate how many talented students (and their parents) care about sports, and will want to go to a school with a better team?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Malice » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:03 pm UTC

Sevic wrote:
Belial wrote:
Sevic wrote:You all seem to be coming from the premise that a schools only purpose is to provide only academic education. I consider this to be simply untrue. Schools are there to provide both an academic education and physical education.


Maybe a high school. Of the colleges I've seen course requirements on, physical education was generally a cursory requirement, if it was one at all.


Your confusing education with a degree.


It might be true that a school should provide physical education as well as an academic one.

However, a human being does not require knowledge or skill or practice at football or any other sport in order to be physically fit. For the most part, your body doesn't care what you're doing to exercise; only that you need to do some.

A school wishing to physically educate its students would teach them how to come up with and maintain a schedule of healthy exercise. They would not take those students, put them in uniforms, glorify them, pay them vast sums of money, and then have them beat each other up on a field for a few hours every week.

---

Belial:

A: How do you feel about other talent-based scholarships? For example, it's possible to get a scholarship based on musical talent. Are those people just as undeserving? What if they're there to study an area related to their talent?

B: What if a university simply paid prospective players to be on the school team and to play sports--in order to get revenues--instead of giving them a free education? Would you feel the same way about that situation?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:06 pm UTC

But, if they devote a fragment of their resources towards students who pull in more money, they can accomplish their central goal of education better. It's like rejecting cups of water handed to you by spectators while running a race, saying "I'm here to run a race, not drink water," ignoring that drinking water helps you run the race.


Again. This is why I said that having sports scholarships isn't a bad idea, given the current state of society. Necessary evil, as ST puts it.

And in what way is the financial situation of a college unreal?


Unreal? No. Tangential to their purpose? Yes.

Generally, things you like don't sicken you when you think about them. If you can't tell that your diction is consistently hostile to sports, you need to take a step back and reread your posts.


Alright. My turn to be condescending. Take a look at what word "sickening" was modifying. If I've not suddenly lost my grasp of english grammar, I believe it was modifying "amounts", which was further modified by the adjectival prepositional phrase "of money".

Therefore, one could surmise that perhaps sports are not what sickens me, but that the amount of money dedicated to them, perhaps, does.

Or, if one were giving me the benefit of the doubt, one could surmise that paychecks in the 50 million dollar range would qualify as "sickening amounts of money" regardless of their purpose.

Edit:

Malice wrote:A: How do you feel about other talent-based scholarships? For example, it's possible to get a scholarship based on musical talent. Are those people just as undeserving? What if they're there to study an area related to their talent?


If the school has a music major program, and they're there to study it, I could see it.

In fact, I could also see factoring a student's athletic experience into a scholarship for a Physical Education major. The distinction between that and a sports scholarship is rather fine, but it's there.

Malice wrote:B: What if a university simply paid prospective players to be on the school team and to play sports--in order to get revenues--instead of giving them a free education? Would you feel the same way about that situation?


Ultimately, and in a perfect world, I don't see why an institute of higher learning should have to employ professional athletes by way of paying them *or* funding their education. It seems a fundamental mismatch of priorities.

In the real world, I understand why they do, and I actually prefer giving them a free education to giving them a paycheck (as it leads to one more person being, at least ostensibly, educated). That said, between a student with slightly above-average academic ability and one with average academic ability as well as the ability to throw a ball, I consider it something of a failure of our priorities that the latter is more valuable.

This is more society's fault than the school's.
Last edited by Belial on Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:16 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Sevic
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:58 pm UTC

Postby Sevic » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:09 pm UTC

Belial wrote:But if the school's function is to provide a physical education, why wouldn't that be included in the degree requirements?


For the same reason why dif-eq is not required for art majors, they are not related. Just because the school offers the education does not mean its part of their degree.

Belial wrote:If they had such potential to do well academically, wouldn't they be doing well academically, and thus qualify for academic scholarships?


No. If I'm standing on top of the empire state building I have potential, it doesn't mean that I am falling.

Refocusing a little bit athletic students do deserve some scholarships because sports are an education that the school provides. All the players in the NFL, where did they come from? How did they get good at what they do? They played in college.

Its just like kids that get scholarships for music.
---------------------



Don't worry, the ground will break your fall!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:20 pm UTC

Refocusing a little bit athletic students do deserve some scholarships because sports are an education that the school provides. All the players in the NFL, where did they come from? How did they get good at what they do? They played in college.


So you're saying that college athletics are more like a separate educational program designed to train players for the national leagues?

That....actually makes the whole thing make more sense.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Sevic
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:58 pm UTC

Postby Sevic » Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:25 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
It might be true that a school should provide physical education as well as an academic one.

However, a human being does not require knowledge or skill or practice at football or any other sport in order to be physically fit. For the most part, your body doesn't care what you're doing to exercise; only that you need to do some.

A school wishing to physically educate its students would teach them how to come up with and maintain a schedule of healthy exercise. They would not take those students, put them in uniforms, glorify them, pay them vast sums of money, and then have them beat each other up on a field for a few hours every week.


Your 100% correct. Soccer is a much more enlightened sport.

It's true that we don't need to play football, or any other sport for that matter to be fit. But humans are prone to be lazy if we can help it. We need motivation to go do stuff. This is why we have sports. So that its fun to exercise. So that we actually get out and do it.

Tieing this into varsity football players; they win because they have fun getting the education that they want. Other students win because they get inspiration from their schools sports teams. By the school sponsoring sports teams, they are helping education all of their students.

Finally, sports teams benefit everyone in that they promote social interactions within the school community. Be it a football game, soccer game, or whatever. This helps everyone release stress and do better academically.
---------------------



Don't worry, the ground will break your fall!


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests