Why do they have to relate in a “meaningful” way? Sports are part of college in the US. End of story. If you want to design your ideal college education system, feel free to leave out sports. But this has grown organically in the US as part of our system. If you don’t like it, then don’t watch.
Athletics have been part of university programs for a long time now. Oxford University in the United Kingdom has a ton of sports programs including cricket, boat club (men’s and women’s) and even American football! Perhaps American universities are silly when it comes to sports, the marriage of sports and universities is not uniquely American.
We send people to universities so they can become well rounded individuals with possessing a breadth of knowledge and experiences. i.e. Universities are not trade schools even though many students try to treat them as such. Sports are an important part of our culture, it’s an outlet for socialization, you learn teamwork and I’m sure there are other benefits. There’s certainly a lot of valid criticisms of American sports programs in our colleges but athletics and colleges makes sense to me.
None of the responses really relate sports to academics particularly, other than through tradition. I’m not trying to be mean about the American system at all! I just want to know if there is anything other than tradition that relates the two. I know other universities have sporting traditions too, not quite in the same way, but there seems to be a traditional link.
The question to me seems why. If we know there is a very good reason for the link between athletics and academics, we can answer the OP as to wether that link should continue. Perhaps there are studies showing how a football team that functions at very high level somehow benefits the research a university produces? I don’t know. But the game “who can get the most numbers in a night” didn’t become the competition between universities, it is sports. I see a difference between athletic competition and academic pursuits, and I think it is valid to wonder, as the OP does, if the link is a good one and if it is working to the benefit of the academic world.
John Mace, they don’t have to relate in a meaningful way. I’m only asking if they do. Is there any way the two are linked that I’m missing?
If you don’t like people saying they don’t like college athletics, then don’t read it. It also grew organically, and according to you, challenging that is wrong.
Or, of course, you could actually explain why college sports are a good thing and actually participate in the discussion and actually try to convince people, instead of trying shut it down with trite statements about not having to watch. Your choice.
Sports builds well rounded individuals, strong in mind and body, able to compete with others and appreciate a well fought game. Certainly it can be carried to an extreme, but sound mind and sound body is a concept that goes back a long way.
The problem is not sports, it’s moderation. Sports at the collegiate level should be no higher in standing than any other club or organization and receive no special funding, benefits, or facilities for their practice.
Ah, some good points 
Also, practicing a sport helps against depression (no cite on hand, but I believe it’s fairly well known?) so it’s probably good for mental health overall. Mentally healthy students & academics will probably make a university more academically productive. Perhaps then a shift in emphasis is needed towards participation, rather than athletic quality? All students & staff should be encouraged to participate in some sort of sport.
I heard that in Japan companies make their employees work out, in order to keep them healthy.
Well, they might not riot in the streets, anyway.
Often, collegiate athletics actively interferes with this goal. On my urban campus, where we had some Division II team sports, the gym (the entire athletic facility) would be completely shut down on days when the teams needed to practice–even to this day, whenever a visiting team comes to campus, they get the men’s locker-room (usually open to the university community, or at least the male section of it) and the facilties are sharply curtailed. Other than the athletes themselves, athletic programs do little to boost the general health of college populations.
Physical education certainly makes for healthier people, but professional sports? A small set of people train like crazy, get their joints all worn out by the age of 40, and the majority of people sit and watch and eat hot dogs. I’m a big fan of sports. However, I think all the popular sports at high level require a level of training that is unhealthy.
By te way, what happens to these “students”? Do they get a degree?
College athletics certainly prepare students for professional careers in athletics so, in that way, they are just like any other field of study at a school. There are lots of very well paying jobs in profesional sports. That said, if any other subject did as poorly at placing its “students” into useful jobs after school that subject would, or should, be canceled. The ratio of students who actually find a postion on one for the professional teams to those who “study” football and basketball in college is very, very low.
Did every undergraduate have unlimited access to the physics lab, or were there times when it was the province of profs and grad students and seniors doing research projects? How about the dance studio? The law library? Did music majors get priority when reserving recital rooms? Could you trod the boards when drama majors were putting on a play?
What’s your take on philosophy majors?
They should have played football. 
Some philosophy majors will go on to work at universities so I’m sure schools recognize a need for the subject. When a university starts paying youngsters to philosophize for 4 years before dumping them into a world where only a select few can make a living, I will suggest they not do that.
- Atheletes in general do not need a college education to pursue a career in atheletics.
Infact may I point out that the USSF (USA soccer federation) and the MLS (Major League Soccer) is pretty much dumping the use of the college system for soccer and replacing it with the professional club based approach of Europe. The reason is that soccer players produced by the college system are at a disadvantage to those who bypassed the college system and started professionally at 18.
If the aim is to produce better professional players I would say the college system defeats that aim as it unnecessarily delays players from becoming professionals.
- Whilst certainly atheletic pursuits, the importance of athletics has been distorted beyond all proportion in the US education system. Just compare to the situation in Europe, were atheletics clubs and teams exist at university-level, but are seen as secondary to education.
So it’s better to not pay 'em at all for doing something before dumping 'em into a world where only a select few can make a living at it? I’m not sure I agree.
Poor comparison. Those facilities are for the use of specific departments only, and outside use is always extremely limited if allowed at all. The gym is a facility whose primary use is for all the students which they often have to pay for in addition to their tuition.
They do, it’s called an academic scholarship.
I do agree that certain sports are exalted above others but that goes all the way back to the very lowest of the youth leagues.
Quote by Tabby_Cat
As a college student of a big university, I first have to say that I was never a huge fan of sports in highschool. I thought they were mostly corrupt at my highschool. College sports are different. I’m sure there is corruption, I’ve seen the “fake students.” Some professors are more lenient on them when it comes to schoolwork. They have “university excused absences” that most other students don’t qualify for. They get a lot of extra help and I am sure I have seen profs go easy on them for some papers, oral reports, etc.
It also helps in college when the professor knows your name and who you are. In a class of 500 or 600 it can certainly help to be a college athlete. Our school in particular loves it’s football players.
But for all the “unequal” treatment I see, I can’t help but not mind. I really feel for the players, they have to do so much more to keep what most of them are in school because of, scholarships. They HAVE to maintain certain grades while spending numerous, energy- draining hours on the field. To be an athlete, they certainly have to have “what it takes.” So in my opinion, if they are getting special treatment and don’t have to work as hard on their academics, they deserve it and could use all the help they can get. Also, universities are supposed to be full of a variety of people, some super intelligent, some C students, and the occasional D student. It’s another way to add diversity to the campus. Most football players, to my knowledge, got into college by playing. They may not have had great academic scores, but good for them for using their skills to get a higher education.
Football, in particular, is the sport I have found myself to love in college. Something about being able to take 4-5 hours out of every other Saturday to leave schoolwork behind and go see some awesome strategy on the field really helps my stress sail away. It is a great opportunity to really feel connected to a school, something everyone in the stands appreciates. That feeling of unity, we are all different but we all want the same thing at this moment. It’s great and I love it. So even if it’s corrupt, I don’t care. I’d rather worry about Washington and my future exams.
I’m not following you. Are you saying it would be okay – and, thus, a better comparison – if the gym were primarily for the use of specific departments only, and outside use was always extremely limited? And so (a) you’re objecting because outside use is usually less restricted than various other college facilities, but (b) you’d be happier if they’d change things, making the gym more like the rest?