Ever heard of the term Zone of Proximal Development? It’s the idea that, when you learn, you bridge from skills you have mastered to new skills that are closely related. You master addition, you move on to subtraction and multiplication. There is a zone of skills, a range of skills, that one can learn, based on the skills you already have. Skills outside that zone are ones that are extremely difficult to learn, because the learner doesn’t have the necessary skills to leverage. You master addition, but not multiplication, you can’t go on to exponents, you need multiplication first.
So, you dump someone who is not “qualified to receive” a university education into a university, and you’re not providing them anything of value. They can’t learn what you’re teaching, because they don’t have enough mastered skills to bridge to the advanced concepts you are presenting. So, in order to keep the kids eligible, you offer bullshit classes where nobody learns anything.
ZPD not a new idea, and the schools already know this. They are not giving these kids scholarships out of the goodness of their hearts, they are looking for their own payday, giving many of the kids something completely worthless to them.
What value is a University Education to a person who is functionally illiterate? Are you actually going to suggest that the villain here is the thoroughly miseducated 18 year old, instead of the highly educated and successful coach/University administration? They are giving this kid something of zero value to him, demanding long hours of hard work, using his name and efforts to sell tickets and sell the school to paying students, and the kid is the bad person?
It’s as if you actually believe that the school is giving these scholarships out of altruism, a desire to help these poor kids, and not a desire to make money and make their school desirable.
There is a bit of a misconception here that college sports are a two-party arrangement. They’re not, at least not in terms of incentives. On one side, you have the “student-athletes”; that’s obvious.
What is less obvious is that you don’t have The University on the other side. You have a number of parties who make up The University and have competing interests. In most cases, the institution loses money on athletics. However, athletics are a very easy way to raise the profile of a university, so presidents and provosts like them even though they are a net revenue loser. Thus, the faculty and administration may be opposed on this issue.
In cases where there is an established athletic program, you will have boosters. They have their own markedly different interests.
Then there are schools where football or basketball are successful enough to generate revenue. Now you have yet another party, the athletes who participate in non-revenue generating sports.
Throw them all together and what do you get? The conclusion that the universities may not actually be making anything off all these kids - but somebody is.
You read the part about how if they don’t stay on the team they get kicked out of school, right?
What do you think happens to these athletic scholarship kids who are in school and want to stay there who “blow out a knee” or prioritize education over their sport?
They actually graduate, because now they have to go to class?! It also seems wehave ddifferent definitions of “scholarship”. If you are 18 years old and still can’t read, some of that is on you.
My point was big time sports school don’t care if the guy can read, just that he helps them win. Most everyone else in this thread has admitted as much.
You don’t really seem to have one. You seem to move from denouncing the players to decrying the schools with rapid fluidity but no real coherence at all. Your posts seem chaotic at best and full of contradicting “points” at worst. If you indeed have a point, you’re failing to make it or even hint at it, in my opinion.
Schools only have a certain number of athletic scholarships to give out per the NCAA. If a player blows out a knee or something, and the school thinks they won’t heal in time to play, they rescind the scholarship and give it to someone else. Also, coaches can cut kids for any reason, and the ones who are cut don’t get the rest of the scholarship. Its not a system where once offered, the kid gets the money for school no matter what. Its not like he can drop football and take up art or something, or do anything to jeopardize his sports. He’s there for one reason and one reason only.
One of the most important parts of a union for these kids is that if it works, it’ll be the first time the students will have a voice in the decision making. Maybe they’ll negotiate that scholarships can’t be taken away. Or maybe if they are cut, they can still go to school, or that kids can devote a certain time away from athletics to pursue other interests. Who knows? But its important they have a voice
NCAA rules were written by the NCAA and can be added to, changed, or deleted by the NCAA. It will be interesting to see what rules are created to deal with unionized athletes.
Well, feel free to speculate, it’s sort of the mission of this thread. I’ve been wondering if questions about union sympathies will begin creeping into the recruiting conversations between coaches and recruits. Would that even be legal to do? And would Northwestern (or other school as the movement spreads) pass on a bright talented football player because he tells them he is a strong union supporter?
The big conflict I continue to see is when a union school’s players wins a concession from their school that is in violation of NCAA rules. Would the NCAA ban Northwestern from appearing on tv or appearing in the playoffs/basketball tourney? The answer might be one thing if it’s just Northwestern and something else altogether if all 17 major private schools make the same concessions. Preventing a 12-0 Southern Cal and/or Miami from competing in the football playoffs would be a big hit to their credibility.