“Well-rounded” is meaningless. There are few people in the world that need to speak intelligently on art, music and theater to do their job effectively. Those that can are generally perceived as inveterate bullshit artists and pretentious twits.
I do not consider that a plus.
Why are you limiting it to football? That doesn’t make sense.
So, uh, volleyball? I can’t imagine any sport that is going to take you as far in your life as a real education, including the humanities, sciences, arts, etc. And if you don’t think you should be expected to speak intelligently on art, music, theater, and other important cultural facets of humanity, why on earth are you going to a four year college instead of getting a professional degree at a community college?
Which, by the way, while they have much to recommend them, rarely have a football team.
ETA - if you don’t put much stock in “well rounded” then you have an issue with the concept of a liberal arts education. That’s fine - some people do. But most of the major athletic program supporting universities at least give it lip service.
Uh, yeah.
I responded to the following comment:
…and asked why you limited it to football, rather than all student athletes.
Title 9 forced the schools to offer a more complete sports schedule. Most of the sports cost the university a lot of money and eat the football and basketball profits.
Well, aren’t we talking about the “semi-pro” sports? The ones that bring in money, the ones that recruit fake-ass “student” athletes they make up fake majors for? Football, basketball, baseball. The kids who play intramural volleyball in college are probably real student athletes. They still won’t do it professionally, but luckily nobody’s convinced them they will so they’re getting an actual education they can apply to a real job.
ETA - in college, I was in the Collegiate Chorale - a campus singing group. No doubt it cost the college money, like a Title IX sport (you know, the ones that aren’t “real”. Is this the time to bring up the fact that I went to a women’s college?) I assure you, it brought in no money for the school, either. I guess it might have been paid for by one of those “student activity fees”. We didn’t need to have fake students in a fake major to justify it.
No, we were talking about how well rounded one was for playing a sport vs. acting in a play.
What, are you daft? We are talking about the athletes themselves. The ones who work their entire lives to compete. Who learn the principles of teamwork, daily hard work, civic pride and how it takes the efforts of many to accomplish major goals. Not to mention that they learn to see people different than them as equals.
Yeah, no value in teaching people that. Much better with a bunch of angsty goths hoping to be the next Heath Ledger.
Well, the thread title is “Does College sport remain solvent”, which is an odd phrasing for an American. But if we’re talking about classes, is there such a thing as Football 101? Basketball Senior Seminar? But there is Theater 101, 305, 607, right?
And are you honestly suggesting that understanding the history and importance of music appreciation throughout the history of human culture is the same thing as rooting for your school to win a bowl game? Or playing for your school and majoring in Parks and Recreation Management (and I don’t mean the same Parks and Recreation degree that people who are actually interested in parks and recreation are getting?) Do you honestly not believe that the state of what they’re calling “student athletics” is revolting? And that saying that these kids “graduate” is the same thing as saying that I did?
ETA - ACTUAL college athletics, which are extracurricular activities in the same way that Collegiate Chorale was, are extremely healthy and good for the students and the student body. What they’re finishing up at the football stadium right this minute is a travesty of “education”. It’s a professional football team in all but name and has no place in a university.
Yes, and several other sports. Thousands of people make their livings coaching other people.
Sorry, but you’re being intentionally dishonest with your “comparisons”. They aren’t worth responding to.
Football just pays for all those “good and healthy” sports.
I disagree.
Too late to edit again, but I’d like to point out that it’s generally quite obvious the difference between real student athletics as an extracurricular activity and “student athletics” as, essentially, the curriculum - one of them makes money, and one of them benefits the athletes.
I apologize to the OP, as on scrolling around I see that this thread was formulated specifically to avoid the kind of emotional (and, I feel, ethical) argument I’ve been promulgating.
ETA - Labrador Deceiver, I didn’t realize we were going onto another page, which is hard to follow - do you honestly believe it’s the purpose of an educational institution to run thinly veiled professional sports teams? That our institutions of higher learning should be doing this instead of educating our kids? Or is it that you think that running the sports team is essentially the same as the campus bookstore?
What do you make of the fake students they bring in as athletes? Does that bother you, or do you see it as the cost of doing business? I’m not being snide, I really want to know. What do you feel is the purpose of a state university?
You bring up to many “either/or” scenarios that don’t, in reality, exist. The sports that make money also benefit the athletes. Running sports teams & educating people at the same time can be easily accomplished. The vast majority of football players have to complete the same courses as everyone else if they want to graduate (unless you honestly believe that the professors really want to cut them some slack). etc. etc. etc.
You’re excluding the middle.
I do feel, pit or no pit, that this is the business of a different thread, and I look forward to discussing it further with Labrador Deceiver, Omnescient, and others after the weekend board amnesia.
Sure thing.
Cheers.
If you think the football players (I bring up football because I live in Columbia, SC and I had to figure out a way to get dinner tonight) are taking the same classes as the real students, then I don’t think you’re really informed enough for this thread. At every football school I have personal knowledge of, there’s a “football major”. Trust me, those players don’t have to pass real classes. Is that fair to other people who come out with the same diploma? I have a masters’ degree from the University of South Carolina. Do you think it makes my advanced degree more or less valuable that they hand out undergraduate degrees essentially for football skill?
There are no degrees that are available only to athletes. If you believe there are, then you’re the one who is uninformed. You are also uninformed if you believe all football players are enrolled in “easy” majors.
If I honestly believed that the football program at UGA would devalue my degree, I wouldn’t have gone back for a second one.