4 ms·

Sports is a profit center for the schools, which is why they get so much focus.

jgg 17y ago
Right, but to some degree it seems self-perpetuating: the schools get big because they get money for sports, which causes to them to get bigger, so they put more money into sports, etc. My question is, I guess, why aren't schools founded around the idea of education? It's the same feeling I have towards fraternities and sororities. I find it incredible that most people tout school as a place to learn, and yet it's quite obvious that a lot of people attend for any reason but that.
- robryan 17y ago
  Maybe the answer is more aggressive pruning, I don't know what it's like in America but in Australia someone can probably spend 5 or 6 years barely trying before they would get kicked out.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  I don't think that playing a sport or living a fraternity/sorority prevents someone from getting an education at the same time. For the people that do those things to the exclusion of their education, they deserve to flunk out and lose their place at school.
  - jgg 17y ago
    My point was that so much extra time and money that could be focused on improving academics is spent by the university (and by donors to the university) on irrelevant activities. I don't really care what someone does in their free time.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
Certain sports are a profit center for certain schools. Football at U-Texas, yes. Football or rowing at Rutgers, no. They receive a disproportionate focus even when they are not. The main reason is academic politics: a physics professor is busy doing research, while the athletic department has time for lobbying.
- jessriedel 17y ago
  I consider my athletic experience in college (on a varsity team which definitely did not make money or prestige for the school) to be one of the best and most educational parts of college. Do your really think there are many programs which lose money and are doing harm to the students or the university? I see basically two types of programs: a handful which exist solely to drive money and prestige to the university (big-time football, basketball, etc.) without regard to the tiny number of students participating, and the vast majority which are mostly focused on their primary purpose, providing a great experience for the athletes themselves. I don't see many programs which are sucking a bunch of money away from research for nothing.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Your athletic program did harm students - it raised tuitions for everyone. You probably got more benefit than the average tuition increase, but most students did not. Universities should not be in the habit of forcing all students to pay for the recreational activities of a select few. Incidentally, universities pocket about 50% of research money and put it into the general fund, which then gets spent on stuff like varsity sports.
    - jgg 17y ago
      >Universities should not be in the habit of forcing all students to pay for the recreational activities of a select few. Yes, thank you. If they're going to pay for someone to play football, they might as well fund me to play Chess or Go. They could probably also fund that guy down the hall from me to play Tetris all day; I'm sure he'd be able to find something "educational" in that.
      - jimbokun 17y ago
        How about playing an instrument? Acting in or directing a play? Dance? Painting? Drawing? Are these recreational activities, educational, both, neither? Is competing in a sport at a high level more or less educational than these things? I read somewhere the suggestion that basketball and football players in big time programs have the option of majoring in their sport, just like a Dance, Drama or Art major might. At least it would drop the pretense that those students are doing anything else.

jgg 17y ago

Right, but to some degree it seems self-perpetuating: the schools get big because they get money for sports, which causes to them to get bigger, so they put more money into sports, etc. My question is, I guess, why aren't schools founded around the idea of education? It's the same feeling I have towards fraternities and sororities. I find it incredible that most people tout school as a place to learn, and yet it's quite obvious that a lot of people attend for any reason but that.

robryan 17y ago
Maybe the answer is more aggressive pruning, I don't know what it's like in America but in Australia someone can probably spend 5 or 6 years barely trying before they would get kicked out.
jimbokun 17y ago
I don't think that playing a sport or living a fraternity/sorority prevents someone from getting an education at the same time. For the people that do those things to the exclusion of their education, they deserve to flunk out and lose their place at school.
- jgg 17y ago
  My point was that so much extra time and money that could be focused on improving academics is spent by the university (and by donors to the university) on irrelevant activities. I don't really care what someone does in their free time.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Certain sports are a profit center for certain schools. Football at U-Texas, yes. Football or rowing at Rutgers, no. They receive a disproportionate focus even when they are not. The main reason is academic politics: a physics professor is busy doing research, while the athletic department has time for lobbying.

jessriedel 17y ago
I consider my athletic experience in college (on a varsity team which definitely did not make money or prestige for the school) to be one of the best and most educational parts of college. Do your really think there are many programs which lose money and are doing harm to the students or the university? I see basically two types of programs: a handful which exist solely to drive money and prestige to the university (big-time football, basketball, etc.) without regard to the tiny number of students participating, and the vast majority which are mostly focused on their primary purpose, providing a great experience for the athletes themselves. I don't see many programs which are sucking a bunch of money away from research for nothing.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Your athletic program did harm students - it raised tuitions for everyone. You probably got more benefit than the average tuition increase, but most students did not. Universities should not be in the habit of forcing all students to pay for the recreational activities of a select few. Incidentally, universities pocket about 50% of research money and put it into the general fund, which then gets spent on stuff like varsity sports.
  - jgg 17y ago
    >Universities should not be in the habit of forcing all students to pay for the recreational activities of a select few. Yes, thank you. If they're going to pay for someone to play football, they might as well fund me to play Chess or Go. They could probably also fund that guy down the hall from me to play Tetris all day; I'm sure he'd be able to find something "educational" in that.
    - jimbokun 17y ago
      How about playing an instrument? Acting in or directing a play? Dance? Painting? Drawing? Are these recreational activities, educational, both, neither? Is competing in a sport at a high level more or less educational than these things? I read somewhere the suggestion that basketball and football players in big time programs have the option of majoring in their sport, just like a Dance, Drama or Art major might. At least it would drop the pretense that those students are doing anything else.