6 ms·

I will never understand what quality education and sports have in common. Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference?

by parfe 16y ago

tokenadult 16y ago
Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference? And when those 50,000 alumni show up on campus, what do they do to make the education at that university better?
- keiferski 16y ago
  They pay for the university's existence.
  - tokenadult 16y ago
    If what they pay is less than what the university spends on them, in what sense are they paying to improve education?
    - muuh-gnu 16y ago
      And even if they paid more back thant the university invested, it still has not to do anything with education. It is then just a part-time money making scheme to keep the university alive. Since such investments into the sports business do not have anything to do with the core business of the university, education, they could they could easily invest into other kinds of non-educational but profitable businesses like, for example, porn. It then also means that universities can obviously not survive financially just by doing their core business, i.e. by offering educational and research services and _have_ to invest into more profitable but completely non-intellectual endeavours.
      - parfe 16y ago
        the core business of the university, education Bzz, wrong. Education is a college's job. A university's core business is research. Education is just a part-time money making scheme to keep the university alive.
    - keiferski 16y ago
      You are oversimplifying the educational system to a very large degree (pun intended). Education isn't about the 'information', it's about the collective sum of benefits that a university provides. If it were strictly about the education (courses, books, etc.) there would be no purpose -- most of it can be found for free online. University is about the whole package, of which a strong alumni network is often a major piece. Without a strong sports program, many of these schools would lose a large fraction of their alumni's attention - and I don't mean dollars and cents. To use a previous commenter: Ding ding ding. I went to a D3 school for football, and when considering a possible MBA, something I was looking at half jokingly, but half legitimately, was whether the school was large - because I thought it would make watching sports on TV for the rest of my life, and having true attachment, a lot more fun. Undoubtedly, as I progress further in my career, that fervor would have grown with team success, and also made my attachment more real - while my current alma mater (Chapman University in Southern California) - would have fallen away from consciousness with no legitimate way to grab my attention. Whether I make a donation to any school in the future is up for debate, and I am now not likely to get an MBA based on many of the points raised here and elsewhere - but the point made on this comment hits the nail on the head. I find it extremely unlikely that I will ever donate to my small private school in Southern California - because the thoughts of how it's helped me depart with every passing second, and they have no way to get it back. This obviously leads to a weakening of the school on a whole, in terms of future enrollment and overall reputation, leading to a decline in the quality of education.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Excellent point. People showing up to a school for non-academic reasons clearly provide an academic benefit... Not. I also haven't seen a theoretical physics conference gather dozens students late on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean kegs are good for education.
- micks56 16y ago
  Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?
  - jhaglund 16y ago
    Of course not. The question is does the amount we spend on athletics (millions) really do anything for academics? No one is saying athletics have no place in university. But why are we spending so much on it, compared to the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper? When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.
    - micks56 16y ago
      > No one is saying athletics have no place in university. burgerbrain seems to be saying this, which is what I responded to. > When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics. Tie in differently, not better. There are many ways to learn and many lessons to be learned. Drama, debate, music, newspaper, and sports, among others, are all different paths to learn those lessons. I am not justifying the large amounts of money spent on sports programs. What I am saying is that sports do educate people and provide an important opportunity for students in many ways. Saying "nothing is learned while playing sports" is false.
      - burgerbrain 16y ago
        "> No one is saying athletics have no place in university. burgerbrain seems to be saying this" Absolutely incorrect. I merely believe they should not receive disproportionate funding, compared to other non-academic clubs; and assert that like other non-academic clubs, they should play absolutely no role in acceptance. "Tie in differently, not better" BULLSHIT. Journalism (newspaper club) is a respected academic study. Tackling dudes on a lawn over a ball is not. Drama, debate, and music are similarly intellectual endeavours, not sports. "What I am saying is that sports do educate people" Spoken like a true meathead. Even if they did educate, which is a laughable claim, they have no place in the curriculum of universities.
absconditus 16y ago
Were the Japanese forced into submission by a great football match?
- lucasjung 16y ago
  More than they were by homework sets. Academic research certainly played a role in winning the second world war. I'd say that quality leadership played an even bigger role. Cadets and Midshipmen at our service academies have always been required to participate in athletics because team sports develop leadership, teamwork, and tactical and strategic thinking (in the '30s through the '60s, the service academies were powerhouses in college football). Academy graduates were a minority of overall officers in the war, but were a majority of the most senior officers. Prior to the war, the cadre of war college students and faculty who developed the tactics and strategies which won the war were also predominantly academy graduates.
  - Wientje 16y ago
    As far as 26 July '45, the Japanese refused to surrender. The guys that forced Japan in to submission were Little Boy and Fat Man and they had an academic background. The only leadership required from the 'sport trained' generals was choosing which city had the most juicy civilians.
    - lucasjung 16y ago
      The "only" leadership required to use Little Boy and Fat Man was fighting our way across the world's biggest ocean to get into range to use them. To accomplish the same task, academics would have needed another couple of decades (and a boat-load of stolen German scientists) to invent the ICBM. Nukes certainly ended the war earlier, and I believe they saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, but they didn't create victory. Victory was already a foregone conclusion by the time we used them--they just accelerated it and lowered the cost dramatically.
bbgm 16y ago
> Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference? One can be Utopian and wish for that day.

I will never understand what quality education and sports have in common. Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference?

by parfe 16y ago

I will never understand what quality education and sports have in common. Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference?

tokenadult 16y ago

Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference? And when those 50,000 alumni show up on campus, what do they do to make the education at that university better?

keiferski 16y ago
They pay for the university's existence.
- tokenadult 16y ago
  If what they pay is less than what the university spends on them, in what sense are they paying to improve education?
  - muuh-gnu 16y ago
    And even if they paid more back thant the university invested, it still has not to do anything with education. It is then just a part-time money making scheme to keep the university alive. Since such investments into the sports business do not have anything to do with the core business of the university, education, they could they could easily invest into other kinds of non-educational but profitable businesses like, for example, porn. It then also means that universities can obviously not survive financially just by doing their core business, i.e. by offering educational and research services and _have_ to invest into more profitable but completely non-intellectual endeavours.
    - parfe 16y ago
      the core business of the university, education Bzz, wrong. Education is a college's job. A university's core business is research. Education is just a part-time money making scheme to keep the university alive.
  - keiferski 16y ago
    You are oversimplifying the educational system to a very large degree (pun intended). Education isn't about the 'information', it's about the collective sum of benefits that a university provides. If it were strictly about the education (courses, books, etc.) there would be no purpose -- most of it can be found for free online. University is about the whole package, of which a strong alumni network is often a major piece. Without a strong sports program, many of these schools would lose a large fraction of their alumni's attention - and I don't mean dollars and cents. To use a previous commenter: Ding ding ding. I went to a D3 school for football, and when considering a possible MBA, something I was looking at half jokingly, but half legitimately, was whether the school was large - because I thought it would make watching sports on TV for the rest of my life, and having true attachment, a lot more fun. Undoubtedly, as I progress further in my career, that fervor would have grown with team success, and also made my attachment more real - while my current alma mater (Chapman University in Southern California) - would have fallen away from consciousness with no legitimate way to grab my attention. Whether I make a donation to any school in the future is up for debate, and I am now not likely to get an MBA based on many of the points raised here and elsewhere - but the point made on this comment hits the nail on the head. I find it extremely unlikely that I will ever donate to my small private school in Southern California - because the thoughts of how it's helped me depart with every passing second, and they have no way to get it back. This obviously leads to a weakening of the school on a whole, in terms of future enrollment and overall reputation, leading to a decline in the quality of education.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Excellent point. People showing up to a school for non-academic reasons clearly provide an academic benefit... Not. I also haven't seen a theoretical physics conference gather dozens students late on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean kegs are good for education.

micks56 16y ago
Should we also cancel the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper?
- jhaglund 16y ago
  Of course not. The question is does the amount we spend on athletics (millions) really do anything for academics? No one is saying athletics have no place in university. But why are we spending so much on it, compared to the drama program, debate team, musical ensembles, and school newspaper? When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics.
  - micks56 16y ago
    > No one is saying athletics have no place in university. burgerbrain seems to be saying this, which is what I responded to. > When those subjects which tie into academics better than athletics. Tie in differently, not better. There are many ways to learn and many lessons to be learned. Drama, debate, music, newspaper, and sports, among others, are all different paths to learn those lessons. I am not justifying the large amounts of money spent on sports programs. What I am saying is that sports do educate people and provide an important opportunity for students in many ways. Saying "nothing is learned while playing sports" is false.
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      "> No one is saying athletics have no place in university. burgerbrain seems to be saying this" Absolutely incorrect. I merely believe they should not receive disproportionate funding, compared to other non-academic clubs; and assert that like other non-academic clubs, they should play absolutely no role in acceptance. "Tie in differently, not better" BULLSHIT. Journalism (newspaper club) is a respected academic study. Tackling dudes on a lawn over a ball is not. Drama, debate, and music are similarly intellectual endeavours, not sports. "What I am saying is that sports do educate people" Spoken like a true meathead. Even if they did educate, which is a laughable claim, they have no place in the curriculum of universities.

absconditus 16y ago

Were the Japanese forced into submission by a great football match?

lucasjung 16y ago
More than they were by homework sets. Academic research certainly played a role in winning the second world war. I'd say that quality leadership played an even bigger role. Cadets and Midshipmen at our service academies have always been required to participate in athletics because team sports develop leadership, teamwork, and tactical and strategic thinking (in the '30s through the '60s, the service academies were powerhouses in college football). Academy graduates were a minority of overall officers in the war, but were a majority of the most senior officers. Prior to the war, the cadre of war college students and faculty who developed the tactics and strategies which won the war were also predominantly academy graduates.
- Wientje 16y ago
  As far as 26 July '45, the Japanese refused to surrender. The guys that forced Japan in to submission were Little Boy and Fat Man and they had an academic background. The only leadership required from the 'sport trained' generals was choosing which city had the most juicy civilians.
  - lucasjung 16y ago
    The "only" leadership required to use Little Boy and Fat Man was fighting our way across the world's biggest ocean to get into range to use them. To accomplish the same task, academics would have needed another couple of decades (and a boat-load of stolen German scientists) to invent the ICBM. Nukes certainly ended the war earlier, and I believe they saved tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, but they didn't create victory. Victory was already a foregone conclusion by the time we used them--they just accelerated it and lowered the cost dramatically.

bbgm 16y ago

> Ever seen 50,000 alumni show up on campus for a theoretical physics conference? One can be Utopian and wish for that day.