4 ms·

> A more basic problem with "athletic scholarships" is that being an athlete has absolutely nothing to do with being an academic/scholar/student of something el

> A more basic problem with "athletic scholarships" is that being an athlete has absolutely nothing to do with being an academic/scholar/student of something else. Welcome to 1910. > It might be a good way to bring some publicity to the school, and to make it have a strong team. But it has absolutely nothing to do with a school's intended purpose (except the "make money" purpose). It engages people who care about sports but don't really care about the research being performed there. Most people attending universities never get an advanced degree. I wouldn't even consider a JD or MBA an advanced degree so much as a professional certificate masquerading as advanced education. > Athletic scholarships should only be a thing in sports academies - where you're trained to be a coach, a PE teacher, or a related academic in some of those areas. Meanwhile, former athletes who were able to attend universities due to athletics and have since become wealthy regularly donate millions to their alma maters. > In fact, universities and colleges should just have clubs to play sports informally, at the same level they have a music playing club, or a gym, or a cooking club. Like in the rest of the civilized (on that matter at least) world. Well, it turns out that universities are full of educated people and they've run the numbers. The numbers say that athletics are an attraction to universities for students and alumni alike.

coldtea 4y ago
>Welcome to 1910. Is that an argument? The "newer is better" kind? Perhaps 1910 had that part figured out better than 2023. >Well, it turns out that universities are full of educated people and they've run the numbers. The numbers say that athletics are an attraction to universities for students and alumni alike. I never argued it doesn't make them money or that the bean counters there can't see that. Just that it's (or oughta be) unrelated with the goals of an academic institution, whether it's lucrative or not.
- MisterBastahrd 4y ago
  > Is that an argument? The "newer is better" kind? Perhaps 1910 had that part figured out better than 2023. The NCAA has been around and has regulated athletic scholarships in its current form since 1910. They're the ones who stepped in and said that athletes needed to be students at the universities they represented. That's good for the universities AND good for the athletes. > I never argued it doesn't make them money or that the bean counters there can't see that. > Just that it's (or oughta be) unrelated with the goals of an academic institution, whether it's lucrative or not. Then you don't have any more universities aside from a few flagships and deeply endowed private institutions, because they have fundamentally different objectives than they did at the beginning of last century.

coldtea 4y ago

>Welcome to 1910. Is that an argument? The "newer is better" kind? Perhaps 1910 had that part figured out better than 2023. >Well, it turns out that universities are full of educated people and they've run the numbers. The numbers say that athletics are an attraction to universities for students and alumni alike. I never argued it doesn't make them money or that the bean counters there can't see that. Just that it's (or oughta be) unrelated with the goals of an academic institution, whether it's lucrative or not.

MisterBastahrd 4y ago
> Is that an argument? The "newer is better" kind? Perhaps 1910 had that part figured out better than 2023. The NCAA has been around and has regulated athletic scholarships in its current form since 1910. They're the ones who stepped in and said that athletes needed to be students at the universities they represented. That's good for the universities AND good for the athletes. > I never argued it doesn't make them money or that the bean counters there can't see that. > Just that it's (or oughta be) unrelated with the goals of an academic institution, whether it's lucrative or not. Then you don't have any more universities aside from a few flagships and deeply endowed private institutions, because they have fundamentally different objectives than they did at the beginning of last century.