3 ms·

Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? It can be both true that the collusion is legally shaky—I’m not disputing that—and the author has an axe to gr

Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? It can be both true that the collusion is legally shaky—I’m not disputing that—and the author has an axe to grind. I believe the writer wants a particular outcome for reasons beyond just forbidding collusion. Finally it’s also true that the DoE’s national accreditation can forbid athletic scholarships. I personally believe it should, if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. It may even drive out the big business that college sports has become, along with the administrative bloat to support it.

stale2002 4y ago
> Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? Because monopolistic collision is bad, that's why. Not just illegal. Also bad. > if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. If an individual college wants to get rid of all it's sports programs, or scholarships, or whatever, and decides to do that individually, then they should go ahead. What they shouldn't do, though, is try and force all the other colleges to do the same thing, with monopolistic agreements. To repeat, if a individual college wants to not have athletic scholarships, fine. But no agreement that forces all the other colleges to do the same thing. Let each college, individually decide how much they want to focus on this, instead of having monopolistic agreements.
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  > Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? The moral outcome the author is promoting isn't about anti-collusion, but diversity: "The need for diversity in education is as vital today as ever. But it’s not clear whether the Ivy Agreement’s ban on athletic scholarships actually promotes that end. One might even wonder whether, by not competing over sports stars, the schools are reducing the diversity of their student bodies." Except, the author admits later that athletic programs simply promote more athletics and the claims of diversity through athletics is dubious.

stale2002 4y ago

> Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? Because monopolistic collision is bad, that's why. Not just illegal. Also bad. > if we want higher education to be about cultivating knowledge and intellect again. If an individual college wants to get rid of all it's sports programs, or scholarships, or whatever, and decides to do that individually, then they should go ahead. What they shouldn't do, though, is try and force all the other colleges to do the same thing, with monopolistic agreements. To repeat, if a individual college wants to not have athletic scholarships, fine. But no agreement that forces all the other colleges to do the same thing. Let each college, individually decide how much they want to focus on this, instead of having monopolistic agreements.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
> Then why the long rambling on the moral outcome? The moral outcome the author is promoting isn't about anti-collusion, but diversity: "The need for diversity in education is as vital today as ever. But it’s not clear whether the Ivy Agreement’s ban on athletic scholarships actually promotes that end. One might even wonder whether, by not competing over sports stars, the schools are reducing the diversity of their student bodies." Except, the author admits later that athletic programs simply promote more athletics and the claims of diversity through athletics is dubious.