3 ms·

> In most cases, athletics programs are public money and tuition money being poured on something with absolutely minimal academic merit. That's not true. In "

> In most cases, athletics programs are public money and tuition money being poured on something with absolutely minimal academic merit. That's not true. In "most" cases, athletics programs do not provide tuition at all, and most student athletes do not receive anything in terms of tuition reimbursement. In most cases, students are still paying all the tuition and still are required to maintain their academic standings. Because of this, a good program can attract out of state students, who will generally pay more out of pocket precisely because they are out of state. Finally, lumping all sports together and claiming they are a waste of money ignores the reality that all sports are not created equal. Sure, adding a football stadium will be expensive, but counting that against the cross-country team is silly.

acjohnson55 13y ago
I think you might have missed what I said. I'm not saying that sports provide tuition to many students because you're right, most student-athletes aren't on scholarship. I'm saying that big-time sports are a drain on the tuition money of all students in many cases. I'm not against athletics at college. I played rugby in grad school, and it was one of the highlights of my experience. I think athletics are a great thing, but that the growth of football and basketball into quasi-professional programs is tremendously wasteful, morally suspect, and unsustainable. My point is that the pool of college students nation-wide is not being expanded do to sports. If you're at college (anywhere) and were attracted there as a sports fan, you'd probably still be in college elsewhere if not for the sports, and you'd probably be there for more acadmically valid reasons. You are definitely right that athletics attract out-of-state students, who pay more. But I'd argue that this is actually a bad thing systemically given our national student loan debt crisis. I love athletics. But I also think that big-money athletics is a cancer on higher ed right now.

acjohnson55 13y ago

I think you might have missed what I said. I'm not saying that sports provide tuition to many students because you're right, most student-athletes aren't on scholarship. I'm saying that big-time sports are a drain on the tuition money of all students in many cases. I'm not against athletics at college. I played rugby in grad school, and it was one of the highlights of my experience. I think athletics are a great thing, but that the growth of football and basketball into quasi-professional programs is tremendously wasteful, morally suspect, and unsustainable. My point is that the pool of college students nation-wide is not being expanded do to sports. If you're at college (anywhere) and were attracted there as a sports fan, you'd probably still be in college elsewhere if not for the sports, and you'd probably be there for more acadmically valid reasons. You are definitely right that athletics attract out-of-state students, who pay more. But I'd argue that this is actually a bad thing systemically given our national student loan debt crisis. I love athletics. But I also think that big-money athletics is a cancer on higher ed right now.