this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
1546 points (98.0% liked)
People Twitter
5304 readers
1378 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah universities should be about academics. Not sports. In fact, Universities, in my opinion, should just be banned from HAVING sports teams. Do that shit outside of school lmao. You shouldn't be getting ACADEMIC scholarships because you can... "throw ball good".
Counterpoint: universities exist to teach young people to be competent, well rounded members of society, including exposure to quality academics, music, art and sport. If you just want job training, go to trade school; if you just want academics, go to the library.
That’s what high school does (or should do).
That counter point is a classist view that id all too common in america. Not saying you are classist by having that view. But that a system based on that view, which america is, is classist.
Universities have historically been institutions of class structure, and not just in the US. I doubt that will change any time soon, and can't honestly think of how it could. Tertiary education requires that a person give up some part of their potentially-working day to activities that don't pay rent or put food on the table. Nevermind direct costs of education, if you don't pay people to be students, then it will continue to reinforce class structure.
Personally, I think it's in the state's interest to encourage every individual to pursue as much education, of whatever form, as they choose. Tertiary education through university, college, or trade school ought to be without direct cost, and we ought to have enough social safety net to secure people while they pursue it. Do that, and some new structure will develop so employers can identify upper-class candidates, like unpaid internships.
So before I get into this, know that I'm biased as a colligate sport fan and a former NCAA athlete. But this is a bad take. Sports provide all sorts of benefit both internally and externally for the university. It is true that some athletic budgets are insane, and for what it's worth I agree that the salaries that get paid are insane. But this is simply the price of an arms war. These colleges want the best facilities and coaches. And it's not ~just~ for the dick measuring contest, though make no mistake that is absolutely part of it. But all sorts of studies show that general contributions and academic donations in particular increase with athletic team success, notably championship winning teams. People like to belong to a community, and sports fandom is one of the most tried and true sources of community. Plus the tv contacts for the so called revenue sports would make an oil tycoon blush. The presidents of these schools continue to invest in these programs because they continually prove to be an excellent roi. And I firmly believe that these same presidents know more than either of us about running their universities. And all of that is aside from what these sports provide to the most important stakeholders in a college, it's enrollees. Again recognizing my bias here, but the only reason I made it through school to get my 2 degrees that I use professionally was the sports team I trained with. These teams provide structure to the college life, something that can be hard to maintain as you essentially start a new life. Plus, sport and exercise prove to boost academic performance both on the short and long timescale. Most institutions report higher average GPAs in the athletic department than the general population. Ever notice that elite academic institutions also tend to have elite athletic programs? This isnt always obvious as it's often non revenue sports outside of the state schools that are in the aforementioned dick measuring contest. And even schools that aren't know for athletic or academics will still tend to offer intramural sports as again they are a massive boon for the students but I feel like at this point I'm straying from the original point. All in all these athletic programs are good for both the institution as a whole, and those that study at them.
tl;dr Sports good for college
I would agree with you but the statistics are so far out of proportion in America right now. Across the country you have many schools who can barely fund educational departments while continuously increasing sports funding. This happened at my college recently, several times. We lost several history classes due to the football team requiring more budget.
So what you have instead is this awful cycle where they make so much more money from investing in sports than education, so they raise the education prices to fund both. Yet the government is subsidizing or at least fronting the cost for students. So now you have even less pressure to continue being an actual college. They begin to chase sports to the moon at the cost of all else.
Then you have the actual effect of sports players on the college itself where they attend. I know some hard working athletes with legitimate degrees, but those athletes are the first to tell me that the rest of the athletes are there for worthless degrees. So now you have to account for the fact that athletes are an investment in facilities and arenas and departments as well. Further skewing the purposes of the college.
The whole system is beyond broken and colleges shouldn’t have to depend on anything except education costs to survive
And this is where I absolutely will cross the aisle and agree with you. I obviously care for sport and think it can be massively beneficial. But I too see some of these smaller schools breaking their own back (and bank) trying to get some of that p5 football money. The school I am a fan of won't even blink at a 7 or 8 figure bill for a sports complex upgrade, because they absolutely will make that money back. But the school I attended tried something similar (way smaller bill) and there was widespread outrage amongst the student population and rightfully so. This gets into that dick measuring contest I mentioned and I fully agree with you, that should not and can not be allowed to negatively impact academics. Sports are a net positive, but like all things not named heroin, they should be pursued in moderation.
From my understanding, all that money goes back to the sport's team, not the university. It's a side hussle. If the money went back to the university, it would at least make sense.
It depends on the school.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2017/06/12/the-biggest-misconceptions-about-the-finances-of-college-sports/
True, but it's in the minority for the donations:
Is that 1% or 10%? "Many" is a very vague term for financials. Plus, those were the ones polled.
Not to be a stickler, but having some universities do a little isn't much.
Did you forget the first and biggest one?
All those athletic scholarships are paid for by the sports teams. It's free money for the university. And the football team funds all the other sports, so a lot of football money goes to the university as tuition for an out-of-state soccer player or something.
Plus who do you think the sports teams pay rent and facilities fees to? The university who owns their facilities. The teams are non-profit so football has little incentive to save money.
How much are those scholarships worth every year?
Source
If there's an arms race for athletes and the school sports programs pay their tuition through athletic scholarships, then that isn't free money for the school. It's allocated out of an already existing school budget that constantly needs to grow and take from other school expenses to afford elite athletes. The sports teams pay rent to the school out of the same existing budget which is part of the school funding so again, it's money the school already has that has to allocated for upkeep of their facilities. Just like the regular students pay upkeep for the engineering facility, the administration buildings, and the other facilities with their non-scholarship money (meaning it actually came from an external source instead of the school subsidizing).
I'll admit I was incorrect. Not a take I put much thought into.
Even so your ability to ingest new data and change your opinion should be commended!
I do try. I feel that if someone isn't willing to change their opinion on ANYTHING, when presented with a compelling argument and the appropriate evidence... well, that is their problem. The whole "can't logic someone out of a conclusion they didn't arrive at with logic".
there's a lot of things wrong with college sports but kids getting a chance to get higher education that otherwise might not is absolutely not one of them.
Yes, but that opportunity should be granted based on economic need and a demonstrated ability to work hard, not based on athletic ability, because athletic ability is unrelated to your ability to study economics or physics or philosophy.
Just my personal experience, but I've found that the ability to work hard and push through doing things you don't want to do is very much transferable between sports and academics.
It completely excludes a lot of people with physical disabilities or health problems though. I promise you that the kid with a chronic health condition that has them in and out of the hospital while they're getting through school is a harder worker than the captain of the football team that's just maintaining their GPA to stay on the team.
Edit: Also, it's sexist as hell. The best scholarships are for men's sports and many women's sports don't get anywhere near the same support as men's sports, even in equivalent ones like soccer and basketball. There's no women's football league, and the women's leagues for other sports are abysmally supported.
Of course. It shouldn't be the sole criterion for selecting students. But if it does reflect your academic potential, then I don't see why it can't be one of the criteria for a subset of students. Everyone has different ways of expressing their abilities and different limitations. There's no known single metric that can accurately capture that for everyone.
I think the bigger issue is the lack of scholarships for non-athletic activities. There are many other things that colleges and universities could give scholarships for that would foster a more diverse and inclusive student body, but the preferential treatment given to athletes actually impedes that through diversion of funds.
I was rather happy when my alma mater decided to use a pile of alumni association money to build a massive LAN center and start pro e-sports teams instead of starting a football program. The e-sports program will give scholarships not just for the gamers, but also for theater kids that become shoutcaster personalities, and they use the LAN center as a way to beta test the games coming out of the game development programs. They really emphasize the educational aspect of it as well and push the gamers to get involved in game design or creative writing majors/minors so that their scholarship activity can actually benefit their career after school. It does help that the school is down the road from Acti-Blizz, so internships are plentiful.
There are other ways for the schools to support potentially profitable student activities that don't exclude people unable to participate in sports.
Yes, and those scholarships should be given to those who have proven that they do work hard on academics.
good thing economic and academic scholarships also exist. there's an absolutely tiny number of athletic scholarships and athletes compared to the total student body in every single university. removing the athletic scholarships and athletes will only hurt the athletes and not help anyone else.
Nah, it isn't sport's fault that academics hasn't found a marketable avenue for spectators to appreciate the craft. There needs to be more innovation in competitive aseptic technique or fantasy math league.
Upon reflection, you guys are correct. My opinion has been changed, though it wasn't a comment I put too much thought into. Appreciate your opinion & commentary
Excel Esport?
atheletics have been a vital part of the education system since schools have been a thing
You are correct. A renaissance person does need to have a physical aspect of their education. Suppose saying that I viewed universities as things that should produce research. Guess that is what research labs are for.
Football is a PhD and chess is an Olympic sport. Seems fair to me.
Bad take with no argument to justify it.
Sports are good for universities. Monetarily it's easy to see why, but it's also academically good too. Having sports teams builds a sense of community for the school that will bolster fraternizing between otherwise separate groups of people. This leads to students forming broader webs of connections than they otherwise would, which gives better outcomes after graduation since they know more things about more of the world, which is the point of going to a university.
Well that's news to all the universities outside the US who manage to cope with just educating people and not needing 100,000 seater stadiums. People fraternise on their own. They don't need enormous sports budgets to do it.
Our sports culture in the US is unlike any other country in the world and so comparing it to other countries is a pointless endeavor.
In fact pretty much all schools in the US all the way down to the smallest college field sports teams because it’s essential in advertising and marketing the school and recruiting students (either by recruiting students who are familiar with and fans of the sports team and the larger schools or by recruiting students who still want to compete in organized sports for the smaller schools)
Sports coaches are often compensated the most and athletes often get the most valuable scholarships because they generate the most marketing and advertising value and in cases of the highest level teams, make TV revenue back for the university.
If you want to put your complaints somewhere, complain about how public universities have to compete with each other for lucrative out of state and international students to meet their budgets because they are underfunded from the government.
Australian universities have sports. I suspect all universities have sports. The difference is outside the US sport is for the participants and is watched by the participants' families. Our youth football doesn't draw a crowd, people favour footy played by adults
But culturally, in the US, sports are how (a plurality of) people fraternize. Even our most prestigious universities, like the world-famous Harvard, has a football team.
Yeah, and as someone raised in Europe where education is actually valued, I think that's dumb. Education institutions should be there to educate, not to entertain
Lot can be learned on the field.
Is this backed by research? Assuming any if these things are true, are there any other/better/cheaper ways to get these same results?
Like the other comment pointed out, pretty much every other country where students socialise through clubs, extra-curricular activities, in the library, etc etc. Ah fuck, who am I kidding, it all happens at the bar lmao.
Sounds like someone played sports in University
I am still in university, and don't play sports, and am glad that my school participates in NCAA sports