<p>Putting aside the “intrinsic value” argument (which I buy completely, but only for a small fraction of students in college today, with the majority realizing more “intrinsic value” elsewhere), the college degree is simply the equivalent of a “union card”, what a high school degree used to be.</p>
<p>Look - it keeps all these folks out of the job market for awhile. They spend lots of money and run up lots of debt, good for the economy. It offloads the expense of “training” from corporate taxes to the future workers. Having lots of college grads depresses wages for all of them. What’s not to love?</p>
<p>“Interesting stat. Now, is this study saying that learning to write better doesn’t matter in most jobs, or learning to construct a cogent argument, or is it referring to vocational skills such as, say, accounting?”</p>
<p>It is saying that learning to write (better) is not a skill intrinsic to college (it is intrinsic to high school, and maybe a few liberal arts colleges), and that the higher order skills are not a requirement of the job market.</p>
<p>OP, you could ask the same question of music, art, theater.</p>
<p>I agree with Cur - we humans are not just a big brain. “University” comes from a root meaning “whole.” I doubt there is a college in the U.S. that does NOT offer some sort of athletic opportunity for all of its students. </p>
<p>And, if you are an athlete, you already know that it takes alot of brain power to excel in sports.</p>
<p>You didn’t ask for my help, so I’m being presumptious in offering it. Please feel free to ignore it completely ;-).</p>
<p>I haven’t taught undergrads in a few years, but I talk with people who do and I’m not so far removed from the process that my memory of it has become completely outdated.</p>
<p>I would say that the current crop of undergrads are, by and large, almost unbelievably bad writers. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that they are also poorly skilled thinkers. A traditional, rigorous, liberal arts undergraduate education could cure this and provide meta-skills that would put your son one up on the competition, but there are very few places that still provide this sort of education. </p>
<p>Besides being one-up on the competition, these skills provide lifelong entertainment even while sitting quietly in a low stimulus environment. It’s just fun to have them, and to have some decent knowledge in RAM that will allow you to play with them pretty much anywhere.</p>
I’m not an expert, but I believe the money sports teams bring in is usually used for athletics–but not just the sport at hand. USC football, for instance, will also help fund the diving team and polo. This issue is actually a common debate, particularly among economists who say that D1 football and basketball players are really unfairly treated because they make a huge amount of money which then goes to coaches, other people running the team, and other sports that don’t draw in money. This is compounded by the fact that while many D1 football/basketball players are disadvantaged black kids, a large part of the money they earn goes toward white coaches and sports like polo.</p>
<p>Thanks Tarhunt. I agree with your opinion regarding writing skills and I have to admit (though son doesn’t) that his writing skills have improved tremendously after 3 semesters in college. </p>
<p>I believe you’re correct, but there are some other aspects that might deserve a mention.</p>
<p>Most total athletic programs, even at the Div. 1 level, run at a deficit, which means that institutional funds that could be used for other pursuits are pumped into sports. As I’ve said before on this thread, I think it’s probably necessary to do this from a pure marketing standpoint for most universities.</p>
<p>One of the real problems here, though, is that the accounting is very different from school to school. For instance, some schools charge athletic departments an overhead for administrative support, utilities, and the like. Others do not. Without uniform accounting, it becomes very difficult to determine just how much institutional money is going to support sports, even at those few schools where sports, supposedly, pay for themselves.</p>
<p>My D just voted on a referendum at UCSD regarding an increase in student fees to support the sports teams there. UCSD currently does not give out any athletic scholarships and also has no football team or any other sport that attracts large crowds. The referendum would increase student fees so that each sport participant (I’m not sure of the exact criteria) would get $500 to help pay for their equipment, etc. </p>
<p>My D voted against the fee increase. She says ‘why should all of the students who don’t even care about these sports have to pay for them?’ The vast majority of students there will never attend one of the laCrosse games or water polo games much less participate in it. I agree that if the sport has no potential to generate revenue (limited to very football/basketball at very few colleges) then let the students who wish to participate in the sport buy their own equipment and pay their own costs. If they can help fund their sports from spectator charges then great but most couldn’t.</p>
<p>She also made the point that most people who go to UCSD already know it’s not known for its sports programs. This is one of the things that appealed to her - the focus on academics and its status as uni heavy in sciences/engineering (and other areas) rather than sports. If people wanted to attend a school for the football or basketball (or other) teams then they should attend those. If they’re miffed that a school has an emphasis in sports then they should simply not go there. In this country there’s something for just about everyone.</p>
<p>College sports adds to the cohesiveness of a school. It brings students, alumni, and faculty together in a fun environment outside of the classroom. Not all, or even most, kids or adults who enjoy football (for example) go to college to “run up a hefty bar tab.” </p>
<p>Although there is plenty of partying surrounding big games, the same could be said for pop entertainment venues. That doesn’t mean that music or theater arts promote drug use, promiscuity, or sordid lifestyles, or that most kids who are interested in the arts just want to indulge in those things.</p>
<p>It seems coincidental, tho, that whenever a team wins the NCAA championship for football or basketball, that donations go up- not just for athletics, but academics as well.</p>
<p>Perhaps you should read the thread. The alumni giving piece is in great dispute based on the research, and where success does seem to promote giving, it is often giving to the sports program, which means that it’s a wash to the institution.</p>
<p>Do you have a source for your statement that alumni giving goes up to non-sports-related parts of a university when the sports program does well?</p>
<p>Tarheel, no I don’t. That’s why I said “It seems that…” I guess it’s just conventional wisdom, you hear people say stuff like, “Wow the money’s gonna pour in now…” when the team wins a championship.</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that the majority of students get an opportunity to participate in intercollegiate sports and, thereby, reduce obesity? I don’t believe anyone on this board has had a problem with intramural sports.</p>
<p>There is some evidence, from the Knight Commission, that this is true in those few years when a school wins a very high profile national championship. However, the same report suggests that it is not true over the long haul, and that expenditures on college athletics do little or nothing to improve alumni donations over time because no school can win a high-profile national championship each year.</p>
<p>I d on’t understand why it bothers people. Millions of people tune in to football, basketball, baseball, whatever every week, and enjoy themselves watching their, or other’s, kids play. What’s the big deal? It’s not hurting anyone, you don’t have to go to the games, or attend schools that have them.</p>