Really? They have an advantage because they've been passed along the dysfunctional system due to their athletic skill and not given a basic education? This very article dispels this myth that they're given any advantage because they're not being taught anything. They're not being prepared for anything beyond being exploited in the moment for the school's sports program. They're being pushed along and when they aren't in the less than 1% who go pro they end up dropping out or with a worthless degree and a worthless education, unable to formulate proper sentences.
Still waiting to see the "advantage" to this system.
The only rational alternatives are the following:
1. Athletes are forced to get good grades on their own
2. Athletes who are not getting good grades in previous schooling are not given the opportunity to become college athletes because their grades stink.
Now lets look at the first -- Athletes who have been at a disadvantage in elementary/high school are unable to complete any coursework in college, because, guess what, they can't read at anything higher than a second or third grade level. So, what happens?
they are given special considerations. Extra tutoring or "help with grades" from teachers/deans. Extra tutoring might be the best option here, but where does that leave time for the thing they are actually at that college for? They are given no time to practice because they are at the library studying elementary/high school-level coursework.
the question then begs why are they able to be given special considerations AT ALL? Just because they are athletes? What about all of the other people who are at the college that need the same remedial coursework? Will the school all of a sudden finance tutors for all of them as well? There are limited amount classes for remedial courses.
There is also question of whether or not any of this will actually help them, because if they couldn't get this stuff in elementary/high school, how is that supposed to make it easier for them in college?
ok, so maybe that sounds really expensive and unfair, right? Cause the current system is unfair, we want to treat athletes with less special rights, like personal tutoring, right?
So, the only other option is to not allow these types of students into the athletic programs at all. The school is not able to make a team of athletes that as a result and lags behind in their development because they are excising large amounts of the sports-playing population because they are not getting a minimum grade.
Then what happens to these people who were once allowed to play sports and given a pass? They don't go to any semblance of higher education, even if it is a farce, they don't get any exposure to higher education, and any opportunity for these people that actually WANT to try and improve themselves with education since they are actually enrolled in these classes regardless, can't, because they don't meet the grade standards from high school.
I think I like allowing the possibility of mobility for underprivileged/undereducated students by way of athletic programs.
I agree that education needs reforms from the ground up but how can you sit there and honestly argue that college education is less meaningful than K-12? College is when you're supposed to pick a specialization and focus on it. Higher education is designed to challenge you beyond the foundations provided by K-12 education. No matter how much you improve K-12, it's still just a foundation education.
its less meaningful because K-12 is the foundation. The Foundation of education is much more important than any specialization you may focus on later in life. If the foundation is not there, then how can the specialization be built on top of it?
Yes, there needs to be more choices including vocational options for K-12 students, but that topic has little bearing on the fact that colleges in the United States are exploiting athletes knowing they are leaving those athletes wholly unprepared for any future when they don't make it as a pro.
exploiting? sure, i guess you can call it that. What happens to these potential athletes otherwise if they are not given the opportunity to even be in the sports program at all?
And if you are saying that the colleges have the obligation of teaching them 15 years of education in less than 4 years (or however long they end up being in the athletic program), then i don't know what to say other than think that is a ridiculous notion.
Colleges are failures because of declining job markets and macroeconomic factors beyond the scope of the college (and student)? Pushing through "students" with a third grade reading level is less of an issue because they're athletes? I need to find my hip waders because the bullshit is getting deep.
How many colleges are out there for the express purpose of making money? For-profit education is a plague on the education system. There are also many colleges that do not prepare anyone they "push through" let alone the athletes. There are other non-athlete students in those same colleges that get past with not much better in reading levels. It isn't a specific failure of the college system that they receive the students like that. The failure comes with colleges trying to pad their statistics so they can get the next class of fodder in and out due to profiteering.
Hooray for strawman arguments. Nowhere did I say college existed for the sole purpose of remedial studies. Meanwhile, you still have yet to answer why allowing this practice is good beyond making money for the school and the NCAA. It certainly isn't doing the student-athletes any good.
I mentioned my hypothesis above. You may or may not think its bullshit.
I don't think the NCAA is that great of an organization anyway. The schools at least compensate the students by bringing them into the college system (whether or not those students take advantage of that is up to you to accept or not) and the NCAA makes millions of dollars just to turn around and tell the students they are not able to benefit from their own work.
Nice hyperbole but it isn't hasn't been like this for a couple hundred years. Only in the United States is sports so intrinsically tied to the "college experience" and sports didn't become such a priority focus until the mid-20th century. Higher education in Europe and Asia still focus on academics with sport as an extracurricular supplement. Of course, Europe and Asia still go out of their way to try to give interested students easy access to higher education, unlike here where students are expected to shoulder high five digit debts.
If you think that I'm the only one who shares the belief that the reliance on sports is detrimental to the end goal of education, you need to start researching the topic.
Europe and Asia also have different societies, and i think we've already indirectly agreed that their education systems are better since the education system in America isn't exactly helping anyone it is supposed to.
However, we live in a country that has principles in capitalism in education, and until all of it becomes nationalized, non-profit, socialized education, it's not going to improve in the States. The only savior to the immediate system is vocational schools that actually teach you how to do a JOB/FUNCTION in society, but those are looked down upon because they are not "4 year universities"
