|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2013 11:31:10 GMT -5
EDIT: Why do we hate freethoughtpedia? I haven't found why it's offensive yet, though I've only just started on it. Just to elaborate about this, Freethoughtpedia basically wants to force the world to be athiest. Okay, no. My religion, or rather spirituality, is all about love all around the world and freedom to worship whoever you choose as long as it harms no one. (I'm a Pagan) My religion is anti-war. My religion is anti-hatred. So therefore, I play absolutely no role in the wars and death that's going on. Did these people even LOOK at the Pagan religion?! It's basically a religion where there is NO idea of divine punishment. Therefore, the religion is basically prohibiting extremism. The people who follow it are people who believe that the God/dess LOVES everyone NO MATTER WHAT. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Jun 28, 2013 12:06:02 GMT -5
Just so I'm clear on the matter: Stal, to summarize your views, are you saying that "sponsorship to universities should always go toward the poor or otherwise disadvantaged, regardless of race and creed"? |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 28, 2013 12:48:05 GMT -5
Just so I'm clear on the matter: Stal, to summarize your views, are you saying that "sponsorship to universities should always go toward the poor or otherwise disadvantaged, regardless of race and creed"? I'm saying all forms of programs to help disadvantaged should be based precisely on things that matter and are not another form of discrimination itself. I wouldn't say "all sponsorships" (or scholarships as it were). Athletic based ones should go to athletes, regardless of other skill or academics. Academic scholarships should go to high earners. Disadvantaged programs should go to the disadvantaged. Your skin color doesn't change if you're good at math, or football, or poor. Some might be highly correlated with each other, but that factor is irrelevant when it comes to programs to help the disadvantaged. What kind of programs that should exist or the way to help them is another debate itself. But race should have no bearing on targeted programs for helping the disadvantaged. It is just as much discrimination as anything else is on a logical basis. If we can discriminate on that, we should discriminate on everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 28, 2013 21:41:38 GMT -5
I'm being a little tangential here but... what's the ethical basis for athletic sponsorships? They never give them out in my country, which is probably why it looks odd to me. But it doesn't seem particularly fair. I always thought that university was about academic excellence and competency in subjects like science, liberal arts, medicine, and what have you. I assumed uni was about being good at the subjects you're actually taught. From an outsider's point of view it just looks like colleges want to beat other colleges in sports for reasons of pride. What's that got to do with university education and giving everyone a fair go? In Australia, there are alternate options a person can pursue to be a sporting player. It just seems more efficient that way than putting them into a prestigious college if they're only interested in swinging a bat.
*shrugs* Cultural differences, but it seems wasteful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 28, 2013 23:00:38 GMT -5
It's entirely off-topic, but I demand you on logical basis defend that it's wasteful.
The only reason it seems that way is society tells you that it is. That intellectual pursuits are more noble, more important, than atheletic. But really, there's a demand for athletes just as much as there is for workers in other pursuits. Defining that pursuit as inherently worse than another is really extremely judgmental for no logical basis. It's no worse than having coffee shops, breweries, automobile manufacturers, pet stores, art galleries (and artistic scholarships! There's an argument for waste if we want to go that route in a "logical" way), television studies, or even reality tv shows.
Market demands it. People demand it.
I'd make the outright assertion that an athletic scholarship has a higher Return on Investment for the giver and society than a bank or government giving a loan for an English major (or scholarships, but those are rarer for English majors).
My point is that really, if you just sit back and question that judgment, you'll really have to dig down deep to think about it. Think beyond what culture or society has conditioned you to think, and question the premise. Is there are a reason to look down on athletic scholarships?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kino is Slightly Derpy on Jun 28, 2013 23:12:54 GMT -5
All this talk about scholarships kind of brought a discussion to mind that I had recently with some friends of mine... I'm sorry if it's not really relevant but I'll try, I've been skimming the topic...
I've heard that there are courses in colleges and universities in my area that have a quota of minorities that need to be met... Maybe I'm just too rosey-eyed about the world but, I find this type of thing really insulting.
I've done some research into it since I had that discussion, and was actually shocked to see that there are scholarships that are directed solely by race and gender.
I was also surprised to see that certain programs have a minimum requirement for female students and others that have minimum requirements for people of color.
I kind of understand the rationale for this, but in the same sense I am disgusted that we have to do this.
I'm not a visible minority, but I am (card-carrying) Native(Métis) and to think that I would be considered for a program over someone else, not because of my acumen but because of my gender and/or my race? It kinda makes me feel ill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 29, 2013 0:02:45 GMT -5
It's entirely off-topic, but I demand you on logical basis defend that it's wasteful. The only reason it seems that way is society tells you that it is. That intellectual pursuits are more noble, more important, than atheletic. But really, there's a demand for athletes just as much as there is for workers in other pursuits. Defining that pursuit as inherently worse than another is really extremely judgmental for no logical basis. It's no worse than having coffee shops, breweries, automobile manufacturers, pet stores, art galleries (and artistic scholarships! There's an argument for waste if we want to go that route in a "logical" way), television studies, or even reality tv shows. Market demands it. People demand it. I'd make the outright assertion that an athletic scholarship has a higher Return on Investment for the giver and society than a bank or government giving a loan for an English major (or scholarships, but those are rarer for English majors). My point is that really, if you just sit back and question that judgment, you'll really have to dig down deep to think about it. Think beyond what culture or society has conditioned you to think, and question the premise. Is there are a reason to look down on athletic scholarships? I'm happy you're asking me to put down my cultural preferences and not to look down on anything. But the prestige given to sports in our society is due to cultural preferences. If we're meant to be culturally blind, why aren't the colleges giving just as many scholarships to jugglers and circus performers? Why are they giving scholarships to stand up comedians? Or aspiring TV show script writers? There is (and always has been) a societal need for entertainment, and sporting, circus performance, comedy and TV are all popular forms of entertainment. And why only team sports? Do horse jockeys get sport scholarships too? (I actually don't know this, so maybe I'm wrong on this point. But the sports scholarship thing does seem to be geared to fill college football teams rather than necessarily to reward sport "for its own sake") But if it's about raw talent in any given area, why not also grant a scholarship for knowing ancient languages or for memorising the phonebook or for being a world champion at "Magic: The Gathering"? Sporting prowess is an ingrained cultural ideal. A "win" at a game with balls and bats is considered something powerfully meaningful for entirely cultural reasons. So for all that, I still don't see why sporting players should be given more scholarships into prestigious universities than any other socially entertaining skill. The only reason that seems apparent to me is college pride at wanting to beat another college at a game. And the cultural status of sport. Edit: Also, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that pursuing a sporting career was a "worse" choice than any other. And I am aware that art is also "logicially" unnecessary. But I wanted to see them all as part of a larger phenomenon of (for want of a better term) entertainment, which is beneficial to society, and it's clear that certain forms of sport are given privileges that other forms of entertainment don't enjoy. But no one considers it odd that sporting scholarships put sporting people into prestigious universities while they're focused on getting a good sporting career and not on the law/medicine/arts/science studies which the university teaches. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 29, 2013 0:13:30 GMT -5
I told you. Market. Demand.
People don't want circus performers.
People want football players.
People don't want M:tG players.
People want Baseball players.
People don't want jugglers.
People want what they want.
I told you to defend it without using the judgment but logic. I brought out the idea of return on investment.
What is it that society wants? What is it benefits from? Putting aside all concepts of what is "good" or "bad", look at what people want. That's why you can't equate football players with MtG players. The demand for it isn't there. Neither is the return on the investment. It's why American football is big here but not soccer (or Futbol)
Culture decides what people want. But people want it. Athletic scholarships cater to that. So again, ignore what you've been told is "good or bad" in judgmental terms. Analyze it off of "what do people want? Is there a logical reason to not provide that?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 29, 2013 0:17:56 GMT -5
Sure thing. I'm fine with people sponsoring sporting players, so that they will have a socially demanded sporting career. But why put them in super prestigious universities? That is to say, why put them in universities geared to deliver the best science/arts/medicine/etc. courses possible, rather than in more specialised institutitions/other avenues for furthering a sporting career? Isn't that wasteful?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 29, 2013 0:21:42 GMT -5
Sure thing. I'm fine with people sponsoring sporting players, so that they will have a socially demanded sporting career. But why put them in super prestigious universities? That is to say, why put them in universities geared to deliver the best science/arts/medicine/etc. courses possible, rather than in more specialised institutitions/other avenues for furthering a sporting career? Isn't that wasteful? Not all the prestigious academic schools have the best sporting schools or are where the athletes want to go. But also, sometimes the prestigious athletic teams also have the better scholar schools due to budgets, demand for price, etc. It's the way the market goes. You're again making a judgment that athletic pursuits are somehow separate than the others. I'm telling you they're not. Put aside culture. There is no difference than someone pursuing athletics, a manual trade, a labor job, a philosophical role, or teaching. You're allowing your own bias regarding athletics and their place/role in society to determine what their place should be in universities. Put that judgment aside and argue that there is anything inherently or logically different than providing them an arena to hone their skills and talent as anyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 29, 2013 0:28:41 GMT -5
Okay, okay. I'm sorry I sound so judge-y.
If I want to be a lawyer, I study law at university and most of my subjects will be under the subject heading "law".
Same with any other university course. Including fine arts.
But sport... requires me to study something else full time. Something unrelated (/only tangentially related) to sports like law or science.
Why?
Why fund sport people to study things unrelated to sport or their sporting career?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 29, 2013 0:49:07 GMT -5
Okay, okay. I'm sorry I sound so judge-y. If I want to be a lawyer, I study law at university and most of my subjects will be under the subject heading "law". Same with any other university course. Including fine arts. But sport... requires me to study something else full time. Something unrelated (/only tangentially related) to sports like law or science. Why? Why fund sport people to study things unrelated to sport or their sporting career? When I speak of judgmental, I mean simply you're imputing a value on the pursuit that has no inherent basis. I'm trying to get you to confront that idea, since you raised the topic. For the same reason you also study non-law related things or I had to take a class called Hero and Myth for a gen ed, or a physical education class and pay the state for things I already knew. You give people a well-rounded education to hone more skills of theirs. For example, an average American Football player will only play 3.4 years professionally. I want to say the average salary was approx USD $500k a year for that time, or $1.7M for their career. If he has nothing else to go off of, we assume the player goes straight to the pros out of college at 22, plays 3.4 years, and we amortize to retirement age of 65...they make just under $43k a year for their lifetime. But only on Football. Which does not make them rich and does not make it extremely wasteful to spend money to give them a job that will give them that kind of money and return. (Like I mentioned before, an English major's return on investment to the investor is going to be quite a bit less.) But now what to do with them? Football isn't an exciting opportunity if you're on the streets and homeless when you get out of it. So people invest in back up skills. Just like you as a law student have to take some other skills, or I as an accountant had to take management and marketing classes, you're rounding out your education to do more than just that one skill. (that itself is a whole other rabbit hole debate) It pays people more to invest in athletics than it does in other pursuits because that's what people want. That's what it boils down to. But referring to it as a waste is a judgment call on anyone's part as there is literally nothing inherent about any of the pursuits that make them worse. No matter what we want to say about it. I mean when we strip away cultural and personal perceptions... it's just another thing that people want and will pay for. Why pay me to count my money? Why pay you to read and argue law? Why have laws? Why pay people money to make law? Why pay people money to make art or write? It's just the way society is right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 29, 2013 2:38:18 GMT -5
Ah, I didn't really take into account the longer term effects of a sporting career. Thanks for giving a bigger picture. On the judgement thing. I think you think that I was trying to say that all funding of sporting activities was inherently a waste. I don't think that sport funding is a waste per se. I was thinking college sporting scholarships was a waste because it seemed like sporting players were being paid for taking courses which weren't relevant to their sporting career. But you've shown that it actually is relevant to encouraging a sporting career. So thank you for that. And yes, I have approached the topic from a university culture which is not identical to your own. For whatever reason, sporting scholarships for universities don't exist in Australia, even though we are big fans of sport too. Maybe there's just way less scholarship money all around. Maybe various other institutions have taken up the role of sponsoring sports. (*cough* and maybe it's because Australian universities don't have sporting rivalries with each other  Mostly because of the geographical separation of the major cities and major universities). Whatever the case, there's probably some large number of factors I haven't considered as to why one country has this system and another doesn't. So, I will try to put my cultural baggage aside, but this takes discussion and learning and understanding. I can't simply will away culture in a vacuum. I can't do it without interacting with other views. I need an external opinion to tell me where I'm wrong. So I have another question... if I ask it of you, then you can enlighten me with your perspective.  And I appreciate it. I've got an American friend who almost got a sporting scholarship for his swimming ability, but what he was most passionate about was science, and he would have been really happy if a prestigious university had given him a sporting scholarship so that he could study science there. Now since he's my friend, I would root for him and be really happy if he got into studying science at that prestigious university. I don't care what methods he uses to get in there, I'd just say, "go get it boy" But putting aside the friend thing, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of a sporting scholarship? In this case, sport was irrelevant to his true ambition, and it's not going to encourage him to make a career out of sport, since he wouldn't want become a competitive swimmer anyway. But how many people who get into universities on a sporting scholarship actually just use it to get a leg up on competition for no reason which is relevant to their actual skills in the subject they want to study? Why should a science applicant with swimming ability be privileged over other science applicants? My hypothetical answer: The colleges want to fill up their sporting teams to beat other colleges for reasons of pride. Feel free to disagree, of course!  |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 29, 2013 9:52:42 GMT -5
My hypothetical answer: The colleges want to fill up their sporting teams to beat other colleges for reasons of pride. Feel free to disagree, of course! Pride, and money, money, MONEY! Pac, I think what Stal's somehow not managed to explain for this whole sport system with colleges is the fact that collegiate sports are big business for the schools. Take college basketball, for example. March Madness (the big college basketball tournament) is a HUUUUGELY watched event in the states. The schools sell merchandise, and TV broadcasting rights, and all sorts of things... they can make a LOT of money on good basketball teams. (It's a multi-billion dollar industry.) So they give scholarships to good players so that their teams do better and the school makes more money. I should also point out that schools don't even PAY the players to play basketball. So considering how much money a school makes on great players, being able to plunk them into a classroom without those kids paying for the class, that's like pennies to them. Even if you take into consideration the other sports that aren't big money-makers, TV wise, it does a school good to have the reputation of "Best Track and Field team," for example. You pay the way for a couple really good runners to get into your school, and raise your track and field reputation. Now you've got the best team in the country! Now all the high-schoolers who really loved track and field and want to participate in college will gravitate towards your school. And not all of them are getting scholarships, so now your school is getting more talented runners (who are paying to attend), plus reputation to attract even more talented runners. And for your question if horse jockeys get scholarships, I know that SCAD offers an equestrian scholarship. Because the school president apparently really likes horses and the rich kids it attracts, so our art school has a major for horse-riding studies. XDD Go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 29, 2013 19:34:51 GMT -5
Yes. Money. I had written a paragraph about that at one point, but looks like I deleted it during some of my on-the-fly editing. Whups.
A scholarship isn't always a full ride, even for athletes. So in a case like your friend, they're paying for his tuition (partially or in full) in return for his skills. They get a return on that investment in terms of better standings, and other things that have a significant economic impact.
In a sense like that, think of it as a job. They're looking to hire someone with a good set of skills, and in return payment directly to the school for tuition, etc, and in return he does the job they hired him for.
|
|
Mostly because of the geographical separation of the major cities and major universities). Whatever the case, there's probably some large number of factors I haven't considered as to why one country has this system and another doesn't. So, I will try to put my cultural baggage aside, but this takes discussion and learning and understanding. I can't simply will away culture in a vacuum. I can't do it without interacting with other views. I need an external opinion to tell me where I'm wrong. 
And I appreciate it.
