<p>Of course I don’t consider UC Berkeley a lightweight school. I do think it’s silly to give college credit for badminton, etc. My question still stands - should you get college credit for scrapbooking? Cake decorating? Just because an activity may be enjoyable, worth doing and provide benefits doesn’t mean it’s part of the mission of a college or credit-worthy. I can see colleges offering non-credit exploratory courses in fun areas, but I don’t think every possible area of human inquiry / study fits in a college setting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You want to try again? </p>
<p>[America’s</a> Best Colleges - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/02/best-colleges-ratings-opinions-ranking-2009_land.html]America’s”>America's Best Colleges)</p>
<p>THE top school in the nation as released by Forbes in fact REQUIRES those types of activities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, if you are majoring in Culinary Arts, which is offered by one of our community colleges. Baking, Pastries, and Food Design are all offered as part of the curriculum.</p>
<p>I’d say that your <em>opinion</em> of collegiate athletics has been made crystal clear to me at least, Pizzagirl. Despite the fact that intercollegiate athletics have existed since the 19th century, you think they are an inappropriate waste of time.</p>
<p>momofwildchild wrote:
LOL, my daughter would agree with you. She ran cross country and track in h.s. </p>
<p>Her current school does pretty well with their basketball players:
[Cracked</a> Sidewalks: Marquette finishes in the top 10 for graduation rates among NCAA teams](<a href=“http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/03/marquette-finishes-in-top-10-for.html]Cracked”>Cracked Sidewalks: Marquette finishes in the top 10 for graduation rates among NCAA teams) </p>
<p>I agree that the basketball culture is a bit toxic – with Derrick Roses and others playing for just one year. When Marquette had three talented seniors last year, there was a lot of speculation that the NBA would not draft them (which proved to be the case) because they had “been around forever.”</p>
<p>Right. So, where do culinary arts belong? In a community college, in a specialty chef - training / cooking school (Cordon Bleu, Johnson & Wales), in a state flagship, in an elite college? Why do you suppose, historically, Harvard et al has never offered a culinary arts degree? Are they saying that the culinary arts have no value, or that they simply don’t find them an appropriate academic discipline in keeping with their educational mission? </p>
<p>BTW, Bay, I never said intercollegiate athletics are an “inappropriate waste of time.” I think the EMPHASIS put on them can be over the top at some schools, but the great thing is, I don’t have to attend those schools or send my kids there. If other people want to scream themselves silly over it or take pride in their school or choose it because they beat Rival State U instead of the school’s academics, that’s their problem, not mine.</p>
<p>
Absolutely, 100%, dead on serious.
JHS is right - this is the reason why the Service academies and ROTC value athletics when looking for future officers. The business world values those skills as well - hence early morning squash matches and Wednesday afternoon round of golf.</p>
<p>There are certainly lightweight and heavyweight college courses. Most science majors think that history majors have it pretty easy but I would not say that history is non-academic. Being an academic lightweight is not exclusive to athletes.</p>
<p>Golf and sailing are offered at S’s Ivy and I’m glad they are. I could care less whether credits are given for them or not, but since phys ed. is required for graduation, students do earn credits for the classes. To the extent that the school is preparing young men and women for corporate jobs, which may not be a stated mission but sure helps the endowment grow, knowledge of especially golf can be viewed as part of the school’s educational mission. Aren’t business deals made on the gold course sometimes? It’s a great thing for students like S who didn’t grow up around money and so never learned to play. This way he’s not disqualified from that opportunity, though he’d need a lot more practice than what the class offers, lol.</p>
<p>TheGFG, are these courses offered for credit or non-credit / extracurriculars? To me, that makes all the difference in the world.</p>
<p>Knowing how to dress for the workplace may be important, too, or how to order fine wines and have appropriate table manners, but I don’t see those as academic courses that deserve college credit. Those feel more like workshops or non-credit seminars / offerings to me. Likewise, there are a lot of things that may be important to learning how to live on one’s own (balancing a checkbook, doing laundry, etc.) but I certainly don’t want those to be on my kids’ college class schedule.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t realize this discussion was about what Harvard considers academically appropriate. I thought we were discussing the appropriateness of collegiate athletics in general. Community colleges offer legitimate degrees. I don’t know why you dismiss their courses as having no academic value. They also offer intercollegiate athletics.</p>
<p>Since you brought up Harvard however, if I remember correctly, Harvard actually invented intercollegiate football. So much for it not being part of their <em>mission.</em></p>
<p>Well, where have I ever said collegiate / intercollegiate athletics were inappropriate for colleges to offer? I haven’t, so I guess there’s nothing to argue about.</p>
<p>Community colleges offer legitimate courses in many areas of study, but they aren’t all academic areas. Mine offers degrees / certificates in areas including Air Conditioning, Cosmetology, Mammography Training, EMT Training, Office Technology, Physician Office Coding & Billing, and Real Estate Appraising. Is there anything <em>wrong</em> with studying towards / wanting a career in any of the above areas? No. Are they necessarily all <em>academic</em> areas? No.</p>
<p>Also, I remembered reading that Harvard’s graduation requirements used to include a swimming test, until it was made impossible by the passage of the ADA. While looking for info on it, I came across this: [The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Freshman PT Requirement – Why Bother?](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=246740]The”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=246740), which tells us that Harvard’s swimming requirement existed since 1882, and Harvard also had a requirement of 30 hours per semester of Physical Training for Freshman, from 1914 to at least until 1967 (I don’t know when in was repealed).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do scrapbooking and baton-twirling offer academic value, or are they merely fun, engaging hobbies to those who enjoy such things? </p>
<p>Help me understand how football has academic value that baton-twirling doesn’t. Not the study of the history of sports in American society, or the study of sports marketing management, or the study of exercise kinesiology, or the study of nutrition for optimal sports performance. I mean football itself, the actual act of playing the game (or practicing). Does it offer academic value?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, I guess I misinterpreted you.</p>
<p>My niece goes to Davidson and they have a required swimming test as well as a few physical education requirements (my niece is an athlete on scholarship, I don’t know if athletes are exempt from this requirement, and I also have to assume that students with physical limitations are exempt). I don’t have a problem with requiring some kind of physical education as a distribution requirement, the way that one might require classes in English, foreign language, etc. But that has very little to do with “sports as a campus unifier” or the issues that occur when big-time spectator-sports are overemphasized.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It all depends on how you define “academic.” If studio art, acting, music and dance performance are considered “academic” disciplines, then there is no reason why football should not be. I’m sure there have been 1,000s of books written on the subject of playing football. It requires an understanding of rules, strategies, the movement and development of the human body. Does that qualify it as “academic?” I don’t know. But really, does it even matter? If a college wants to include football as part of the university experience, what difference does it make whether it is “academic” or not?</p>
<p>"I mean football itself, the actual act of playing the game (or practicing). Does it offer academic value? " The same question could be asked about many college activities that attract audiences and require physical and mental concentration , years of training, and loads of endurance. Try inserting “gymnastics” or “ballet”, or “tennis” or …for “football”. So are you suggesting throwing all athletic sports and “physical” activities off college campuses because you don’t understand why people like to watch them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then what are they running from, huh?</p>
<p>I don’t even know what that means. I just thought it sounded funny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This question once again misses the point. I don’t hear anyone saying that sports aren’t enjoyable to play or watch, nor that they shouldn’t be part of college life. The big question is whether athletes ought to be held to different standards, or given different accommodations, than other students. Just because I like college sports doesn’t mean I automatically think that someone should be able to get a degree in Football Arts. And just because I hate college sports doesn’t mean I want to ban other people from playing or watching them. Let’s not derail a good debate by misrepresenting each other’s positions.</p>
<p>No, I’ve never suggested throwing all athletic sports and physical activities off college campuses. Nothing of the sort. I don’t know why words are being put in my mouth here. </p>
<p>I’m trying to distinguish between things that are extracurricular and things that are curricular.</p>
<p>mantori suzuki, you can be on my team anytime. Heh.</p>