<p>haha I can’t believe people are seriously suggesting cutting academic programs over sports. I was talking about the importance of sports in my last post, but universities were created to educated people and give them degrees, that’s the whole point. But hey, why not cut the Biochem dept so the gymnastics team can have all the latest equipment. those biochem majors should just switch to bio or chem, anyway. </p>
<p>for those bashing liberal arts - newsflash, the majority of students are studying liberal arts, very few Americans choose to study math, science, medicine or engineering. Think about the 2 most popular majors - Economics and Psych, both lib arts majors and social sciences. If we cut the humanities/arts, we’d have barely any students in college left…i guess everyone will save on tuition that way. </p>
<p>one of my majors isn’t even offered in like 90% of colleges, does that make it useless? i’d be pretty p issed if they cut it. my college doesn’t care about sports at all though, it’s too urban.</p>
<p>Under that argument, let’s cut all physical education programs at schools, all clubs without a primary academic purpose, and ban fun. None of them contribute to education.</p>
<p>EDUCATE. That word encompasses the arts and music but not necessarily sports. Educate=/=academics.</p>
<p>I wondered how long it would take someone to twist and exaggerate something I said…we have a record here. I agree, if it comes to that, cut clubs. But academic funding should be the last thing to be cut. Otherwise, universities become nothing more than corporations following the airline model-lose money on their ****-poor primary product (transporting customers) and make it up with junk fees.</p>
<p>How would you respond to an airline cutting their maintenance budget while continuing to spend more money on promo agreements with hotels? Sure, the hotel agreements bring in money, but there’s a reason the airline’s name is AIRLINE, not travel agency.</p>
<p>What I meant by cutting half the humanities department is cut feminist studies, (culture) studies, etc. I’m not talking about classic fields like philosophy, languages, or history.</p>
<p>Because feminist studies, culture studies, etc obviously make up half of the humanities department. Give me a break, most schools don’t even have those majors.</p>
<p>There is a lot of education in sports. In fact, you eliminate sports and you eliminate my major as well as at least a few others. Nice work; way to not cut academics!</p>
<p>Again, Michael Jordan played basketball. FDR didn’t practice law while in school (and I find it somewhat surprising that he studied it as an undergrad too).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really, their football team would draw more than 30 students - probably more like a few thousand. But yes, it would certainly only be a fraction what they get now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read the whole thread before going back to reply, and I don’t think the full looniness of this post really sunk in the first time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s only true of independents (i.e. only Notre Dame). Teams in conferences split the payout.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heck, math is a liberal art. And considering that, I think we need more liberal arts majors ;)</p>
<p>Remember though, while teams in the conferences may split that Bowl money, those conferences are also sending teams to more than one bowl therefore getting even more money to be split…</p>
<p>FDR practiced law out of school. Shall we cut med school then, because you don’t actually practice medicine while in school? Actually, but that logic, we should cut everything except about theatre, which is something you can actually do before you graduate (and ironically, it’s a humanities subject!)</p>
yeah I get math/science are part of the liberal arts too, but some people were bashing specific humanities/social sci subjects so I was just pointing out arts majors make up the majority of college students and are the most popular majors. in fact, some colleges only offer lib arts majors…like many colleges don’t have undergrad business or engineering.
obviously it wouldn’t make sense to cut academics before sports, despite how important sports are.</p>
<p>Big time sports=increased recognition=more applicants=more selectivity=better students.</p>
<p>Also, the reason athletic programs lose money is Title IX. Football and basketball make money, and sports like field hockey and water polo suck money out of the AD budget.</p>
<p>UNC’s basketball program earned over $20 million last year; I don’t see a reason why anyone would want to get rid of such a moneymaker.</p>
<p>What I meant was that the actual law itself has nothing to do with sports. Title IX is part of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Title IX has to do with gender discrimination in educational activities. The Department of Education decided athletics are educational activities. Nowhere in the law does it mention sports.</p>
I get to perform in my major on a daily basis in and out of the classroom ;)</p>