<p>What I meant to say is that people go to school to major in an academic field, that’s why we dont have athletic majors (physical education and sports medicine barred). I never was a proponent of art and music majors, but they do have some academic value, I dont care for it though. </p>
<p>Truth of the matter is that most people go to college so that they can get a job – college is basically job training, and if you cant get a job in football, why take away from departments that help you get a job to pay for football.</p>
<p>Athletes get paid what they are worth. Sorry. If thousands of people pay hundreds of dollars for tickets to watch you do a chemistry experiment, then maybe you can get paid more.</p>
<p>student activities? doesn’t help people get jobs
build more dining halls? doesn’t help people get jobs
upgrade the rec center? doesn’t help people get jobs
have the leaves cleaned up from campus when they fall? doesn’t help people get jobs
pay for AC in the dorms? doesn’t help people get jobs
play in a music ensemble? doesn’t help people get a job
sing in an a cappella group? doesn’t help people get a job
play frisbee in your free time? doesn’t help people get a job
plant flowers on campus? doesn’t help people get a job
host weddings on your campus? doesn’t help people get a job
put blue safety lights on campus? doesn’t help people get a job</p>
<p>… spend your time posting on CC? doesn’t help you get a job</p>
<p>Blue lights, dining halls and AC are basic necessities for health, safety etc… but yes I would cut all of those other programs before I cut into academia.</p>
<p>People have been dreaming of becoming athletes for most of the last century. In that time the U.S. has gone from a secure nation to a world superpower. Certainly team sports are not holding the country back. Also, scientists’ abilities would be limited even if nobody did like sports. You can’t just snap your fingers and say that cancer would be cured simply by throwing more money at it.</p>
<p>That is somewhat true, but we need more people to aspire to be scientists, so we can get greater minds into that field. And back in the day, people did aspire to be scientists more than they do today.</p>
<p>“That is somewhat true, but we need more people to aspire to be scientists, so we can get greater minds into that field. And back in the day, people did aspire to be scientists more than they do today.”</p>
<p>Did you live “back in the day?” Last I checked more people were going to college now, and more people are majoring in hard sciences. Please provide some proof to your statement, I find it next to impossible to believe that less people are aspiring to be scientists now. I always thought “back in the day” (before the collapse of the manufacturing sector in the Midwest) it was fine to just go into manufacturing, with no college degree. Facilities at universities are also better than they ever have been before.</p>
<p>I never said we should eliminate these programs all together, but that we should cut (limit not eliminate) their funding whe needed. My college only runs 2 of its 3 dining halls at one time now, roating them, it decided not to buy new uniforms for sports teams this year, money for concerts has been limited, international student financial aid was reduced, health center hours are no longer 24/7. All of this was done to balance the budget without touching academic departments. The students seem just fine with it.</p>
<p>That’s no evidence of athletics’ benefit to society. That’s just a result of guys having too much money who’d like to put it to good use. Sports have nothing to do with it. </p>
<p>The fact that Pujols can hit a ball really far is unrelated to the fact that he gave a lot of money to worthwhile causes.</p>
<p>According to some colleges, it just may be considered useless, so prepare yourself, if the tuition dollars coming in don’t merit paying the profs, your uni may cut the major. </p>
<p>See example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And:
</p>
<p>As for sports - Non-profitable sports will be next. Forget Title 9, women’s sports, for the most part, are money losers - they’ll be gone. The only sports that bring in revenue are football and basketball, and of those, only the large programs make $$$. </p>
<p>Prepare to see budget cutting period, whether it’s in sports budgets or in academics.</p>
<p>no they aren’t. Kids could eat off campus for food, and blue lights and AC are definitely not needed. In fact, if there were more people wanting to become scientists back in the day, when there were no blue lights, maybe we should cut the blue lights to encourage scientific growth. If you travel outside the US, you will find lots of places that don’t have AC, some of which are perfectly modern.</p>
<p>By that logic, you could play ALL of your sports off campus too! There are plenty of schools in the US that dont have athletics that are perfectly modern. </p>
<p>By the way, I would say the blue lights are a necessity, especially at larger inner city schools (take Penn and Temple as examples). Although in these days of cell phones, who knows, but then again I am at a rural school and often dont get reception.</p>
<p>And I dont really think you can get rid of dining halls, how would students in rural environments with no local establishments to go to eat? And you are right, AC is not needed at all schools, we dont have it, but if you go to school in the south, I would assume you need it. Where are these perfectly modern schools you speak of, I would bet they are in cooler climates.</p>
<p>the scientists i know are competitive and life long athletes…they were athletes before they took science classes and some played college sports and some on scholarship. </p>
<p>seems to me there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that academics and education are improved by athletics…all athletics. toby gerhart is a good example of a scholar athlete…would he be as accomplished academically without sports? i doubt it.</p>