<p>
</p>
<p>I actually am.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against athletes, some of my good friends are now playing for UC and private tennis teams. I just don’t think that athletics have a place in a university - a place meant for educating and teaching people academics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently, [url=<a href=“http://mitpe.com/gir-info/default.aspx]MIT[/url”>http://mitpe.com/gir-info/default.aspx]MIT[/url</a>] disagrees with you – it has a physical education requirement for all undergraduates.</p>
<p>On the other hand, more people will likely agree with you if you merely said that some high profile sports have exaggerated importance and are more prone to problems like lower academic standards or graduation rates for their athletes, etc… (But that does not appear to describe singh2010’s friend.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No…They have that requirement to instill a healthy lifestyle filled with physical activities I’m not sure how you don’t see a difference, it’s pretty simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a great point. Lower graduation rates and academic standards decrease the intellectual integrity of UC Berkeley and because there are so many athletes that are admitted despite being sub-par (academically), perks like priority tele-bears is not reasonable.</p>
<p>Many of [MIT’s</a> PE courses](<a href=“http://mitpe.com/course-catalog/default.aspx]MIT’s”>http://mitpe.com/course-catalog/default.aspx) are sports. When does, for example, doing triathlon (PE.0629) change from a “healthy lifestyle filled with physical activities” to “athletics” that you consider unworthy of a university? Or pistol (PE.0608, PE.0609), badminton (PE.0601, PE.0615), fencing (PE.0602, PE.0602), hockey (PE.0701), or swimming (PE.0202, PE.0203)?</p>
<p>I’m not sure if you’re intentionally misunderstanding or if you really don’t get it, but I’ll bite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It changes from promoting a “healthy lifestyle” to “athletics” when students who were not admitted to the institution (of higher education) based on their academic abilities start partaking in the activities and are given special privileges because of it. </p>
<p>It’s a bit naive to be comparing PE activities that MIT students must enroll in with athletics like Cal Baseball, Football, Basketball, etc.</p>
<p>You may not have noticed, but not all sports are like football and basketball in terms of significantly lower academic standards and graduation rates and the like. It is just that those are the highest profile sports, and the ones with the worst problems in these respects (so the popular image of the not so smart football player gets applied to all athletes, while singh2010’s friend is barely noticed).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are clearly missing the point or are simply tying to evade it. The point is that that students who were not admitted to UC Berkeley based on their ability in academia (also known as athletes) have no business being in classes, labs, and discussion sections with people who have proven their aptitude and whose purpose at this institution is to be educated. If you have statistics/evidence to back your claim that “not all sports are like football and basketball in terms of significantly lower academic standards and graduation rates and the like” I would be happy to take a look at them.</p>
<p>Take a look at #6 for me please. You seem like the type of person who doesn’t want to live in a physical world, perhaps it’s lack of your own physical prowess, I don’t know, but for whatever reason, it’s incorrect, we live in a physical world and are physical beings, not little floating brains. Can you do what these athletes can do? Not a lot of people can, in fact almost no one can. That’s why they are recruited by colleges across the country to go to a certain school. Have a nice day.</p>
<p>Oh, and a little about the author:
Howard Earl Gardner (born July 11, 1943 in Scranton, Pennsylvania) is an American developmental psychologist who is a professor of Cognition and Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education at Harvard University. He is best known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner was the recipient of a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1981 and the 1990 University of Louisville Grawemeyer Award in Education. Since 1995, he has been the co-director of the GoodWork Project.</p>
<p>The Nine Types of Intelligence
By Howard Gardner</p>
<ol>
<li>Naturalist Intelligence (Nature Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations). This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef. It is also speculated that much of our consumer society exploits the naturalist intelligences, which can be mobilized in the discrimination among cars, sneakers, kinds of makeup, and the like. </p>
<ol>
<li>Musical Intelligence (Musical Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Musical intelligence is the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and tone. This intelligence enables us to recognize, create, reproduce, and reflect on music, as demonstrated by composers, conductors, musicians, vocalist, and sensitive listeners. Interestingly, there is often an affective connection between music and the emotions; and mathematical and musical intelligences may share common thinking processes. Young adults with this kind of intelligence are usually singing or drumming to themselves. They are usually quite aware of sounds others may miss.</p>
<ol>
<li>Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate, quantify, consider propositions and hypotheses, and carry out complete mathematical operations. It enables us to perceive relationships and connections and to use abstract, symbolic thought; sequential reasoning skills; and inductive and deductive thinking patterns. Logical intelligence is usually well developed in mathematicians, scientists, and detectives. Young adults with lots of logical intelligence are interested in patterns, categories, and relationships. They are drawn to arithmetic problems, strategy games and experiments.</p>
<ol>
<li>Existential Intelligence</li>
</ol>
<p>Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here.</p>
<ol>
<li>Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact effectively with others. It involves effective verbal and nonverbal communication, the ability to note distinctions among others, sensitivity to the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple perspectives. Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit interpersonal intelligence. Young adults with this kind of intelligence are leaders among their peers, are good at communicating, and seem to understand others feelings and motives.</p>
<ol>
<li>Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (Body Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to manipulate objects and use a variety of physical skills. This intelligence also involves a sense of timing and the perfection of skills through mindbody union. Athletes, dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily kinesthetic intelligence.</p>
<ol>
<li>Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings. Linguistic intelligence allows us to understand the order and meaning of words and to apply meta-linguistic skills to reflect on our use of language. Linguistic intelligence is the most widely shared human competence and is evident in poets, novelists, journalists, and effective public speakers. Young adults with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles.</p>
<ol>
<li>Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Intra-personal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself and ones thoughts and feelings, and to use such knowledge in planning and directioning ones life. Intra-personal intelligence involves not only an appreciation of the self, but also of the human condition. It is evident in psychologist, spiritual leaders, and philosophers. These young adults may be shy. They are very aware of their own feelings and are self-motivated.</p>
<ol>
<li>Spatial Intelligence (Picture Smart)</li>
</ol>
<p>Spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions. Core capacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation, graphic and artistic skills, and an active imagination. Sailors, pilots, sculptors, painters, and architects all exhibit spatial intelligence. Young adults with this kind of intelligence may be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles, or spend free time drawing or daydreaming.</p>
<p>Never really had a problem getting my classes.</p>
<p>@NCB: #6 has nothing to do with the rest of your argument, and it’s a single data point anyways. Also a psychologist’s theory doesn’t count for much considering how much they disagree on basically everything. Especially when you take it out of context to prove your point and don’t even explain how it does.
Of course a lot of people can’t do what athletes do. No one’s denying that. But does that automatically mean they should get to go to college where the purpose is ostensibly to do academics?</p>
<p>Your argument is basically a non-sequitor, an ad hominem, then pointing out the obvious, then a huge chunk of irrelevant but fancy trivia.</p>
<p>NCB sounds like an athlete/ past AP psychology student</p>
<p>And sorry to nitpick, but, </p>
<p>“That’s why they are recruited by colleges across the country to go to a certain school.” </p>
<p>is untrue. They recruit athletes because people pay to watch sports, which generates revenue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What indiscreetmath said, your argument is not very compelling and your reasoning and evidence, laughable.</p>
<p>I’m not new to these forums, I have seen ucbalumnus passively drop out of discussions when his arguments are unsupported and challenged.</p>
<p>It took a while to find some data from some studies, but a large study of Division III athletes found that GPAs of male student athletes relative to the general student population (page 66 of [this</a> presentation](<a href=“http://www.collegesportsproject.org/CDCA_PDF/AERA_2010_CSP_Web.pdf]this”>http://www.collegesportsproject.org/CDCA_PDF/AERA_2010_CSP_Web.pdf); HRS = Highly Recruited Sports like basketball, lacrosse, football, and soccer):</p>
<p>Recruited HRS: -0.26
Walk-on HRS: -0.17
Recruited Other Sports: -0.05
Walk-on Other Sports: -0.01</p>
<p>For female student athletes, the differences were smaller:</p>
<p>Recruited HRS: -0.07
Walk-on HRS: -0.06
Recruited Other Sports: -0.04
Walk-on Other Sports: +0.01</p>
<p>Of course, this is a study of Division III student athletes. The differences between the higher profile sports (like football and basketball) at a Division I school like Berkeley and other sports (that no one other than the people involved in them notices) could very well be greater.</p>
<p>I don’t think we should have people take sides. I was just pointing out one person’s bad argument.</p>
<p>Anyways, if we could find something that shows the major distribution of the athletes and a major gpa average that would help paint a more accurate picture.</p>