Oh please, stop being so hypocritical and egalitarian. Universities are “academic” centers of establishment first and foremost so math/english/reading/science aptitude is of a lot more importance than dancing, drawing or acting ability. I greatly appreciate people with those talents and I’m sure that the top universities would love those sort of kids as well, PROVIDED they score high on the SAT IN ADDITION. These cannot be mutually exclusive things at the top universities because these institutions have built their reputation on having the strongest students “academically” and not “visually” or “artistically”.</p>
<p>Besides, aren’t you the one who didn’t support NU giving out athletic scholarships? Unlike actors or singers, student athletes in major sports like football and basketball actually generate a lot of revenue for the school and make the school more a more desirable destination for other students, so they function as great PR as well.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think that an aspiring NU actor should be placed on the same level as the NU football quarterback? Who do you think “contributes” more to the well-being of the school?</p>
<p>The aspiring NU actor, because NU has one of the top theater programs in the country. Of <em>course</em> that person contributes more to the well-being of the school, and its reputation in the arts world, on Broadway, in Hollywood, etc., than someone throwing a pigskin around on a field a few Saturdays in the fall, which isn’t related at all to the mission of the university and is merely a recreational / spectator activity. There’s no contest between the two. Duh. You could take football out of NU tomorrow and it’d still be a great university. If you took theater / drama out tomorrow, that would be as much of a loss as if it lost engineering, journalism, etc.</p>
<p>Dancing, drawing, acting, etc. are the arts and are equally as important as math / English / science / history, etc. And they’re <em>far</em> more important than sports excellence.</p>
<p>All the fine arts (whether we’re talking music, dance, theater, drawing, etc.) are more centrally linked to the function of a university than the fielding of a spectator sports team. They’re equally as important as, say, foreign languages. Why are there arts majors but not football majors? </p>
<p>Physical recreation and movement are important at the individual level, of course, but that has nothing to do with watching a football team.</p>
That’s complete BS! You do realize vocational schools exist right for the fine arts, theater, drama, music, film, modeling, etc. such as Julliard, Boston Conservatory, California School of the Arts, etc. The truth is neither athletes nor actors really fulfill the academic mission of a university and are side activities which definitely need to be supported by the university, provided they have the funding, in order to produce well-rounded men and women.</p>
<p>Actors contribute to NU’s reputation in the arts and theater world? How about USC football players and Duke basketball players contributing to the NFL and NBA respectively? The revenue generated at the college and professional level for athletic programs is exponentially greater than the financial gain even a top acting program at a university gets. It’s really not even close.</p>
<p>So, considering neither athletics nor fine arts contribute to a university’s mission of scholarship, but athletics uplift the environment for the whole school with regards to spirit and generate a lot of money for the university, then which program do you think a university is going to support? Sports rule in America.</p>
<p>
What are you referring to exactly? What about the players on the ACTUAL football team? Drama doesn’t affect anyone around it but the actors while the performance of football players affect the psyche of the entire university.</p>
<p>That’s a matter of personal opinion. You and hawkette think that sports uplifts the entire environment of a school and by golly what could be more fun than big tailgates, nationally relevant games and trash-talking opposing teams (“Dooooooook!”). Others, in numerous threads, have said that they don’t think that big-time sports would have added to their college experiences. Different strokes for different folks.</p>
<p>And yes, duh, sports can add to revenue. What’s that have to do with anything? What’s important isn’t necessarily what makes the most money.</p>
<p>Have you heard that not everyone looooooooves football and basketball games? Is this breaking news? Do you think a winning football team would make U of Chicago more appealing to its students?</p>
<p>Sports are kind of a self-perpetuating cycle in colleges: People go to certain colleges because of the atmosphere sports bring; because those people are there, the university invests in the sports.</p>
<p>USC has a culture of sports, Chicago does not. Having that culture of sports shared by USC/Duke/Vanderbilt/etc, does not make a school “better” or “worse.” It just makes it a sports school.</p>
<p>Because it adds to student life. I didn’t say it was “so” nonessential, but if they did cut the program, what would happen? Not much, is my guess.</p>
<p>Schools like Duke have seen great benefits due to the success of its men’s BB team.</p>
<p>The Ivies (particularly, HYP) see great value in varsity sports that they fund large nos. of sports teams (often more than the large state universities).</p>
<p>And Northwestern saw a significant bump in applications the year after its Rose Bowl run in 1995.</p>
<p>I just looked at these numbers. I paid particular attention to the “below 600 in both CR and Math.” These numbers are PURE fiction, I can assure you. This Hawkette is full of beans. Stinky beans.</p>