<p><em>I'm in no way degrading those who play sports and/or are looking for possible colleges in the future to play for.</em> </p>
<p>That being said, I've always wondered, what is the purpose of giving away scholarships to the athletic than to giving one to a poor but intellectual genius who will later improve and develop our society? I do believe sports are an integral part of our society as they can teach kids about work ethic, commitment, teamwork, communication, etc </p>
<p>However, do we really need to put athletics over academics? It's also a fact that the <em>vast</em> majority of division I students will major in something other than sports. So why give it to that person if he/she won't even become a professional athlete? Instead, why not give that scholarship to the inner city kid who overcame his difficulties in the ghettos to excel in school? I feel like that inner city kid would have way more potential to add something significant to our society. Why not give him the resources to do just that?</p>
<p>Could someone prove me wrong (or right) and possibly enlighten me about this situation?</p>
<p>If you think getting a sports scholarship is easy you’re wrong. Some people are naturally smart and get academic scholarships and some are the same way with athletics. Most of the athletes who play football for example in college will not become pro which means they will have regular jobs like the rest of us. It takes a lot of work if you want an athletic scholarship to a good school.</p>
<p>Wow I agree with Cainmichky. You make getting an athletic scholarship seem incredibly easy. And since when are they putting athletics over academics? Its not like there are only 5 academic scholarships. There are thousands. </p>
<p>Plus, most student athletes have EXCELLENT grades. Almost like a 2 in one deal. A lot of times brilliant students get scholarships through sports because they see it as the only way OR they are just plain brilliant on and off the court and want a chance to do both. Do you think all athletes are dumb or something?</p>
<p>I HIGHLY disagree with every single “point” you just made.</p>
<p>First, I’d like to point out that it costs eons more to become a top athlete than it does to become a top student. I know tennis players (the sport that I’m familiar with) who spend $150k-$200k throughout their junior tennis careers. I don’t think top students spend nearly that much. By getting a full scholarship these students are just getting a return of their investment, and very rarely profit. I’m sure with less expensive sports the profit margins are greater, but I bet players rarely have a net gain of over $100k. </p>
<p>Furthermore, by attracting top athletes, schools increase the attractiveness of their sports programs. Tons of students would rather go to a school with a top sports program. This means more people apply to that school, and the student body becomes overall stronger. Top sports programs (really just football and basketball though) are profitable too. More money to the university means more money available for academic scholarships. </p>