<p>Apologies to athletes here, but what exactly is the point of athletic scholarships? I can understand scholarships for large and popular team sports like football, baseball, hockey, track, and basketball because it may potentially give underprivileged kids a chance to attend a decent school, but what about ones for obscure upper-class sports like fencing, water polo, etc.? Most kids don't have access to these sports, and the college programs for these sports are not popular enough to generate revenue/prestige. So is it a benefit program for the much-oppressed group of unintelligent wealthy kids? Forgive me if I'm missing something here.</p>
<p>There are few scholies in those sports. Also for the big-time sports the scholies are partial payment for all the practice time and pressure the athletes have to endure.</p>
<p>k- football, hockey, baseball- what do they all have in common</p>
<p>hmmm...could be all MALE</p>
<p>Title Nine, baby, and thank God for it</p>
<p>No offense nbachris, but could you be any more liberal? I have seen several threads of yours with a similar theme: criticizing the rich. Apparently, the undertone in all of your threads is that if a person is rich, he/she is no longer a good human being and is now, just as you said, "an unintelligent wealthy kid." So I guess we should all strive to be underprivileged and live off government handouts instead of trying hard to get lucrative jobs. </p>
<p>The title of your thread says "What's the point of athletic scholarships," yet you go on to say that basketball, football, hockey, track, and baseball scholarships are all okay. Last time I checked, these all fall into the "athletic" category. Besides, barrons was right, there really aren't that many scholarships given to fencing, water polo, the "upper class" sports as you call them.</p>
<p>Most athletic scholarships go to football, bball, etc. One of the biggest things that they are used for is luring athletes to the school.</p>
<p>What you just said was very narrow-minded.
It's an ATHLETIC scholarship, for those who do well in sports.
There are ACADEMIC scholarships, for those who do well in school.</p>
<p>It's really not that hard bud.</p>
<p>Just something quick about fencing. There are only three colleges in the country that give athletic scholarships for men's fencing: Penn State, Ohio State, and Notre Dame. There are more that give scholarships to women. It's a Title IX issue.</p>
<p>As for fencing itself, it's an ancient sport and martial art. It's expensive because of the equipment, but it's the lessons and travel that really run the numbers up. You should know, however, that there is a very famous program for disadvantaged youth in NY that has turned out Olympic-caliber fencers, so it's not just rich kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
k- football, hockey, baseball- what do they all have in common</p>
<p>hmmm...could be all MALE
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You've never heard of women's hockey, baseball, or basketball?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No offense nbachris, but could you be any more liberal? I have seen several threads of yours with a similar theme: criticizing the rich. Apparently, the undertone in all of your threads is that if a person is rich, he/she is no longer a good human being and is now, just as you said, "an unintelligent wealthy kid." So I guess we should all strive to be underprivileged and live off government handouts instead of trying hard to get lucrative jobs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What my point was that rich people do not need athletic scholarships, unlike poor kids who may have no other means (teachers could be overworked and apathetic) to go to even a basic state school. It seems that most athletic scholarships are trying to create other avenues for those unfortunate kids who have to go to crap schools, whilst the colleges themselves make a decent bundle from fan revenue.</p>
<p>"What my point was that rich people do not need athletic scholarships, unlike poor kids who may have no other means (teachers could be overworked and apathetic) to go to even a basic state school. It seems that most athletic scholarships are trying to create other avenues for those unfortunate kids who have to go to crap schools, whilst the colleges themselves make a decent bundle from fan revenue."</p>
<p>I see your point and I agree that there shoould be athletic scholarships so a poor kid who might have some hidden athletic talent can get spotted and rewarded by a college, just as intelligent kids are rewarded with academic scholarships. Nonetheless, your OP conatined a very anti-rich sentiment that I think wasn't necessary. Calling the rich "unintelligent" is case in point. Think about it. What if one of the poor kids you speak about goes on to have a great sports career and becomes rich and lives in a mansion and has kids who would then be rich. Would the kids be "unintelligent" because of their monetary status? Would the very same athlete who was once poor no longer be a good person because he/she has $?</p>
<p>Carry the argument a bit further. What is the point of big time, semi-professional sports as part of an institution of higher learning? Clearly it is not to provide athletic scholarships to the the underprivileged. It would make much more sense to provide scholarships and financial aid to more academically oriented students. The semi-professional athletic is just that. They work so hard, they are lucky to get much of an education at all. The cost of huge sports facilities would cover the cost of a lot of financial aid. The argument has been made that the semi-professional sports make money. That is true for only a very small number of schools where the teams are very good and most of the money comes from television rights. The argument has also been made that big sports generate alumni contributions. Maybe, but there is not much proof. There are quite a few schools without big time sports that have managed to accrue substantial contributions and endowments.</p>