• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Admitting Students to College based on Sports Beneficial?

Should we allow students to be recruited?


  • Total voters
    28
As a life long member of academia, I've seen this issue many many times. I've seen the type of money that can be drawn into the University through programs. Some of the huge, very good schools generate a lot of capital. But where do you think that money goes? You think it goes into a general fund for things to improve the University? Hire more academic professors? Expand research facilities? It doesn't, not on the whole. The vast majority of it is spent on advertising the school and back into the athletics department. Yay...thanks a lot. You know how much money a research lab generates for a University? A good research facility can be on par or even greater than athletics. Maybe not the top tier football/basketball programs; but when 1 professor has over a million dollars in grants and the department has 16 or so research faculty, and there are a hand full of research departments, and the University gets a nice cut; it all adds up. Where does our money go? Well I think bureaucracy eats a bunch. But we expand research facilities, we hire more professors, we offer a more classes in more subjects. The money brought into the physics department doesn't stay just in physics. We help fund other departments like psychology or history or political science; departments which don't really have research means of their own.

The point is, the money comes into academia and is spent on academia. That's not the way with the athletics department, and only the really large schools with already established large programs really reap the benefit of having a football team or basketball team. The rest of the Universities are left with football programs which hemorrhage money. Because for some reason we got it into our heads that every University has to have a football program. Colorado State University football is ****. It's been **** for some time. Yet they keep raising student fees, taking more from the students (hahah...I'm a post doc, so they can't have anymore of my money!) to build indoor practice facilities and brand new weight rooms and this and that, and what we get is a losing team no one cares about, more money owed to the University, and alumni who still don't give a crap about our ****ty football team. And I've tutored a lot of those guys over the years. There were some fairly smart ones, but for many of them I don't know how they got out of high school. Why should some dumbass who can barely read get a degree from the same University as me? A PhD in physics from the same University where Bradlee Van Pelt went to. That guy was in my 121 lab and was absolutely retarded.

University is the highest form of secondary education. It is supposed to be the most academically rigorous, challenging, and diverse education out there. It's primary purpose is education, not sports entertainment. Is it wrong that someone smarter may not get in because someone was a better athlete? Absolutely. This isn't hold your hand while you spread your wings time. University is supposed to be stressful and hard and competitive. I know some people have the perception that it's about stretching out and learning who you are and blah blah blah other hippie garbage, but those people are either psychology or business majors. But we have to water down our education, throw billions of dollars collectively at athletics and making sure top tier athletes sail through? Really? That's LIFE, huh? **** that ****. If you can't do calculus, get out of University. University should be academically challenging, it should represent scholastically the pinnacle of achievement. And entrance into University should be based on academic achievement alone. You can have College, Community College, and Tech College for everything else.
 
Last edited:
I've got no problem with it, it gets kids who may not otherwise have the ability to go to college through the doors. So long as their educational requirements are the same as everyone else's, sports scholarships are fine. It's when all they have to do is throw around a ball that I object. College exists to teach, not to play.
 
sports is the only way some of those kids would ever be able to go to college. would you rather have them hanging out on the street corners sell drugs and running from the police or running with a ball bringing in $$$ for the university?
 
That's what I'm talking about. When athletes apply to a college, and are chosen over a more qualified student because of their athletic involvement, I feel it is not only unfair, setting a bad precedent but also putting those students who deserve those spots at a disadvantage in life.

I don't know of many, if any, colleges that actually turn away qualified students. this is a bogus arguement. it's not like that for every athlete they admit, they turn away a brainiac.
 
sports is the only way some of those kids would ever be able to go to college. would you rather have them hanging out on the street corners sell drugs and running from the police or running with a ball bringing in $$$ for the university?

So what? We're supposed to treat University like some form of minimum security prison? I'd rather academia be taken seriously, the focus should never be on a football team or a basketball team. And they don't really bring money into the university as a whole; they bring money into the administration and athletics departments.
 
So what? We're supposed to treat University like some form of minimum security prison? I'd rather academia be taken seriously, the focus should never be on a football team or a basketball team. And they don't really bring money into the university as a whole; they bring money into the administration and athletics departments.

as long as they meet the admission requirements I don't see why it should be a big deal. it's not like they are taking a spot away from someone else.


FWIW, colleges are filled with lots of spoiled rich dumbasses as well. take a drive down fraternity row on any given weekend. at least the athletes contribute something to the university other than a check from mommy and daddy every semester.
 
Last edited:
as long as they meet the admission requirements I don't see why it should be a big deal. it's not like they are taking a spot away from someone else.


FWIW, colleges are filled with lots of spoiled rich dumbasses as well. take a drive down fraternity row on any given weekend. at least the athletes contribute something to the university other than a check from mommy and daddy every semester.

Not only do some of them not meet admission requirements, but there becomes an entire host of cheating services available to make sure certain students get into certain courses and get certain grades. And if a professor dares try to challenge it, then there will be some hell to pay. Happens well too often.
 
Not only do some of them not meet admission requirements, but there becomes an entire host of cheating services available to make sure certain students get into certain courses and get certain grades. And if a professor dares try to challenge it, then there will be some hell to pay. Happens well too often.

and little johnny rich bitch never gets favorable treatment because daddy made a big donation?
 
and little johnny rich bitch never gets favorable treatment because daddy made a big donation?

Those jerks go to schools without football teams. But in general, what I said stands. Admission should be based on academic performance and ability; nothing else.
 
sure-it gets alumni bucks. athletes often have valuable contributions to the student body as a whole.

It gets alumni bucks for stadiums and sports scholarships. Come on turtle, you know better.
 
Those jerks go to schools without football teams. But in general, what I said stands. Admission should be based on academic performance and ability; nothing else.

true, but don't single out athletes like they are the only ones who get special treatment.
 
as long as they meet the admission requirements I don't see why it should be a big deal. it's not like they are taking a spot away from someone else.


FWIW, colleges are filled with lots of spoiled rich dumbasses as well. take a drive down fraternity row on any given weekend. at least the athletes contribute something to the university other than a check from mommy and daddy every semester.

UVA is probably the only big sports school with an academic standard, that's not dumbed down (maybe).
 
UVA is probably the only big sports school with an academic standard, that's not dumbed down (maybe).

again, so ****ing what? how is lowering the admission standard for an athlete or rich alumini kid hurting that smart kid who really meets the standard? he still gets in, he still gets an education. and he gets to watch some other tards play sports.

who is being harmed?
 
again, so ****ing what? how is lowering the admission standard for an athlete or rich alumini kid hurting that smart kid who really meets the standard? he still gets in, he still gets an education. and he gets to watch some other tards play sports.

who is being harmed?

The guy who gets a chair broken over his back at a basketball game. :lol:
 
true, but don't single out athletes like they are the only ones who get special treatment.

They're all part of the same group of privileged ****tards. The academic side of University (you know, the entire point of University) doesn't get a whole lot from athletics. The big schools can pull of a bit, but other places not so much.

And I wasn't "singling" them out. This thread was about student athletes, not kids from rich families. I don't have to mention every caveat when the subject has been specified.
 
Last edited:
The biggest benefit of sports at universities is publicity. Schools with good football and basketball teams tend to grow while schools with poor football and basketball teams tend to shrink. If sports make children enthusiastic about going to college and getting a degree, then let them do that.

In addition, most universities use the money raised by sports to fund other academic projects. Some use the money for learning programs for children. Others raise money for new buildings and equipment on campus. The whole system is mutually beneficial to all involved.
 
Those are mostly lies told to you by the athletics department. I've seen the money flow, it's rarely from athletics to academic departments. Most of the money from athletics goes into advertising for the University and to the athletics department. You get well more money into the academic system by supporting research facilities than you do by supporting a football team.
 
Those are mostly lies told to you by the athletics department. I've seen the money flow, it's rarely from athletics to academic departments. Most of the money from athletics goes into advertising for the University and to the athletics department. You get well more money into the academic system by supporting research facilities than you do by supporting a football team.

and regardless, little timmy brainiac gets the same education. so what's the harm?

it's like bitching because Kentucky Fried CHICKEN serves cole slaw. because dammit, they should be focused on chicken
 
Last edited:
and regardless, little timmy brainiac gets the same education. so what's the harm?

it's like bitching because Kentucky Fried CHICKEN serves cole slaw. because dammit, they should be focused on chicken

First off, it's about dispelling the myth that somehow football generates significant revenue for academia. Secondly, it's that because of the business of college football and basketball in particularly; some "students" are not achieving anything scholastically and are cheating to make sure good players get the grades they need to continue to play. If Timmy "brainiac" doesn't perform up to the academic standards, he's out of there. If a star football player doesn't perform up to academic standards, it's well more likely in that case that certain administrators make sure that they still get a passing grade.
 
First off, it's about dispelling the myth that somehow football generates significant revenue for academia. Secondly, it's that because of the business of college football and basketball in particularly; some "students" are not achieving anything scholastically and are cheating to make sure good players get the grades they need to continue to play. If Timmy "brainiac" doesn't perform up to the academic standards, he's out of there. If a star football player doesn't perform up to academic standards, it's well more likely in that case that certain administrators make sure that they still get a passing grade.

and in the end who is harmed? much ado about nothing. it would be a different matter if athletics actually harmed academia, but it doesn't.
 
Based on my accounts with other students, I would think so.

Assuming this is the case, it is questionable in terms of fairness.
 
So cheating is ok, getting achievements you haven't earned is ok, getting special treatment for worse work is ok, so long as no one else is hurt? That's your argument? I should have the same degree as some guy who can barely add because he was a good lineman? As a conservative, that's going to be your argument? Performance in a stated goal is not important so long as performance in a secondary goal is achieved?
 
Perhaps both aspects should be split apart.

Should universities only be places for learning, or should they encompass many multiple facets?
 
University should be based on academic achievement and ability alone.

This has never been the case nor should it. Admissions officers consider the entire person, not just grades and SAT scores. If only grades and SAT scores were looked at, then the US system will come to resemble systems in Asia that only stress academics and test scores and not other things that lead to the development of a person. Universities want a diverse community with many interests and skill sets, not only bookworms...
 
Back
Top Bottom