Why do college sports exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's backdoor affirmative action for pampered white kids who otherwise wouldn't have the grades to get in.

Athletes have higher gpa and graduation rates than non-athletes. Try again.

This could also be because they are less diverse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Obviously D1 football and basketball can be moneymakers but beyond that, no. And no D3 sport makes money. My guess is this: there are a lot of jobs associated with it, so it gets sustained institutionally, sort of like the military industrial complex, and just becomes part of the unquestioned fabric of college life.

The original idea -- which we are far from now except maybe in D3 is that sports was a part of the education process. It is a fairly recent view that I go to college and learn X and go get a job doing X right away. College was for education in a general sense --- it helped you get a job but a bit more indirectly. What you needed to know to operate at that level in life. Sports is part of that. There was no sense of moneymakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

I'm also paying for theater, orchestra, dance, and a lot of other things my kid couldn't care less about and never even watches let alone participates in. Yet none of this makes me as butthurt as sports makes people on DCUM, and I am baffled why this is so.

To be fair, the arts seem closer to the educational mission than sports. Every university in the world promotes the arts, culture, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see financial aid data on recruited athletes vs non-athletes at SLACs.

SLACs don't give athletic scholarships. Athletes can earn merit scholarships if they have academic merit. So all your data would show is the degree to which athletes have academic merit. Good luck proving that they got merit scholarships even though they lacked merit, which is obviously what you think is the case.

There is FA and private scholarships

If they get FA then they have low enough income - contradicting the trope that athletes are rich kids - and it's hard to see how they are less deserving than a non-athlete with the same family income.

Private scholarships are need or merit based, and if the athlete qualifies what is your problem with that? They are not awarded just for being an athlete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's backdoor affirmative action for pampered white kids who otherwise wouldn't have the grades to get in.

Athletes have higher gpa and graduation rates than non-athletes. Try again.

This could also be because they are less diverse

The racist chimes in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

I would find this argument more compelling if D3 athletes didn't get special admissions consideration. And don't tell me that standards are the same--that's the same argument people make about legacies.

The fact is that D3 college athletes are disproportionately white and wealthy, like legacies. The schools are building in a wealthy base for parents and alumni giving.

I'm sorry your kid didn't make the varsity team in high school.

LOL, what a clever comeback. My athlete kid made varsity in 9th grade. He should get no more consideration for this in admissions than my non-athlete kid gets for his time-consuming EC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

I'm also paying for theater, orchestra, dance, and a lot of other things my kid couldn't care less about and never even watches let alone participates in. Yet none of this makes me as butthurt as sports makes people on DCUM, and I am baffled why this is so.

I’m with you. I don’t understand the hatred for sports, especially D3 where there are no athletic scholarships. Colleges want students with all sorts of interests and disciplines. They want well rounded students which for some reason many people on this forum cannot process. It’s not JUST the classroom experience. Posters hate sports and dorm life with a passion I just cannot understand. If your student truly hates both of these things then there are many other schools to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

I'm also paying for theater, orchestra, dance, and a lot of other things my kid couldn't care less about and never even watches let alone participates in. Yet none of this makes me as butthurt as sports makes people on DCUM, and I am baffled why this is so.

To be fair, the arts seem closer to the educational mission than sports. Every university in the world promotes the arts, culture, etc.

I don't agree that they are closer to the educational mission, and furthermore, "pure education" is not and has never been the mission of universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire chain conflates the questions of HAVING sports (lots of good reasons) and RECRUITING athletes (really hard to justify for revenue-negative sports).

That’s because as currently practiced they are inextricable. But, yes, a shift to an all-club model, where students are admitted then come to campus and try out for spots, would facilitate all of the good things about sports without elevating them above other campus activities like theater, newspaper, debate, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

I would find this argument more compelling if D3 athletes didn't get special admissions consideration. And don't tell me that standards are the same--that's the same argument people make about legacies.

The fact is that D3 college athletes are disproportionately white and wealthy, like legacies. The schools are building in a wealthy base for parents and alumni giving.

I'm sorry your kid didn't make the varsity team in high school.

LOL, what a clever comeback. My athlete kid made varsity in 9th grade. He should get no more consideration for this in admissions than my non-athlete kid gets for his time-consuming EC.

Sure he did. I bet he's a recruited D1 athlete, too.

What you think "should" be true is so hilariously irrelevant I'm surprised you even mention it. Feel free to apply to a European university that doesn't care about sports. Oh wait, they don't care about your other kid's idiotic EC either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire chain conflates the questions of HAVING sports (lots of good reasons) and RECRUITING athletes (really hard to justify for revenue-negative sports).

That’s because as currently practiced they are inextricable. But, yes, a shift to an all-club model, where students are admitted then come to campus and try out for spots, would facilitate all of the good things about sports without elevating them above other campus activities like theater, newspaper, debate, etc.

Theater kids never stop seething about the popularity of jocks, lmao.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. Obviously D1 football and basketball can be moneymakers but beyond that, no. And no D3 sport makes money. My guess is this: there are a lot of jobs associated with it, so it gets sustained institutionally, sort of like the military industrial complex, and just becomes part of the unquestioned fabric of college life.

Students who excel in sports are gifted. Just like top academic and artistic kids are gifted. Colleges should be able to nurture all aspects of personal achievement. That’s their purpose. Why does anything exist in college? Schools are here to advance society and provide for the common good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is because students want and expect it. Schools without sports don’t get as many applicants. I was a D3 athlete and my kid will be a D3 athlete. It is no different than having a theater program, or hiking club. My college actually had a massive outdoors club, with a house in the mountains that must have cost more annually in taxes and insurance than my sport cost the school for a decade. We had a a capella group that toured the nation At competitions and the school paid for all that. What’s the point of those things?

The student experience, that’s what. Same for sports. You probably think it should be done differently, and don’t value it. But I don’t particularly care for orchestral music but I am glad that students who are passionate about it can join them in college.

Many kids have zero interest in sports, or actively dislike them.

No one is forcing them to play, or attend a sporting event.

But we're paying for it.

How?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Misplaced priorities.

I agree with this, but think professional sports are also pretty pointless.

Recreational sports are good for health though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's backdoor affirmative action for pampered white kids who otherwise wouldn't have the grades to get in.

This comment is hysterical. Most athletes are non-white - in fact - almost 90% are non white.