Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about eliminating some of the vicious anti-Semitism alive and well on college and university campuses? That would go a long way.

So you think banning anti semitism is the biggest reform needed to reduce obstacles for bright, hard working students from disadvantaged backgrounds gaining admission to, and completing studies at, well-resourced universities/ colleges ?

How about we go SES blind? The highlights of campus anti-semitism I've seen would be better characterized as boorish (and not vicious), but I guess that's open to debate. Vicious is physically, violently attacking someone, or maiming someone. Have we seen that yet? Hopefully not. Hopefully never.

As for the response, FFS ... what more must be done to reduce barriers? Priority admissions at no cost to T20 schools. Priority admissions through "holistic hocus hocus" at all schools. As what point is enough, enough?

Anonymous wrote:How about eliminating some of the vicious anti-Semitism alive and well on college and university campuses? That would go a long way.

So you think banning anti semitism is the biggest reform needed to reduce obstacles for bright, hard working students from disadvantaged backgrounds gaining admission to, and completing studies at, well-resourced universities/ colleges ?

How about eliminating some of the vicious anti-Semitism alive and well on college and university campuses? That would go a long way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

There are a lot of "those kids" who actually are serious students. Ask me how I know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

OP - isn’t that more of a thing for privates such as a Harvard who want to make sure alumni keep on donating?

My understanding is that athletic recruits usually have strict rules for maintaining a decent GPA. Is that not the case?

I have never heard of doctor’s children getting preferential treatment - just that many people no longer want to practice medicine due to all the political and insurance company interfering in their work.

Agree that donors’ children should not get preferential admissions but that will probably never go away for privates …

Federal government should grow balls and tell these privates to either be eligible to receive research funds and treat all applicants equally or continue giving preferential admissions and not receive Federal research funds. Let’s see if the privates, such as Harvard, have steel balls and forego Federal research funds and thereby lose famous research faculty and smart PhD students to public universities in order to continue with their preferential admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

OP - interesting thanks .

Who would this apply to? Big 10 schools?

OP again - I have heard mixed reports about value added by big sports teams at universities - that they bring in revenue and foster school spirit. I also heard that athletic recruits lose their scholarships unless they maintain good grades.

How do you think these top athletic programs are hurting college life? Are universities spending too much money and energy recruiting athletes rather than top scholars ? What are the downsides to you about D1 programs ?

The vast majority of athletic programs run a deficit.

I’ll just re-quote what Cardale Jones, the national championship winning quarterback as OSU said - “Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL classes are POINTLESS”

Yikes that is a scary quote … it seems like more people agree with you and that you are right about expenses outstripping revenues … when coaches are earning so much more than top academic professors at universities - that is a big problem …

Analysis: Who is winning in the high-revenue world of college sports?
By — Andrew Zimbalist, Econofact
Economy Mar 18, 2023 7:14 PM EST

Athletic expenses surpass revenues at the overwhelming majority of Division I programs. Due to longstanding rules of amateurism, the athletes themselves do not receive a salary even though some have an estimated market value of several million dollars.

The Issue:
The U.S. hyper-commercialized system of college sports, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, is in a period of overarching transition and deep financial crisis. A select share of Division I college athletes produce billions of dollars of revenue every year for their schools. Almost all of this revenue comes from football and men's basketball.

And yet, expenditures by college athletics departments are such that, with the exception of a small number of schools, athletic expenses surpass revenues at the overwhelming majority of Division I programs. The median salary of head football coaches in the Division I Football Subdivision (FBS) is above $3.5 million, along with handsome perks and bonus provisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

OP - interesting thanks .

Who would this apply to? Big 10 schools?

OP again - I have heard mixed reports about value added by big sports teams at universities - that they bring in revenue and foster school spirit. I also heard that athletic recruits lose their scholarships unless they maintain good grades.

How do you think these top athletic programs are hurting college life? Are universities spending too much money and energy recruiting athletes rather than top scholars ? What are the downsides to you about D1 programs ?

The vast majority of athletic programs run a deficit.

I’ll just re-quote what Cardale Jones, the national championship winning quarterback as OSU said - “Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL classes are POINTLESS”

Anonymous wrote:State schools should get more funding so their costs are not close to private school tuition.

OP - I agree but I thought it was only the out of state and international tuition fees at public’s that are comparable to privates? We are in trouble if in state public tuition is in the same pricing stratosphere …

Anonymous wrote:I agree with having trade schools and classes for students who want it. But I think people erroneously assume that all kids who are not college bound would have any more success in the trades. Being in a trade still requires commitment, a decent attitude, etc. I don’t want a lazy or dumb electrician or plumber. A lot of kids who bomb in college might not do much better in the trades.

OP -
That’s an excellent point: it actually takes over 10 years to become a master plumber. We have experienced very mixed work by electricians so I now only use highly rated tradespeople.

I have a nephew who spent 4 years training to be an electrician and he is one of the most hard working people I know. He is also training in second grade now in order to better manage construction projects. It definitely takes a lot of skills and hard work to do well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

OP - interesting thanks .

Who would this apply to? Big 10 schools?

OP again - I have heard mixed reports about value added by big sports teams at universities - that they bring in revenue and foster school spirit. I also heard that athletic recruits lose their scholarships unless they maintain good grades.

How do you think these top athletic programs are hurting college life? Are universities spending too much money and energy recruiting athletes rather than top scholars ? What are the downsides to you about D1 programs ?

State schools should get more funding so their costs are not close to private school tuition.

I agree with having trade schools and classes for students who want it. But I think people erroneously assume that all kids who are not college bound would have any more success in the trades. Being in a trade still requires commitment, a decent attitude, etc. I don’t want a lazy or dumb electrician or plumber. A lot of kids who bomb in college might not do much better in the trades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.

OP - interesting thanks .

Who would this apply to? Big 10 schools?

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

OP - isn’t that more of a thing for privates such as a Harvard who want to make sure alumni keep on donating?

My understanding is that athletic recruits usually have strict rules for maintaining a decent GPA. Is that not the case?

I have never heard of doctor’s children getting preferential treatment - just that many people no longer want to practice medicine due to all the political and insurance company interfering in their work.

Agree that donors’ children should not get preferential admissions but that will probably never go away for privates …

Anonymous wrote:The universities, whether they are public or private, should stop preferential admissions to legacies, athletes, donors’ children, celebrities’ children.

Agreed. I’d also like to see the big time college sports changed. The kids on the football/basketball/baseball/hockey teams at these big D1 schools are generally not even vaguely student-athletes. They should just have semi-pro teams related to colleges. Never going to happen of course.