Rutgers prof in hot water over racist statements

Agreed. And I get very upset at the notion that college should be for a select few. Just like I believe in public school education. When it came time for my kid to start school, I refused to consider a private school, much to the dismay of my in-laws, because I believe that kids need to learn how to deal with people of all types, especially people who are different from them -- be it financial status, race, or smarts.

 

Hey Pastor,

How many student athletes go onto to professional athletics after college? And I mean all sports; football, hoops, golf, gymnastics, baseball, track, etc. What? one half of one percent? My alma mater put one basketball player into the NBA and about four football players in. What are the rest of them there for? Nose-picking and grab-assing? For a lot of women's basketball players, gymnasts, and track and fielders the athletic scholarship is their only route.

So what? Only the smartest of the smart of these athletes should be admitted? And the rest should go drive trucks for a living? Yeah, that's not elitist. Maybe if this guy would take off the suede eblow pads and go spend a year or two in the real world with the rest of us he'd understand this. If the biggest difference between Joe Middle of the Pack Longsnapper becoming a business professional and working at a Wal-Mart and applying for government assistance to try and make ends meet, I'm all for the scholarship.

Next, you say that universities should get their funding from state-funded research. All fine and wonderful...and completely pragmatic and pie in the sky logic. So what happens when states are hurting for cash because the Federal pipeline is running lean because of something like, I dunno, a war? Or a recession? Then what? Most of the schools in Pennsylvania are being forced to raise tuition because the state simply does not have the funding available.

So then what? You turn to marketing in an attempt to boost donations and applications.

 

First and foremost, I would suggest you actually read what I wrote. I don’t give a fuck who is admitted into a university. I do, however, give a fuck how the university spends the money.

Second, it is actually a fact that schools receive most of their money from research which is mostly governmental. I’m not talking about the state funds from donors. I’m talking about devising lenses for spy satellites. I’m talking about developing a new computer operating system that would prevent hacking.

Why you think this boils down to admission of students is beyond me. I am only speaking about scholarships. Nothing more. Let in the numb as a rock athlete, just don’t give him/her a free ride while some smart kid is busting his/her ass at three different jobs just to make ends meet. Dumb jock doesn’t want the education. He only wants to be on TV so he can get drafted by the NFL/NBA.

 

First they're whores, and now they can't read a cereal box.

Brutal year for the Rutgers athlete.

 

First of all, I have a difficult time taking someone seriously who is talking about education and uses "fuck" twice in his first paragraph. Even I manage to abstain from that. Secondly, so the "dumb jock" that throws a javelin or hits a golf ball is only in college because he wants to be on television? What channel might that be? Public access? The Big 10 network.

 

Does the free ride for the athlete really take away from the genius? I mean, at least at the big-time football programs (the ones who would see to be the biggest violators of creaming over 40 times instead of GPAs), the athletics money is all self-contained. The athletic department makes all the money it spends. So how's this hurt the other kids? And it's not like the few extra people who come for athletics are going to keep them from admitting the same number of more qualified kids, they're a drop in a very large bucket.
I could be wrong, but this just doesn't seem like a zero-sum situation for the kids.

 

Again, you seem to be missing the point. I’ll leave out “fuck” this time in the hopes that it doesn’t fall past you…

Why is the student-athlete in college?
a) The student wants to learn.
b) The student wants to play sports with the hope of going to the pros.

If your answer is a, then that is fine. They can come to the school. They can take up a space in the classroom. They can, if smart enough, obtain a scholarship.

If your answer is b, then that is not fine. Do not bother going to the school because you are wasting space in the classroom.

See, it is all about reasoning. Quite a few of those “dumb jock” football players that Rutgers has pulled in are not looking for an education. They want to go to the NFL. This professor says, “Don’t let them go here for free. Other people deserve that money.”

 

Of course not. But he's likely not on a full-ride scholarship, either. Which was the subject of the professor's remarks and the subject of the thread.

 

If we're thinking of the same professor and coach, that's exactly what I thought of when I heard this story.

This Rutgers guy has nothing to apologize for.

 

This is entirely based on the concept that the football programs are entirely self-contained. This isn’t exactly true. Only a select few schools are which is nowhere close to being all of them.

 

How does it hurt the other students?
For that athlete that's in school for only a year, but skips class because he knows he's only there for a year, it's an empty seat for someone that might make a thought-provoking comment in class rather than skip or sit there like a bump on a log.