Paul, starting to wonder why you follow a sport played by "idiots" with "joke majors."  I respect Ohio's athletes just as much as I do the science or engineering major.  I credit the athletes for assuming their roles representing the university in competition that requires study and physical preparation that I consider extraordinary.  Further, they will be injured, minor or severly.  Show me the science major that graduates with a surgically repaired body from his injury in competition against Penn State.  Then perhaps you might show me the engineer major competition that thousands of us and the 110 will travel to in support.  If you need to feel superior to jocks and choose the degree route, go for it.

Noah Keller was Bio/Pre-med. Graduated with a pretty good GPA too IIRC (and the Bio track is harder than most any non-engineering track at OHIO).

Tettleton is Sports Management. Might be a jock major, but OHIO has one of the premier sports management programs in the country.

Sorry for all the negativity....I just don't buy that athletics makes better students in any way, shape or form. If anything, as someone else mentioned, the crazy time demands of big time college football make it nearly impossible to major in anything demanding. Which is certainly why many of these students end up in majors that are a waste of a degree.

But then of course, the defenders of the status quo will say that the athletes should be "thankful" for their free tuition. They don't need a salary, or any other benefits...they get that awesome free ride! They don't mention that between the lifting, mental reps, games, travel, practice, surgeries, physical pain, that they barely have enough time to maintain a B average in Recreation Management.

Two thoughts:
1. In the current job market, healthcare administration and engineering technology majors are more employable than liberal arts majors (and probably more employable than non-graduate degree-holding hard science majors too).
2. Scholarship athletes (presumably) graduate with no student debt.

If a person can (a) get a job out of college (b) in a primary field of study (c) without any student loan debt, I wouldn't call that person an idiot.

We'll have to disagree on that because I do buy it. When I was in high school, all students were required to participate in 3 sports a year. They didn't have to be good at them. They didn't have to make varsity. But they had to participate at some level. I think that was a good thing, and I believe it contributed to a healthy atmosphere for learning.  I think an active body contributes to an active mind.

I understand that this attitude is not as widely held as it was a generation ago. but I also attribute that shift in attitude (along with a myriad of other changes) in part to the dramatic increases in obesity, and also to lower academic performance today.  Now, does participation is sports at a Division I Football level provide more benefit than, say, club hockey? There you may be right. When the time demands increase to levels that decrease the time available to study, the effect could become a negative.


And I only brought that up because of the overly broad negativity implying that all football players are bad apples, bad students, and overall a negative. In my time at school, I knew Division I football players with 4.0 averages in Engineering.

Playing football takes a year round effort, and takes a toll on these players. On the other hand they get benefits, too. They get tuition, as you mentioned. They also get access to tutors, and enforced time for study hall. They also are closely monitored by staff to ensure they are attending classes, and studying (something parents could do for their children, but rarely do). On the whole I think that these players probably end up with higher GPAs as a result of this than the same group of people would have if they simply had enrolled as normal students, and probably get in less trouble, too, because they are so carefully monitored.

As for what constitutes a "junk degree", that's open to discussion. Any degree can be useful, if it leads to a productive career.  Whether one studies Engineering or English Literature, the degree didn't help much if they end up on unemployment. As has been pointed out already, Sports is big business. Coaches, Athletic Directors, and the like are well paid, prestigious positions. They aren't ones I would want, but for others they are dream jobs. Exercise and physical therapy are also growing fields. Twenty years ago those might have seemed like "junk" degrees, but that is much less true today.

I don't question that there are some players that do try to just get by, looking for the easiest classes, and the easiest degrees. I don't question that some do get into trouble. My point is that painting all football players with one broad stroke isn't appropriate. While some have "easy" majors, others do have difficult majors. Some do get into trouble, but the vast majority don't. Criticism for those that do get in trouble is warranted, but unless it is statistically accurate that they have a worse record than the overall student population, which it isn't, extending that criticism to the group as a whole is unwarranted.

It also leaves you just a handful of classes short of a double major in Business

I'm talking about "big time" college athletics...what does this have to do with intramurals?

Your original statement did not specify "big time". It merely referred to "athletics", of which intramurals are a form. Your original statement was:


Not everyone has the ability to participate in Athletics at the varsity level. Intramurals are intended to be a way to extend competitive athletics down to a level where all students can participate and benefit from them. Why do intramurals exist? Because he historical consensus is that participation in athletics is beneficial in a variety of ways, and therefore extending that benefit to to all students is a good thing.

As I said previously, I have no doubt that there is a point sports can take over and require so much time that they cease to be a benefit. Is Division I-A football already at that level? Perhaps..

Well, there are only 210 full-time students(178 part-time) in the Russ college, and 21,000 in the Athens campus.

So, 1% of the total students are full-time in the college, 2% incl. part-time, and 4% of student athletes are in the college, and we are criticizing the athletes? Seems to me that athletes are twice as likely, at least, to be engineering majors than the normal student population. Figuring all athletes are full-time, then it's more likely 4x.

Paul, having trouble following your meaning from what you present, reading your mind would require getting into your head, a place I would not go with a battalion of Infantry.

OCF....probably not. I'm sure the 21,000 figure includes postgrads, but I'm assuming the Russ College numbers also includes post-grads. I'll admit it if I'm wrong. Still, it's pretty obvious athletes assume a strong presence as scholars on the Athens campus. For as long as I can remember, the grad rate has been higher than the general student population.

Do you seriously think there are only 200 engineers on the entire campus? That would sure make one hell of a professor to student ratio.

The number is closer to 1400 undergrads.

Paul,
You seem comfortable judging not only the academic quality of athletes, but also the legitimacy of multiple college degrees/programs. I didn't realize that an engineering degree was the end-all/be-all of academic achievement.