Why does Sokolove refer to football as "The S.U.V. of the college campus?" Do you agree?
Do big sports improve school spirit?
Are big sports revenue-producing or draining?
In, Football is a Sucker's Game, Sokolove describes the state of modern college Football and its effects on students and Universities. He calls football, "the SUV of the college campus," because it is big, drains resources, lots of fun, and potentially destructive. In my opinion this statement sums it up. He talks at length about how these mega programs from well known Universities hardly make any money and are usually losing money at the end of the season. The number of people involved in running a college football team is daunting. Their is the coaching staff, the student athletes, the administrative staff, the boosters, the donors, the launderers, the medical staff, and the list goes on. Schools are forced to pour money into the newest, most appealing facilities or they run the possibility of losing potential star players to higher profile schools. I cannot really see a connection between all of this and the benefit for the everyday student or the University itself. The school can make a name for itself or it can be made a joke. The Universities who have losing football teams are always going to lose money. Donors become less interested, fans I don't care anymore, and the star players want nothing to do with them. These schools are left in an ever worsening financial hole that is terribly hard to get out of. Even if the big name schools don't have a perfect season and make it to a BCS bowl game they will lose some credibility and money.
For myself, as an average student, I do feel good to finally have a team to cheer for but its not like I could take my Dad to a game. The seats are too expensive or sold out. I think school spirit is built from the students accomplishing things together as a student body. Sports should only be a small part of that. Football does not bring me any closer to my fellow students.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Can this University Be Bought?
What do you think should be the relationship between commerce and academic life? How should the "life lessons" of the marketplace enter the University? Make connections to Croissant and to your own experience.
In "Can This University Be Bought?", Croissant talks about the deepening relationship between corporate commerce and academic life. This is a disturbing relationship that should not exist. Croissant talks about how ethical corporate sponsorships of University. This can help boost a school out of obscurity and as she says' "establish an institution's relevancy." This makes sense, more money equals a greater ability to be recognized equals more students equals more money. What is the cost of this? The school may be seen as legitimate but the corporations may want to have a hand in deciding what curriculum is taught and what kind of technology is used. Croissant writes about the relationship between the University of Arizona, AOL, and Cisco systems. Students at the University are being taught curriculum for a individual corporate system and is funded by the taxpayers. This is the type of narrowing of ideas that corporate sponsorships of university departments can bring. Croissant also talks about how the state government cut funds for programs that were being funded by sponsorships. This is the situation where the school will no longer have a say and must do what they are told by the people with the money.
I think the life lessons of the marketplace are not taught by having a specific sect of the market telling your teachers what they should teach. I think that classrooms need to be open to different methods of teaching as well as free thought and different views on a specific subject. The student will not gain as much as they could from a school that has the corporate sponsorships Croissant writes about. I can see Universities heading down the same path as so many other parts of American business.
One way I can relate this topic to my own experiences is to compare it to the state of Western medicine. Western medicine was hijacked by big corporate pharmaceuticals. They injected money into the family practices, medical schools, and research institutes. Today doctors are getting kickbacks for putting people on more drugs that are increasingly expensive. Hospitals perform the most expensive and usually unnecessary procedures. Most research for new drugs is performed by doctors and scientists who work for that drugs parent company. Advertisers push newer more damaging drugs on people everyday. People in the US are not getting quality health care and soon students will be taught a corporate agenda brought to them by their sully sponsored university.
In "Can This University Be Bought?", Croissant talks about the deepening relationship between corporate commerce and academic life. This is a disturbing relationship that should not exist. Croissant talks about how ethical corporate sponsorships of University. This can help boost a school out of obscurity and as she says' "establish an institution's relevancy." This makes sense, more money equals a greater ability to be recognized equals more students equals more money. What is the cost of this? The school may be seen as legitimate but the corporations may want to have a hand in deciding what curriculum is taught and what kind of technology is used. Croissant writes about the relationship between the University of Arizona, AOL, and Cisco systems. Students at the University are being taught curriculum for a individual corporate system and is funded by the taxpayers. This is the type of narrowing of ideas that corporate sponsorships of university departments can bring. Croissant also talks about how the state government cut funds for programs that were being funded by sponsorships. This is the situation where the school will no longer have a say and must do what they are told by the people with the money.
I think the life lessons of the marketplace are not taught by having a specific sect of the market telling your teachers what they should teach. I think that classrooms need to be open to different methods of teaching as well as free thought and different views on a specific subject. The student will not gain as much as they could from a school that has the corporate sponsorships Croissant writes about. I can see Universities heading down the same path as so many other parts of American business.
One way I can relate this topic to my own experiences is to compare it to the state of Western medicine. Western medicine was hijacked by big corporate pharmaceuticals. They injected money into the family practices, medical schools, and research institutes. Today doctors are getting kickbacks for putting people on more drugs that are increasingly expensive. Hospitals perform the most expensive and usually unnecessary procedures. Most research for new drugs is performed by doctors and scientists who work for that drugs parent company. Advertisers push newer more damaging drugs on people everyday. People in the US are not getting quality health care and soon students will be taught a corporate agenda brought to them by their sully sponsored university.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Idea of University...
What is Newman's "Idea of a University?"
What is Spayde's?
Newman's Idea of University is a place where as he says, "all branches of knowledge are connected together." He believed that to separate the different sub-sects of a subject would harm the greater body of knowledge they came from. The student needed to study all that the liberal University had to offer and studying one field will take away from the experience. Newman believes formal University education will lead to better thinkers and more prosperous members of the Catholic church. These people with knowledge of the sciences can better contemplate the mysteries of Christianity. He believed the University was a place where the students interacting and relying on one another, each with their own set of skills, would thrive. Newman says that gaining a "philosophical habit," is the main purpose of the University. Newman goes on to talk about the fact that training of the intellect will "best enable him to discharge his duties to society." This training will raise the level of public awareness as a whole. It will advance the society culturally and morally. To Newman the idea of University is something that will enrich an individual for a lifetime.
Spayde's idea of University is a place that is not the most important place of learning like many people believe. Spayde thinks the majority of really useful learning is done actually experiencing life and it happens with every new experience. Spayde says, "is it any wonder that many of us are beginning to feel that we didn't get the whole story in school, that our educators didn't prepare us for the world we're living in today?" He does not discount the importance of formal learning when he tells of the humanities classes for people near the poverty line in the lower east side of New York. Spayde says that "this is just the beginning of the engagement between ideas and reality." David Orr of Oberlin College describes two types of knowledge: slow knowledge and fast knowledge. Slow knowledge is the kind of life long learning that gives our lives meaning. Fast knowledge is like technology, quickly changing and quickly obsolete. He explains that too much emphasis on fast knowledge in our hi-tech society can lead to disaster. Spayde believes that the idea of University is doing what you truly love, to have learned enough about yourself from your own experiences, and to not get caught up in the structured formal way of learning.
What is Spayde's?
Newman's Idea of University is a place where as he says, "all branches of knowledge are connected together." He believed that to separate the different sub-sects of a subject would harm the greater body of knowledge they came from. The student needed to study all that the liberal University had to offer and studying one field will take away from the experience. Newman believes formal University education will lead to better thinkers and more prosperous members of the Catholic church. These people with knowledge of the sciences can better contemplate the mysteries of Christianity. He believed the University was a place where the students interacting and relying on one another, each with their own set of skills, would thrive. Newman says that gaining a "philosophical habit," is the main purpose of the University. Newman goes on to talk about the fact that training of the intellect will "best enable him to discharge his duties to society." This training will raise the level of public awareness as a whole. It will advance the society culturally and morally. To Newman the idea of University is something that will enrich an individual for a lifetime.
Spayde's idea of University is a place that is not the most important place of learning like many people believe. Spayde thinks the majority of really useful learning is done actually experiencing life and it happens with every new experience. Spayde says, "is it any wonder that many of us are beginning to feel that we didn't get the whole story in school, that our educators didn't prepare us for the world we're living in today?" He does not discount the importance of formal learning when he tells of the humanities classes for people near the poverty line in the lower east side of New York. Spayde says that "this is just the beginning of the engagement between ideas and reality." David Orr of Oberlin College describes two types of knowledge: slow knowledge and fast knowledge. Slow knowledge is the kind of life long learning that gives our lives meaning. Fast knowledge is like technology, quickly changing and quickly obsolete. He explains that too much emphasis on fast knowledge in our hi-tech society can lead to disaster. Spayde believes that the idea of University is doing what you truly love, to have learned enough about yourself from your own experiences, and to not get caught up in the structured formal way of learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
