Or they're just plain lying. But it depends on the "I don't think in groups part" because I'm pretty sure you'd just be plain delusional if you think you can telepathically communicate with everyone around you. I'd also recommend you visit a psych ward. Anyway, jokes aside I think you're talking about being a sheeple because saying thinking in groups just sounds wrong
Becoming a trainee is the ultimate accomplishment in life, and those who are both talented and lucky enough to receive it should be recognized in the achievement of such a commendable feat. Many have tried, but few succeed. God bless those brave folks, and may we all look to them for courage both now, and in our time of need.
the only problem i have with 3 is the last conjunct, saying we should ignore other viewpoints. you could kinda say that about the last conjunct in 1 too, but a lot of scientists that speak to the media really do deserve to be ignored, because if they had good ideas, they would go to the scientific community, not the public who doesnt know a shit
There are exceptions to both imo. Some great scientists can go to the media to try to publicize a great discovery, and a scientist could try to shoot down another idea we see as great because they uncovered information disproving it
They get funding for it. After all, professional sports teams get their players from colleges and universities so they are part of the funding. Not to mention it costs money to watch college football games and you can watch some on TV just like you can with professional sports teams. It's a way to raise money while also providing students activities. It's really a win/win situation.
Without it they'd lose quite a bit of their funding. After all they couldn't provide the stuff they do with the meager amount(for a university not for one person) they get from the government. Plus, as said above it gives them an identity along with the sports team being a memorable logo. For example Iowa Hawkeyes is what Iowa's University is remembered for.
Do the schools make money that they can appropriate to non-athletic line items? Or is it just to perpetuate the sports? Seems like a strange criterion to give money on.
Someone told me that at my school the failing football coach was making seven figures. A couple million or some shit. What the fuck? Is that really appropriate? Sounds inflated to me.
I knew university of Iowa for being in Iowa City and for me seeing the place one day. Never heard of that shit though.
Haven't you seem college football items selling in stores(for example Iowa Hawkeyes stuff). It's a way to make money and I believe it to be appropriate since without that and other ways they make money there's no way they can afford what they provide for education. Why do you think schools don't provide as much as colleges when it comes to education? It's simple they don't have the money for it while colleges do. Schools and colleges get around the same amount of money from the government and it's miniscule enough that some schools go into debt in order to provide good education for students along with school lunch
As for the football coach making 2 million I can bet that money doesn't come from the college but the NFL team that wants to get players(I think it was either the Vikings or the Packers whom get players from the Hawkeye's)
True ...but, you have to like sports, which I don't. Plus, it costs a fortune to go see, no wonder they have all that money. First and foremost should be education. Besides, concussions is a high price to pay to entertain with any sport.
Ah but the sports tie into the money they get for education. Do you think all the money they get from sports go into sports? Nope, quite a bit of it goes into education for its students. Think of sports as a way to fundraise for education because really that's basically what it is.
As for concussions, the players know what they're getting into when they play a sport. Sports teams are required to have a talk about risks of concussion before they can play an actual game.
youre making a lot of important factual claims Le End and i would be interested to see sources on this cuz if it's true i might be wrong. could u post some citations?
Obviously, the fact college sports is a big deal also means some of the money comes from the people's taxes as does NFL. Obviously, if you look into taxing citizens for sports like NFL there's both advantages and disadvantages. Look into NFL and you'd basically find the same econmical advantages and disadvantages a college would have. There's some differences and that's where the funding goes. For example NFL attracts people to the city the stadium is in and other businesses get money from the people who would go out to eat, have a hotel,etc. A college football team however, most of it would go into education but to a lesser degree it attracts a lot of people too
heres an example of a university budget--i'm using stanford because they are known for their athletic excellency as well as academic prestige. http://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/pdf/BudgetBookFY18.pdf
looking at the athletics, it makes up 8% of administrative/auxiliary spending, or 2% of total spending. this amounts to $134 million, more or less. scrolling down to page 117 we see that only $15 million of that is coming from university funds, although some is coming from unknown sources. without this, they would have a deficit, but with it, they're more or less balanced.
of course theres only so much you can say about this one school, and i dont wanna fuckin bother searchign around for every damn university budget and looking for the relevant line items, but it does give us an idea. they do have significant sources of revenue. and in a way they provide a good name to the school, which can be valuable. so you do have a point. money-wise, it seems to make sense, if you can ignore the ten or so million a school might spend on the athletics through an operating transfer rather than athletic revenue.
and i dont want to be petty here, but i still have something of an issue with the concept. purpose-wise, i think universities should take another look at themselves and their purpose/mission and consider if athletics falls into it. to use the example of stanford, apparently they don't have a mission statement for the institution, but rather they let all of their individual colleges define their own mission statements. this means, though, that none of them contain anything about athletics (take a closer look to find out). so it's strange why they have something completely superfluous and not within the scope of ancillary operations like housing and shit like that. dont you think?
You're right that it might be possible to replace sports with something else but the question is what. After all, the income from sports is a large part in balancing the deficit. I mean it's possible they could create multiple businesses in order to raise money instead of sports. Have Junior and Senior year business students learn how to manage businesses hands on. Obviously, they won't actually own the business but it'd be a type of simulation. The businesses obviously would have to be spread out from the college/university. The students would be in charge of calculating the supplies needed to restock their store/restaurant and its costs, hiring employees, managing a system,etc of course under the watchful eye of a supervisor. It's possible this would be far cheaper to maintain than sports, not to mention the profit gained from it would be much better and it could provide jobs not only for the college students but for the community.
Obviously, you can't remove sports without going into debt without some sort of replacement of cheaper, more profitable and gets some sort of community.
well, be careful. sports revenue almost balances the athletic budget alone, in the Stanford example. the revenues cover aout 89% of it and the rest is an operating transfer from some at-large free cash or general fund somewhere else in the budget. presumably that's a combination of tuition money, donations, etc. so it does lose some money for the university overall. i suppose you could integrate students into the programs to work (and to an extent im sure they do; at my university the main store and several other businesses and organizations are entirely student-run and student-employing), but there's hundreds of people working in an athletic department at a big university, many of them full-time, and students generally can't be employed full-time. so you only get so far. if you want to do something that costs $15 million in the budget that has nothing directly to do with education but could be an opportunity for students to get involved in meaningful work experience, how about starting a university-owned foundation and perform community service?
i'm not sure what you mean by saying removing sports would cause debt. do you have figures for that?
No but the fact is if you remove the biggest contribution of money wouldn't it be natural to lose money along with having to shut down certain programs. I'm basing it on the effect it could cause if removed. Since there's no instances of a college/university shutting down their sports programs completely I can't say for sure. I don't believe it'd be too noticeable for the first year since they'd be withdrawing the backup money(assuming they had money left over from each year to be used as backup in case of emergency). However, late into the second or third year I bet there will be some major cuts in the budget. By the 4th or 5th year at most I'd expect them to start going into debt. This is not mentioning the people who'd leave due to lack of sports or professors who leave due to cuts into the subject they were teaching and then students leaving due to noticing problems with academics or budget cuts on non-sports related activities. Basically, in all honesty it has a high chance in creating a domino effect.
Even a deep cut into the sports budget would create the same result as it'd be the same as highschool football or sports. Which if you haven't noticed doesn't have the same effect of creating revenue for schools.
I don't think my uni even has a sports team (and it's quite a prominent one). Not really an important thing over here in Australia. I don't enjoy watching sports so I don't see the appeal, and I go to uni to study, not to do anything else. It's nice to be fit but competitive sports at that age just seems a bit pointless to me
"Móviles" lo he oído más en España. En Puerto Rico decimos celular o teléfono, aunque los que tienen IPhone obviamente tienen que anunciarlo y dicen aifoun.
