April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Ague | Main | Gate City »

Aug 06, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Hmm, I didn't know about this one. Bread and circuses, indeed. Sadly, I've found out firsthand how dangerous it is to criticize an employer's basketball team.


Too bad that don't do that for the artists?


Here is an interesting look at the economics of college sports.


Do academic scholarships pay in-state rates for out of state kids?

"How bout a Fresca? Mr Scholarship winner."

Patrick Eakes

Yep, in grad school, I had plenty of friends who were academic all-stars from out of state (or out of country) who got in-state tuition rates.


Why do academics hate athletes so?

If what PE says is so.... where is the outrage? Either scholarship recipients get in state prices or they do not. It is right and fair or it is not. Goose.... gander. blah.


Another perspective:



Nice piece. I likes and I agree.

Does strike me as odd that all of the hoopla is over athletes not just out of staters getting in state rates. Seems selective outrage to me.

Kinda like the Northern Guilford debacle. All kinds of kids are there "illegally" but athletes take the heat. Waste-oids, motoer heads and geeks get a free pass.

Typical academic prejudices abound.

Played Ball in Collige

The nerve! Academics have no right to set expectations for an academic institutions, just because they have a brain. Geez! Makes me so angry!

Ed Cone

I don't think it's a matter of academics "hating" athletes, but of universities setting priorities that put school over sports, and expecting big-money sports programs to fund their imported talent.


You know, I was thinking(which is dangerous), what great free advertising UNC got on their NC run. But what the heck, I understand they had 20,000 applications for 4,000 spots this year.


Athletes meet minimum standards for admission so Played Ball is just hating.

Is the issue some athletes getting admitted over academically superior candidates or is the issue in state tuition for out of atate students or is it just plain academic snobbery and athletes getting in state prices but it is OK for academics to pay in state prices regardless of residency?

Seems "unfair" to me to single out athletes in the out of state/in state debate.

Ed Cone

"Athletes meet minimum standards for admission."

"Minimum" often equals "minimal" when it comes to bigtime football and basketball.

Those sports are quasi-professional endeavors at state universities.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of bright, hard-working students in the mix. And, as Kim says, the publicity can be good, and many of us enjoy college sports greatly.

But let's be clear about what's going on with these programs.

If you want to argue that importing talent at a discount to help big-money programs win more football and basketball games is a worthwhile endeavor, and that continuing to do so when academics are suffering in a budget crisis makes sense, have at it.



The issue as you describe it, to me, is legit. Albeit tilting at windmill-ish. But, I still cannot grasp the diff between an out of state brainiac getting in state tuition is OK but an athlete..... OH NOOOO. Some local kid and we tax payers still get screwed. And attendance at HI IQ Bowls is way down I hear.

Would you like to argue that UNC-CH would enjoy it's current level of national prominance w/o basketball? How'd you put it... "have at it". That's a little more than a nod to good publicity.

And, lets also be clear that some of these programs generate ba-jillions of dollars for the respective communities and oh yeah Greensboro from time to time. It aint all bad. Out of whack a bit perhaps.

If your argument is fairness and/or budget crisis then out of state kids pay out of state fees all across the board. Not just athletes. And I do suggest reading the not-linked link supplied by jb above.

Bunch a egg heads tryin to "rooorn" my life.

Ed Cone

Mick, I'm an ardent, lifelong Tar Heel fan, and I think athletics add a lot to a school and to the state, and also that athletics are part of a well-rounded life (although D1 revenue-sport athletics are not really something that the vast majority of students will ever hope to experience).

But on general principle, and as a taxpaying citizen of North Carolina, I absolutely favor academics over bigtime sports, and I have no problem at all saying I'd like to see more money used for academics, including scholarships for the best students and pay for the best teachers, while big-money sports can pay a bit more to import their talent.

So there you have it: much as I like big-time sports, I think our university should place more of a priority on academics.


Well said and agreed for the most part.

But I obviously disagree on the issue of the scholarships. All or none as far as I am concerned. It is taxpayer money afterall.

The comments to this entry are closed.