YES:
Muscles mean everything in college, whether in the bulging biceps of a jock or the brilliant brain of a bookworm. When it boils down to brain versus brawn, who really wins?
From lectures and learning to pledging and parties, the schedule of the average college student proves jam-packed enough without the burden of a job. Being a college athlete is a full-time job in and of itself, leaving next to no time for conventional learning. An athlete with minimal interest in classes takes the place of a willing and worthy student.
Athletic programs earn a large portion of universities’ funds. Therefore, when an athlete struggles in a class, teachers often give them opportunities to excel that are not available to other students. How is it fair that a hardworking student has to try twice as hard to earn the same grade that an athlete is basically given? Simple: it isn’t.
If an athlete cannot handle a course because of its difficulty level or lack of time for studies, he or she should take another class that accommodates their academic abilities – a class that judges each student fairly, regardless of whether or not they wear a varsity letter.
When an athlete receives special treatment, it sends the wrong message to fans, particularly young ones. Kids lose interest in academics – they learn that if they want to earn a scholarship, they should focus on sports instead of studies.
When an athlete uses steroids on the field, diamond or court, the public deems there actions as cheating ones. Yet, when teachers give these players a passing grade they did not earn simply because they need to rest before the big game or became too tired from rigorous practice, no one says anything.
Special treatment for athletes takes away opportunities from other students. A level classroom is as important as a level playing field – every person deserves an equal chance to succeed and play by the same rules.
——————————————————————————————————-
NO:
Through the years, society has stereotypically deemed athletes as less intelligent than non-athletes. It is reluctant to notice that they contain more than meets the eye. While some high school students put hours into their studies, high school athletes put the same time and effort into their training- why shouldn’t they be rewarded?
Colleges strive to provide scholarships to athletes they think will improve their school’s admissions rates and rank, often angering those who feel that athletes do not work hard to gain admission. These students feel disadvantaged when an athlete who didn’t score as highly as they did or perform as well academically, steals what they see as their only opportunity for success. These rejected students have a point: Talented athletes often get an advantage when applying to schools. However, universities still consider students’ scholastic efforts in the application process. According to the NCAA, participating in collegiate sports requires maintaining a 2.3 GPA, leaving no room for utter failure.
Although these players may be receiving mediocre grades, the public often overlooks the other requirements necessary to obtain positions in the university and on the team. On top of GPA, coaches expect team members to practice every day for hours at a time, attend every game, and travel regularly. This not only consumes most of their time, but also puts considerable pressure on the students to meet coaches’ expectations.
Acceptance based on athletic ability gives many students academic opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise. Many athletes cannot afford a top-notch school, so they focus their adolescence on perfecting their sport, hoping this success becomes the key to their education.
Above all, the public must consider the big picture: Accepting athletes, in spite of their lower academic proficiency benefits schools more than it hurts them. True, admitting an athlete with a low GPA may hinder a person who meets higher academic standards, but what about the other students their scholarship provides an education for? Collegiate sports bring in a high percentage of schools’ revenue. According to Fox News, college sports made a combined profit of $12.6 billion in 2011. Through broadcasted games, fan apparel and tickets, these schools earn millions of dollars. This year alone, NBC will pay Notre Dame $15 million just to televise their home games, and the University of Texas generated $32.4 million from ticket sales and $8 million from sponsors in 2011. This money helps fund scholarships and maintain other organizations on campus. Critics need to put less emphasis on the individual for just a moment, and focus on these schools as a whole.
