I haven’t written a blog post in months since I’ve been busy with school and married life. However, I recently got into a discussion on Slashdot about the merits of intercollegiate athletics. Needless to say, there was a lot of anti-athlete sentiment. The discussion that ensued really got me thinking about higher education in general.
The argument over intercollegiate athletics really boils down to different people’s viewpoints on the purpose of higher education. The European model is much different than the American one. The focus truly is on education and the education you receive is also much more narrowly focused on your field of study.
In the US, however, it gets blurry. Most of the liberal arts and social sciences faculty like to argue that the purpose of college is more intrinsic than just academics; that you are gaining life skills and experience not found elsewhere. At the same institution, the faculty in the engineering department will tell you flat out that they are preparing you with a marketable skillset. Maybe the reality is that you gain both intrinsic and extrinsic abilities. In its current state, American higher education means different things to different people. Many students, both athletes and non-athletes, go to school for reasons other than education and it really shows when employers and the media cite statistics about how college grads can’t write or perform simple arithmetic.
I don’t think any one US college student even scratches the surface of what’s available to them during four years of school. Is a formal academic education the main benefit? I think it depends on who you are. Should education be the main benefit? I think so, but you can certainly get a solid education while also being an athlete (or do any other number of things that are available in college).
Recent Comments