Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#101

Post by Retric »

wfo wrote: post #97
Retric wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's at least on par with, literature, music, philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, art, or any other "soft" subjects lacking of direct impact on people's lives. It's held to a higher standard than economics, but has less impact. As to math I would argue it's more meaningful than say topology, but less than other branches.

Your casual dismissal of half the central core of human intellectual enterprise over the last 4000 years raised my eyebrows, but when I got to your comment about topology it became clear you have no idea what you're talking about or are simply trolling. Either way, stop.

It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year.

Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives increasing it's value immensely.

PS: History for example is important, but the study of history has fairly limited impact outside of entertainment for most people.

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#102

Post by dragonwriter »

Retric wrote: post #101
wfo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your casual dismissal of half the central core of human intellectual enterprise over the last 4000 years raised my eyebrows, but when I got to your comment about topology it became clear you have no idea what you're talking about or are simply trolling. Either way, stop.

It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year. Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives…

> It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people.

The question wasn't whether it was actively enjoyed by a large number of people, but whether it was "an academic activity".

The idea that was is an "academic activity" is defined by how widely enjoyed the activity is probably only defensible with a very unusual definition of "academic".

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#103

Post by jdminhbg »

Retric wrote: post #101
wfo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your casual dismissal of half the central core of human intellectual enterprise over the last 4000 years raised my eyebrows, but when I got to your comment about topology it became clear you have no idea what you're talking about or are simply trolling. Either way, stop.

It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year. Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives…

> For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year.

Not sure this is the case. Pew pegs the percentage of Americans who read a book last year at 77% [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-decl...], and the Super Bowl drew 111 million viewers [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-bowl-2014-ratings-set-new-...]. I'd guess the number of people who watched a football game but not the Super Bowl last year isn't totally insignificant, but probably not huge (and I'm skeptical that the ratings aren't maybe a little inflated).

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#104

Post by Retric »

jdminhbg wrote: post #103
Retric wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year. Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives…

> For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year. Not sure this is the case. Pew pegs the percentage of Americans who read a book last year at 77% [ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-decl... ], and the Super Bowl drew 111 million viewers [ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-bowl-2014-ratings-set-new-... ]. I'd guess the number of people who watche…

Your assuming everyone who read a book did so for fun. Scroll down on your first link and the percentage is 55% of adults and 52% 18-24 year olds. Compared to 64% of americans watching an NFL game. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/14/no-surprise-64-a...

Further, football goes beyond the supper bowl and beyond the NFL. Including collage, high school etc, and an estimated 200+ million people watched at least one football game last year.

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#105

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #102
Retric wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year. Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives…

> It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. The question wasn't whether it was actively enjoyed by a large number of people, but whether it was "an academic activity". The idea that was is an "academic activity" is defined by how widely enjoyed the activity is probably only defensible with a very unusual definition of "academic".

My point is not to defend it as an academic activity, but to measure the impact.

"Game theory" is clearly an academic activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

The study of football at a deeper level is a subset of that, but it covers a fairly wide area. From which plays to call in offence vs defense. Cost benefit of risking a player injury in a low win percentage game. Which players to sign etc. (Or even just the math around fantasy football.)

I mean just because your covering a specific WWI battle does not mean your doing something else and not studding history.

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#106

Post by Retric »

Steuard wrote: post #83
Retric wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's at least on par with, literature, music, philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, art, or any other "soft" subjects lacking of direct impact on people's lives. It's held to a higher standard than economics, but has less impact. As to math I would argue it's more meaningful than say topology, but less than other branches.

If you're listing topology as "less meaningful", I'm guessing you haven't spent much time studying topics in physics that have been developed since the 1970s or so. Topology turns out to be a pretty big deal.

There has been plenty of post 1970's physics advances, but the number of useful ones (for the average person) directly linked to Topology is much smaller.

EX: Fusion research is potentially extremely useful, but so far it's impact is basically nothing. Ditto Astrophysics.

Though, if you have anything specific in mind I would love to hear about it as I am really drawing a blank.

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#107

Post by javert »

belovedeagle wrote: post #98
javert wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amazing thing at UNC is that it was just a rogue low-level employee (who picked up a couple of minor co-conspirators on the way), NOT a coordinated effort from the top of the university down. I would imagine at many or most big sports schools, it is the latter. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter at UNC too. If so, UNC has done a world-class cover up so far by making it look like the former.

World-class? It may look that way from the outside to people unfamiliar with the university, but from the inside, this cover-up is ridiculously transparent. It's clear that most of the AFAM department knew what was going on, as well as the tutors and students.

I think you misunderstood my point. If it is "clear" that most of the AFAM department knew, the scandal has successfully been pinned on and contained to the AFAM department, and has not contaminated the highest levels of the university (i.e. Chancellor, Provost, athletics chairman, etc.).

Re: U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes

#108

Post by dllthomas »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #96
droopyEyelids wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're questioning the fundamental purpose of an institution in such a way that it's hard to answer. Why shouldn't universities also run all sorts of other businesses, and then make money from their student consultants? Because the institution of a university exists to provide an academic education that will help them function in the world after school. Because offering a degree in Football would be more predatory th…

Still a little off: colleges don't make money from football. The football program is generally a separate corporate entity, with its own profit and loss. Our coach makes $7M while the president of the university makes $300,000. If the college owned the football program that might be different.

One argument I hear is that colleges make money from football because football inspires donations to the college. I have heard various things as to whether this actually reflects reality and I haven't investigated the matter myself.
Post reply on HN