U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 11:54 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by rrrx3 » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 12:13 PM UTC

iends wrote: post #81

rrrx3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also went to NC State, and I'm pretty sure that there's no department dedicated to this type of institutional corruption.

When I was at NCSU a college soccer player was on the roster in my "Learn Proofs for Math Majors" (MA225) course. He and a tutored showed up intermittently to the class. After some measurable time after the drop date he stopped showing up. I've always wondered if they let him drop it really late after the drop date or something shady was going on. Probably a late drop since it was soccer and not Football/Basketball.…

This is the type of subjective stuff that happens to create an urban legend about "athletes getting an easy ride," though.

You don't really know what happened, but the eventual conclusion that most would take is:

1. he got a passing grade in spite of irregular class attendance. This is highly unlikely, but always seems to be the first place people go because "athletes get treated differently."

or

2. he got a late drop - which some consider "unfair," even in the light of late drops being available to any student for a whole host of reasons (For example, I dropped an entire semester due to depression, well after the drop date)

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

#93

Post by rrrx3 » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 12:25 PM UTC

bo1024 wrote: post #70

rrrx3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that they're being exploited. Choose to go to class or not, they are not being paid anything remotely close to the value that these schools get from them in terms of team gear sales, ad revenue, tv time, increased enrollment, etc etc etc. This is especially true when they're turning in BS papers for crap degrees that can't and won't serve them once they leave school. A minuscule few make it pro. The re…

> The problem is that they're being exploited. Choose to go to class or not, they are not being paid anything remotely close to the value that these schools get from them in terms of team gear sales, ad revenue, tv time, increased enrollment, etc etc etc. I'm tired of seeing this argument without data. If you sit down and think about the numbers, you'll see that for the vast majority of NCAA athletes, this is false.…

I understand your objections in the first part of your reply, but let me clarify - when I speak about this, I'm talking strictly about revenue sports. The other athletes in non-revenue sports who are lucky enough to get scholarships are indeed getting a bang-up deal. But, I'm not talking about those guys.

In fact, I agree with the latter part of your comment, where you say that divorcing sports and education is the long overdue solution to this problem. I personally don't believe playing sports (sports management is another thing) has anything to do with higher education. But, I also agree that it will probably never change. There's too much money at the top, and it's too easy to screw the athletes down at the bottom.

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

#94

Post by rrrx3 » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 12:29 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #42

rrrx3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that they're being exploited. Choose to go to class or not, they are not being paid anything remotely close to the value that these schools get from them in terms of team gear sales, ad revenue, tv time, increased enrollment, etc etc etc. This is especially true when they're turning in BS papers for crap degrees that can't and won't serve them once they leave school. A minuscule few make it pro. The re…

In the case of gridiron football the system is a subsidy to the NFL which avoids player development costs...often at taxpayer expense. Likewise, the colleges pass off youth development costs to the public high school systems...again at taxpayer expense. For the players. this form of amateurism means they have no power to negotiate contracts to offset the risks associated with the sport.

One could also make the argument that industry does the same thing with your average college student - offloading education and training cost onto the taxpayers and students and then reaping the benefits.

Doesn't make it right, I;m just saying the argument could be made.

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

#95

Post by iends » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 1:23 PM UTC

rrrx3 wrote: post #92

iends wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was at NCSU a college soccer player was on the roster in my "Learn Proofs for Math Majors" (MA225) course. He and a tutored showed up intermittently to the class. After some measurable time after the drop date he stopped showing up. I've always wondered if they let him drop it really late after the drop date or something shady was going on. Probably a late drop since it was soccer and not Football/Basketball.…

This is the type of subjective stuff that happens to create an urban legend about "athletes getting an easy ride," though. You don't really know what happened, but the eventual conclusion that most would take is: 1. he got a passing grade in spite of irregular class attendance. This is highly unlikely, but always seems to be the first place people go because "athletes get treated differently." or 2. he got a late dro…

1. He stopped showing up for exams. Impossible to get a passing grade unless they made a lot of shady concessions. 2. Most likely, which is what I pointed out in my original comment.

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

#96

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 1:29 PM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #19

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? (I ask this in hopes of being persuaded, not to defend a position.)

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.

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

#97

Post by wfo » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 1:48 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #53

jordanpg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reading books and writing papers. So you'd argue that football is an intellectual pursuit in the same sense that math, physics, philosophy, or history is? That study of the nuts and bolts of the game is worthy of the attention of our finest minds (as a discipline unto itself)? The "reading books and writing papers" you mention is a severe and tragic distortion of why universities exist. It has little to do with the…

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.

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

#98

Post by belovedeagle » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 1:53 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #75

evanriley wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, its probably happening at most universities. I went to N.C. State and would be surprised if it WASN'T happening there too. I assume any school which gets a amount of money from their sports program would have something similar to UNC.

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.

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

#99

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #47

alistairSH wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of American football, skipping college isn't an option. The NFL doesn't recruit out of high school, so a player's only option is to do 3-4 years indentured servitude at an NCAA institution.

Maybe professional sports should change the way they recruit, and leave academic institutions out of the picture. The NFL has enough money to set up a more extensive farm league system, or maybe they could have a junior league based on smaller cities? FWIW, I have heard of the NBA showing interest in kids in high school. I am not sure if they actually recruited any of them, though.

I don't disagree, but the NFLPA and NFL have a collective bargaining agreement that prohibits the NFL from recruiting until a player is 3-years removed from high school (roughly age 21).

Both the league and player's union benefit from this restriction in trade. Appellate courts have ruled in their favor. So, the NFL as zero interest in creating a farm system that competes with the NCAA. Obviously, the NCAA also likes this arrangement as it's a major source of revenue for college athletic departments.

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

#100

Post by bo1024 » Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 3:31 PM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #80

OvidNaso wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but why would you compare revenue to minor league baseball? Collegiate basketball and football make significatly more money than collegiate or minor league baseball. America has clearly decided that they wI'ill spend just as much money on second tier leagues for these sports and any valuation would need to be based on this or be disingenuous.

He explained: the difference between minor league baseball and NCAA football is the fanbase and tradition the schools bring. A putative Ann Arbor Wolves minor league football team would not have a stadium that dwarfs all NFL stadia.

Right, this is my contention. I admit that it's definitely speculative.