Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
Devil's advocate here ...
Really, what's the difference between an unqualified rich kid whose parents pay a coach, and an unqualified athlete whose sports alumnae pay the school?
When I first saw the stories, I heard only Harvard and Yale. Private institutions, who are free to do with their reputations whatever they like. After all, it's not like Boston University, whose graduates call their reputation into question. Then I saw the number of public, taxpayer-funded schools involved, and my perception changed.
But still - athletes do it; why not rich kids?
|
Athletics are so ingrained in our society that we have come to expect schools to have winning teams every year - Alabama, Florida, Georgia anyone?
The financial gain from athletics is too powerful for a school to not try and make the investment. Winning schools attract more students, more students mean more tuition money.
Athletes are openly recruited by the school to attend. Athletes possess a physical talent that they leverage to be able to attend the school. And, there are penalties if schools violate the NCAA rules (think SMU).
Also, your point was litigated in Texas in 1996,
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...78/932/504514/
I think in this case, its the extent of the people who are involved that make it shocking. People who were trusted to maintain honesty and ethics in their academic jobs.
Threaded Mode
