Should 'Sports' be a college major?Washington Post sports columnist Sally Jenkins recently wrote, "If we would quit being half-ashamed of college sports and assign them some real value, we might just cure some of their corruptions...In fact, why shouldn't we let kids major in sports? Aspiring athletes should be able to pursue their real interest, as a business and an art."
Do you agree? Chat with Sally Friday at 11 a.m. ET about whether or not college athletes should be able major in sports - their craft - much like music, dance, or film majors do. Ask questions and submit your opinions now!
Q&A
Original Article
I like the idea. It would include the general requirements of a BA, but the courses in the major would be actual playing of sports (with achievement requirements perhaps, such as playing at a certain level) AND a selection of traditionally academic classes on sports in general: sport psychology, sport business/marketing/etc., sport medicine, perhaps history and culture of sports (including perhaps classes taught in other faculties, like history), etc. Students would do the general sport major and have a BA in "Sports," but could have a concentration in a specific discipline like football or basketball.
ReplyDeleteA student approached me during the first week of class with their volleyball schedule and informed me that I had to excuse their absences.
ReplyDeleteI explained to the student that it was their responsibility to arrange their classes around their sports. Otherwise, don't take sports.
Feels good to say no, doesn't it?
To Sally, I say no; the kids can major in Marxism-Leninism and play sports on the side.
ReplyDeleteThe dialectic can help Foo'ball, if you only let it....
Here at Lame-Ass University we have a lot of majors in "Health and Sport Science". Essentially, this program appears to be exactly what they want for their athletes: an easy major devoid of any actual content. Rumors are that courses in this major are a complete joke, and cheating is unchecked.
ReplyDeleteEven more unfortunately, our gen ed program isn't much better, and being dependent on student tuition, we let them through.
I fear for the future. As always.
We've already got several sports-oriented majors (sports management, kinesiology, athletic training, etc.). Some of the students are, indeed, pretty lame (at least in their performance in my required gen ed class), and others want to help the lame -- not only injured athletes, but also the elderly, veterans of war, etc. Many of them are quite serious, and willing to lead pretty complex scholarly journal articles that are relevant to their interests.
ReplyDeleteHaving practices and games count as credit hours might actually help some athletes, if it would leave them more time to actually attend and prepare for other classes. But my first choice would be to spin off the pro sports farm teams entirely, ban anything that produces concussions on a regular basis, and make everything else intramural. This would not only give college students more time to spend in class, but, if college scholarships were no longer an incentive for spending huge blocks of time in the elementary, middle, and high school years on the activities of supposedly elite teams (which are now a dime a dozen, at least in my privileged area), might actually contribute to students' coming to college better prepared. Sports participation *can* help students learn discipline, but at the moment the message many seem to be getting is that sports is the only area in which they need to be disciplined.
But my first choice would be to spin off the pro sports farm teams entirely, ban anything that produces concussions on a regular basis, and make everything else intramural.
ReplyDeleteThat would work too. If I'm not mistaken, baseball does not rely heavily on college as a pre-pro or semi-pro stage. The other sports could follow that example. Then student athletics would be free of that ballast and more integrated into the rest of college life and curriculum.
I think this is a good idea, but it risks the same problems with majoring in the Arts. There ought to be a required business element to the Arts and to sports so that those with degrees can manage their own image, manage others' image, create business models for artistic or athletic performance, and teach their craft as necessary.
ReplyDeleteThere is a major "physical education" that strikes close to this argument. I for one think creating a major out of sports is better than taking the lottery-style risk that you will grow up to star in the NBA.
There are a lot of parallels between sports and the arts, particularly dance, but one contributes to the progression of society while the other provides little more than entertainment. University dance programs don't produce the kind of shallow spectacle seen on So You Think You Can Dance because it wouldn't be congruent with the university ideal. Sports can evoke strong emotions and a brilliant catch can be beautiful, but can they be art, as Jenkins implies? I'd say no.
ReplyDeleteSomeone with knowledge in physical education, kinesiology, athletic training, et c. can improve other people's health and wellbeing, while someone who only knows how to strategize for and play baseball at a high level can only offer entertainment to others. At many schools, these majors have been overrun with athletes who push for lower standards, but that doesn't mean the fields are without value.
On the other hand, what happens if we do make a major for athletes? Would the quality of the academic material be something you would want associated with your university? My expectation would be that it would quickly go the same way as DrNathaniel's school's Health and Sport Science program.
I enjoy playing and watching sports, but they aren't art, they aren't science, and despite their popularity, their cultural significance is already well-covered by existing fields. We don't need to make it any easier for athletes to slide through college without getting an education.