Anonymous
|
12-08-04 01:53 AM - Post#841
So has anyone else read this article from the Columbia Spectator? Is anyone else laughing? Other than Foran's apparent transfer (even though he was accepted to Princeton before his year at Purdue and he has received no credit for his time there), and the very minor football housing issue, there is absolutely nothing of substance. Logan’s charge can only be classified as minor and dismissible.
So it appears that the Author's main complaint is with athletes who are asked to take time off from school due to academic reasons. The Author writes as if this points out some flaw in the relationship between athletes and the University. As if time away from the University is confined to the athletic realm. I can tell you from a current undergraduate’s perspective that this is not the case. This might come as a news flash for some of you out there, but in reality a lot of Princeton students are asked to take time away from the University for academic reasons, and the vast majority of them are not athletes.
So what point is the author making about Princeton athletics? Is he stating that academic standards are being avoided? Is he stating that the athletic programs do not foster scholarship? At no point does he allege that the players mentioned might have presented outlying credentials upon acceptance, nor does he assert that Princeton athletes are somehow on a whole less qualified than other ivy athletes, so he must not think the source of the “problem” is with admissions.
Is he instead asserting that athletes allow their academics to trail off after acceptance to Princeton due to athletic pressures? If so, citing cases of students being asked to take leave from the University without making any connections to how their role as an athlete led to their situation is incomplete. Neither the student nor the program can be criticized if one cannot show that the athletic/academic environment at Princeton is any different from that found at other Ivy League institutions.
Lastly, When I look at the same data from which the Author of the article formed his conjecture on the fall of Princeton athletics, I draw a vastly different conclusion. I feel that both the Institution and the specific athletic programs deserve praise for their refusal to afford preferential treatment to athletes. In reality, academic leaves of absence do not indicate a flaw in the system, but instead they indicate that student athletes are being held accountable as students first and that is admirable. If the author believes that turning a blind eye and allowing athletes to skate through four years of college is a better approach because it leaves fewer black eyes on the University’s record, then ivy athletics really have fallen.
|
ptontn
newbie
Posts: 14
Loc: Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: The fall of Princeton Athletics?
12-08-04 02:36 AM - Post#842
In response to
I read the article and made a posting on the Columbia website. As I said in the posting there, the article was a joke, whether intentional or unintentional. My favorite part is when he suggests that the NCAA investigate the Princeton athletic department. The Spectator usually has some pretty good pieces, but this falls far short of that.
|
JerryH
newbie
Posts: 8
Loc: Delray Beach, Florida
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: The fall of Princeton Athletics?
12-08-04 11:40 AM - Post#843
In response to ptontn
I also read the article. It appeared the the author collected a few disjointed annectdotes to make a point. Unfortunately, I could never determine exactly what that point was. Nor was I able to determine how those examples related to the title.
I didn't respond to the article because, basically, I didn't understand it.
Jerry
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The fall of Princeton Athletics?
12-08-04 09:52 PM - Post#844
In response to JerryH
Sorry for not including this link in the original post. Anyone who hasn't read this article should really take a second to look it over. It's pretty interesting and maybe somebody out there agrees with it.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/06/41b3fabc417d8
|
Domer72
newbie
Posts: 29
Loc: Rural Iowa
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Columbia Article
12-08-04 10:40 PM - Post#845
In response to
For those interested, go to:
http://www.voy.com/152805/
for a long thread about this article. All the usual suspects are represented with their posts and I think we beat a fairly bad article senseless.
|
