The Goat Pen

I would assume system operator

A- Term Paper At UNC

“Athletes couldn’t write a paper,” Willingham said. “They couldn’t write a paragraph. They couldn’t write a sentence. Some of these students could read maybe at a second or third grade level. Really, for an adult, that’s considered illiterate.”

Goldie would have been an honor student in this class considering his writing skills....

How do you pronounce it? Sis Op or Sy Sop? I pronounce it SYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-SAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

How do you know that was a term paper? Many classes require that you turn in weekly notes or whatnot describing what you've read that week. I agree that that "paper" was pretty lame, but if it's just some weekly notes, it seems OK. Curious why you labeled it a term paper. Actually, I'm not curious, I already know. Why did you lie, Crotch?

Just messin' with you Sasquatch..

I'm pretty well convinced that college is a sham and a pure business anyway, at least in terms of liberal arts education. So what if you learn about the French revolution, or any revolution, or any historical facts? That's just trivial. Same with sociology, lit, political science, AFAM, religion, anthropology, whatever. If you're not studying a hard science, you can do anything in the liberal arts on your own. I've read far more philosophy and eglish lit since I left college than when I was there, not just b/c of the greater time span, but within any 5 year period since I graduated from Carolina, I have read far more of that stuff than I ever did when I was there. If it's not chemistry, medicine, law, stuff like that, the whole higher "education" system is a pure business designed to make money. And there's nothing wrong with that, but to pretend like you really got an education that prepared you for the real world when you major in sociology (or whatever) is just a joke...

Even business school is stuff you could probably learn better simply by getting a job somewhere and working your way up. Of course you will learn stuff in business school, but I'm not convinced you couldn't do it without that. Certainly one of the main benefits of business school (and all colleges and universities) is that you meet people who are more or less on the same life track as you and you'll probably remain friends and do business with at least a few of them. But I guarantee I learned more about supply and demand, inventory control, marketing, finance, etc etc, as a drug dealer than i ever would've learned in business school...

Drug Dealing is the purist form of capitalism around...

I don't know about purer, but it's no different than any other business that deals in any product or service. The pricing model is different, obviously, b/c of government interference, but that's the main reason there is even such a thing as the drug trade as we know it. Any recreational drug can be produced for a tiny fraction of what it sells for. A kilo of cocaine or heroin, all in after paying for the labor and chemicals to process it, can't be more than a couple hundred dollars to produce. Weed is virtually free if grown outdoors. If indoor, the light bill is by far the highest cost, but you're still only talking a few hundred dollars a pound to produce it. Meth is probably even less..

SISS-Op

hedge wrote:I'm pretty well convinced that college is a sham and a pure business anyway, at least in terms of liberal arts education. So what if you learn about the French revolution, or any revolution, or any historical facts? That's just trivial. Same with sociology, lit, political science, AFAM, religion, anthropology, whatever. If you're not studying a hard science, you can do anything in the liberal arts on your own. I've read far more philosophy and eglish lit since I left college than when I was there, not just b/c of the greater time span, but within any 5 year period since I graduated from Carolina, I have read far more of that stuff than I ever did when I was there. If it's not chemistry, medicine, law, stuff like that, the whole higher "education" system is a pure business designed to make money. And there's nothing wrong with that, but to pretend like you really got an education that prepared you for the real world when you major in sociology (or whatever) is just a joke...

oh boy - is this what it has come to in justifying what Carolina has done?

Nope, not even thinking about the Carolina situation when I posted that, that's just my real thoughts on the matter. All the exalted talk of making sure athletes or anyone else gets an education (and I know that Carolina has been one of the worst in this regard, but they all talk like that) is pure marketing on the part of colleges and universities. I am skeptical about what real "education" any liberal arts student really gets. Of course, there is great value in going to college, like what I said above. Networking, making friends that you keep for life, etc. I'm sure many people who go to college probably meet their eventual spouse there. It's a great thing, best time of most people's lives, I'd venture to say, but if you're a liberal arts major, you're not really getting any kind of education that you couldn't do just as well on your own. Yeah, it might make you more "well rounded" (whatever that means), but most of the stuff you learn in art history or astronomy you're going to forget unless you maintain a life long interest in that area on your own. And if you do, you will almost certainly learn more after you leave college than when you were there...

yahoo is running with it

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the ... 05969.html

my question is who gives a shit.

any athlete who competes for four years should get a degreee just based on that. they come up with degree programs all the time--whats wrong with majoring in sports.

most degrees dont mean shit anyway as far as specifics

most of your business degrees are doing nothing but managing fastfoods

get a sports degree and use it for coaching or training or whatever. not everybody needs to be graded on how well they write about rosa parks

I was listening to the comedy station on XM yesterday, the guy was like "My grandmother died when she got hit by a bus. They said it was an accident, but I know it was b/c she was trying to stop civil rights"...

just as a musician goes to school to focus on music, I'd have no problem with an athlete getting an athletics degree - as long as it had the core classes that everyone has to take.

hate to say it but I have UL beating UK in my bracket for tonight

I'd love to be wrong.

I still haven't seen enough (and most of that is because UNC hasn't really come forth with a complete story) that tells me this is more of an indictment on the sham that college athletes (at least in the revenue sports, ie, men's hoops and football) are student-athletes. If UNC was sending its players to classes that didn't even meet and they got As, that's obviously an abuse of a system in which athletes are already given wide breadth to not be held to the same standards (despite all the rhetoric otherwise by admin types).

And I have a problem with Willingham's data since it seems to be purposefully vague, esp. regarding the reading levels of athletes.

My gut is telling me that UNC was not upholding its own standards and that created enough of an opportunity for the traditional opponents of big-time college sports to get leverage to use UNC as an example of what's wrong in college sports when it comes to academics. UNC is a high profile academic institution and runs a big-time athletic dept. and it's had just enough smug self-satisfaction to warrant this type of persecution.

I have no illusions now that UNC has permanently tarnished a reputation that was probably never deserved to begin with. But if the school and athletic program is going to be strung up in the town square of public opinion, I think there should be context to its transgressions. And the Mary Willinghams and Jay Smiths should have unassailable evidence of exactly how deep the rot is and if it's unique to UNC.

And if that happens and the UNC oak falls in the forest, it's going to take down quite a few other oaks as well. That leads me to believe the ones who are pushing this investigation (not the PackPride yahoos who are vengeance-driven or the N&O reporter who is more like the 2 black cops on True Detective in that he's near the truth but still miles away) might not be willing or able to admit this problem goes way beyond Chapel Hill.

Louisville by 6

Louisville 85

Kentucky 79

Florida and Louisville in the title game.....

7 players on the national championship team signing up for no show classes isn't enough evidence?

programs have gone down for much less

eCat wrote:7 players on the national championship team signing up for no show classes isn't enough evidence?

programs have gone down for much less

That's the side of the people who, IMO, haven't been as specific as they need to be. That's an easy assertion to grab onto but they haven't offered proof and the school is saying otherwise. This has a long ways to go but it's already enough for the people who just want to see UNC go down. The hammerers are going to have be hammered as well. There's a lot at stake so I don't expect anyone to just offer up the whole truth on either side.