|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2017 16:47:49 GMT -6
Nationwide about 11 or 12 million females attended college in fall 2016, compared with 9 or 9 1/2 million males. Also not equal, so you're really arguing against yourself at this point. No, I said mostly equal. You argued with that citing Buffalo's demographics and proposing it could be 59% men. 11 1/2 divided by 20 1/2 is about 53%, for example. That is not 56% and in favor of women not men. Since scholarships traditionally favor men by a few percent, based on the argument is made that there is more interest in competing in sports among men, it is actually quite close to equal. |
|
|
|
Post by gocardsgo on Apr 7, 2017 17:35:05 GMT -6
Also not equal, so you're really arguing against yourself at this point. No, I said mostly equal. You argued with that citing Buffalo's demographics and proposing it could be 59% men. 11 1/2 divided by 20 1/2 is about 53%, for example. That is not 56% and in favor of women not men. Since scholarships traditionally favor men by a few percent, based on the argument is made that there is more interest in competing in sports among men, it is actually quite close to equal. I said that the way Title IX is enforced at the collegiate level, Buffalo could conceivably have up to 59% of their scholarships go to men and be considered compliant with that particular prong of Title IX (which by the way, Title IX and its 3-prong test is a lot more complicated than simply counting scholarships). We were discussing Buffalo, and that is why I used their enrollment as an example. Again, Title IX states that the university's # of scholarships must be commensurate with the demographics of that particular university. Thirdly, 11.5/20.5 = 56% not 53% Finally, I have a hard time correlating scholarship #'s with interest, as the student body and athletes (those who would be best suited to determine interest) aren't the ones who allocate scholarship dollars or decide which teams the university would sponsor. Women make up 56% of the college population yet account for less than half of the available scholarships. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 7, 2017 18:00:06 GMT -6
You are correct, that each university may be slightly different. But go back to the thread and the question was general in nature and you correctly enough quibbled with the idea that number of scholarships should be exactly equal, and cited the max case for Buffalo. However the proportion of scholarships is generally approximately equal with some adjustment. Which was my point. OCE would look very critically at cases where that was not true.
BTW the way "interest" is a factor in Title IX refers to interest in participation, not fan interest or a poll by students about which sports are of interest.
This goes back to the idea the university is in the business of serving student needs in education primarily, not in entertainment. So it is not popularity of a sport, or men's sports versus women's sports.
Of course interest in participation is relative to the coaching, facilities and sports offered, so Title IX analysis starts with an assumption of proportionality based on numbers, with some adjustment.
What is more interesting is that In theory dollars would be more equal than the are, but for example the high fan interest in the revenue sports relative to others means you need a different and more costly type of staff for those sports, reflecting the different and greater responsibility of a coach on the business side of the position, fielding press interest for example, and arranging more complicated and costly competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 10, 2017 8:22:26 GMT -6
"Nationwide about 11 or 12 million females attended college in fall 2016, compared with 9 or 9 1/2 million males."
Imagine, for a moment, if this were reversed. We'd be getting daily hair-on-fire freak outs from the media and establishment. As it is, you rarely see any mention of it. Or imagine if male/female incarceration rates were reversed.
Anyway, this whole topic just underlines the ridiculousness of most NCAA sports. Vast sums of other people's money are being spent for the benefit of a few genetically fortunate ones. Meanwhile college costs and debt grow for most.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 10, 2017 11:59:24 GMT -6
We get at least some gain from the spending. The institution not just the individual participant gets some benefit.
We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way, even if it did not go to sports.
And, then there is tradition! As a historical figure yourself, surely you should appreciate keeping alive memory of past glory, even if dubious glory. As sports fan that seems sometimes our principal activity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 12:20:56 GMT -6
"We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way"
Really ? You know, I told the other posters I wasn't going to respond to you any more, But....... So is your comment bigoted, misogynist, or just stupid ? I'd like to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 10, 2017 13:05:39 GMT -6
Spending scholarship money on intellectually genetically favored students makes all sorts of sense because they are the ones most likely to productively utilize the education.
Spending tens of thousands to equip, coach and travel a team like, say, the women's soccer team, so that they can play in front of 20 spectators is simply ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 10, 2017 13:51:55 GMT -6
"We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way" Really ? You know, I told the other posters I wasn't going to respond to you any more, But....... So is your comment bigoted, misogynist, or just stupid ? I'd like to know ? Scholarships generally go to high achievers. Achievement is almost always related to genetic talent and hard work. In the case of merit scholarships, true of athletes, musicians, those with other artistic talents, and those with high academic potential, both are almost always there. Scholarships often reward highly specialized abilities, and are awarded for a wide range of reasons, but almost always involve some native talent and some accomplishments reflecting hard work, don't they? Even those awarded on the basis of need, have accomplished something, if not showing highest talent and highest effort. In the case of doing away with athletic scholarships which surely go to good genes and hard work, the scholarship money might go to financial need, but we aren't going to award that to those with no talent who have not worked to at least some degree. What is your point? I have no idea how my statement could be said to be in any way bigoted, or misogynist, and it is so obviously true, it seems really stupid to object to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 14:02:36 GMT -6
"We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way" Really ? You know, I told the other posters I wasn't going to respond to you any more, But....... So is your comment bigoted, misogynist, or just stupid ? I'd like to know ? Scholarships often reward highly specialized abilities, and are awarded for a wide range of reasons, but almost always involve some native talent and some accomplishments reflecting hard work, don't they? Not according to this "We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way," I am considering whether or not to forward your comment to Jen Bott. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 10, 2017 14:19:44 GMT -6
I am considering whether or not to forward your comment to Jen Bott. Why are you dragging the HotBott into this? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 14:27:10 GMT -6
I am considering whether or not to forward your comment to Jen Bott. Why are you dragging the HotBott into this? 00 is a Prof in the College of Business............. |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 10, 2017 14:29:31 GMT -6
Yeah but I don't it's cool to threaten something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 10, 2017 14:43:12 GMT -6
Scholarships often reward highly specialized abilities, and are awarded for a wide range of reasons, but almost always involve some native talent and some accomplishments reflecting hard work, don't they? Not according to this "We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way," Maybe if you read the whole post you'd understand better. But isn't rewarding native talent of any kind a reward to genetics? Surely it is in some way, just as I said. What is the beef? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2017 15:20:26 GMT -6
Not according to this "We'd spend the scholarship money to the benefit of genetically favored students, in some way," Maybe if you read the whole post you'd understand better. But isn't rewarding native talent of any kind a reward to genetics? Surely it is in some way, just as I said. What is the beef? Nope whole posts and context don't matter. I am only interested in the small sound bite I got. |
|
