Welcome!
Now let's test this thing out!
Here is your first blog post writing assignment:
On the Blog page comments section, answer three of the questions on p31 of the pdf reading I emailed you ("Reading Arguments") -- please put the number of the question from the book next to each of your responses. THEN, respond to at least 2 peers (the questions you comment on must be different from any of the questions you answered yourself). Engage in conversation demonstrating critical thinking about your peers perspective. Inquire, ask questions, go beyond.
Whatever you post, however, please make sure your name is listed somehow -- either within the comment box or as your username (some usernames are not students' real names, which makes it extremely difficult to give you credit if I can't see your FULL NAME).
EXAMPLE:
John Doe
3. response....
6. response...
8. response...
THEN:
John Doe
4. <(because you didn't answer 4 above) Hey classmate, you make a compelling point about.... but, also, I would add to what you said about xyz with..... I would complicate that by..... I wonder if you considered.....
Repeat above 2 more times for 2 other students.
------------
I believe you may need to have a gmail account in order to do this, so if you don't already have one, please sign up for an account. It's quick, easy and fairly painless.
Thanks, and I look forward to reading your "conversations" and seeing you all very soon!
*IMPORTANT: Please be sure you are commenting on the "BLOG" page and NOT the "Home" page.
Ksenia Afonicheva
ReplyDelete2. Jenkins presents numerous sources of evidence to support her claim that athletics should be treated on par with academics. She sites Yale's Theater Studies in paragraph 7 to exemplify how a practicing drama student could be comparable to a student athlete. The given citation is not only from a credible source, but it is relevant to the argument. One fault tends to be, however, that this citation is ambiguous to the point that it can be applied to other subjects, not only athletics. It simply isn't specific enough. She continues to cite similarly the NCAA and an Oregon State professor. Credibility and applicability are not an issue, but the ambiguity is. To truly accept Jenkins's argument, it'd be essential to find evidence that is rather specific.
5. The author's priorities and claims definitely fall off the beaten path in regards to tradition. Athletics have historically not been integrated into an academic field since the beginnings of post-secondary schooling. Jenkins comes off as progressive, and consequently makes assertions that may cause readers to question her reputability. Her outstanding claim by itself might be too much to wrap our heads around. There's a clear bias in her relation towards academics and athletics. Sally Jenkins herself was a senior writer for Sports Illustrated; And furthermore, her father was a hall of fame sportswriter. Her sports experience was sure to predestine her to favor athletics from an young age. Not many of us are subject to that upbringing and consequently we're bound to question her particularly pro-athletic values.
9. Jenkins was able to set up a main argument, claiming that the aims of athletics is largely comparable to the aims of drama students. And yes, although she presents valid statements that prove that the two share likenesses, she fails to acknowledge another argument the reader may have. So, if athletics and drama share so many similarities, how come athletics should be elevated to the ranking of drama? Why not the opposite? Maybe drama should be lowered to the extracurricular level with athletics?
To counter-argue and strengthen her argument, Jenkins could have addressed exactly this, and said that that would cause more trouble in the first place than elevating athletics. She could've elaborated on how downgrading an entire field would be more detrimental than elevating athletics.
Hey Ksenia, while I certainly can see your point as to the large ambiguity of the point presented in paragraph 7, I feel that the author's intention was to make it ambiguous in order to be able to better apply it to a different subject that is not so similar to drama. As stated in your answer for number 9, it was probably done in order to be able to create similarity between both sports and drama so that the reader may see how it may not be fair to hold one over he other. In addition, the lack of a representation of the other side of the argument in her article also leads me to the similar conclusion thatshe definitely had a bias with the matter at hand.
DeleteKsenia, your points are so well put ! I enjoyed reading them. I very much agree with your points in #2 and I would like to add to your criticism by pointing out the completely unique caliber of all of Yale's programs. Claiming what a student receives in Alabama/Tennessee should be the same is like comparing apples and oranges. Alabama and Tennesse are no where near as prestigious as a Ivy League school such as Yale.
DeleteHey Ksenia, I completely agree with your #2 response. I'm glad that you noticed the compare and contrast that Jenkins made in that paragraph. Majors and career choices should not be divided. They all consist of progression to a long time achievement that should be given the utmost respect.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHey Ksenia, I agree with your take on #9, I myself was thinking of her lack of counterargument while reading the article. It seems to me as if she see's her argument and her argument only. The example you came up with.. lowering the level of drama to athletics is a perfect example for a counterargument. I really like the way you put that together.
DeleteHi Ksenia,
DeleteI agree with your statement about #9. I do believe Jenkins made good points with why are the Yale students more worthy, but at the same time I couldn't help but think how different the two were.
Ernesto Villalpando
DeleteHey Ksenia you make a very good point Jenkins did never came up with any counter arguments in her writing. If she had come up with a few counter arguments, like yours about lowering the level in other departments instead of increasing the sports department, maybe her point could have come across stronger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteErnesto Villalpando
DeleteHey Ksenia you make a very good point (#9) Jenkins did never came up with any counter arguments in her writing. If she had come up with a few counter arguments, like yours about lowering the level in other departments instead of increasing the sports department, maybe her point could have come across stronger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLei Hio Long
ReplyDelete3. There are several of them in Jenkin’s argument. The main one is that she claimed that sport should be upgraded to the same level as the other major did. She assumed that sport is under-valued by most of people and institute. However, the truth is most of the colleges and universities do pay a lot of attention to the sport. Sport is
not as undervalued as she thought.
6. There will be several major coming up by the name of sport. Sport major will be more academic. Students majoring in the sport will have a lecture in the classroom as the other major class did. A lot of students will graduate in sport major, which allow them to get into pro league of their field easier. However, like what happen in Art and music major, there might be students who choose sport major just because they are not qualified into economic or computer science major. Like what happen in Art and music major.
7. Parent of the students who are trying to major in sport might disagree with this argument. It is because the academic proportion of sports major is way less than the others majors such as business and engineering, even if Jenkin proposed to add several textbooks into sport major. The career life of an athlete is relatively short compared to an accountant or an engineer. What can they do for a living if they retired at age of 40? A major in sport are not easy for them to find a job which can get them to live. Therefore, parent of them might disagree with Jenkin’s argument.
Ksenia Afonicheva
DeleteHey Ben. I'll agree with you on number seven, but I'd like to elaborate on the notion of athletics being such a short-lived career. I think Jenkins's argument could've been strengthened if she noted that a drama student's career was just as short-lived and limited. Performers seldom stay popular for an extended amount of time, and those that do make up a fraction of the population, (similar to athletes). Their careers tend to last only while they are of a specific age and of a specific physical state. This brings me to a question I mentioned in my response to number 9: "If athletics and drama share so many similarities, how come athletics should be elevated to the ranking of drama?.. Maybe drama should be lowered to the extracurricular level with athletics?"
I could definitely see select parents disapproving of their child's decision to pursue sports as their major because it simply isn't a promising field of work.
Hi Ben, I will agree with you on #6 when you said that students may choose majoring in a sport because they fell like they aren't qualified to progress in an economic or engineering major. This is a believable point because it happens today with students attending college just for the sake of it and majoring in "easy" subjects because they feel like they do not meet the standards. This leads me to think that if sports were a legit major in todays society how many students would make it out to be successful?
DeleteGreetings Ben, You raise a very interesting point in #6. How economically viable is majoring in sports when their dreams of getting into the major leagues don't pan out? How does this also affect the one-and-done rule of major sports leagues like the National Basketball Association? What about the students who would like to join the curriculum but don't have a background in athletics?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteErnesto Villalpando
DeleteHey Ben you make an compelling point (#7) with the parents of the students being against the notion of developing a sports major. The life span of a professional athlete is not long at all especially if its a contact sport. There are many variables to put into the equation why a career in sports is short lived. And who knows may be for that unfortunate former NFL with the torn ACL may regret on only focusing his time in becoming a sports major and having nothing to fall back on.
1. The key terms in Jenkins’ article are left more to the imagination of the readers rather than explained outright. When she states her solution to the problem in treating athletic departments as “legitimate academic branches”, she doesn’t exactly tell us what she means by “academic” in that certain instance. While she does not define her meaning of the word academic, we can infer what she meant from later on in the text, when she states that “…athletes study a craft with a science, theory, history, and literature, just like music or dance or film majors…” By reading this, we can infer that she meant that athletics should be treated more as a major educational course at a university, rather than just recreational department much like other performing arts majors. This leads to her use of the words “less worthy” when comparing an Alabama football player to a Yale drama student. Due to the fact that she does not believe that sports are given the same academic weight as drama in universities, that it implies that a passion for sports does not currently have any academic applications as a passion for any other performing art.
ReplyDelete4. From what I gathered from the text, Jenkins’ perspective and tone stays in line with what her main idea is up until the end. While I understand that she is merely stating a fallacy in her conclusion when she says “that despite all that money [college sports] are worthless,”, I must point out that the fact that that point is absolute is what makes it a fallacy in her point itself. While it is true that college sports are currently used to profit off of students without giving them the dignity of saying it’s worth something applicable to where they want to be in life, the fact of the matter is that it is a lack of recognition that sports have worth, rather than concluding they have no worth at all. From what I know, college athletes would not choose to play a sport if they themselves did not enjoy it, much like a person who would not choose to act if they themselves did not enjoy it. There is a certain joy one gets from doing what they love, which can certainly be applied to this. Now while I realize that this may not be the case with everyone who plays a sport, it certainly seems like the likely one.
8. While there seems to be no real input from the other side of the argument, I feel that the opposing views are addressed. However, it is addressed in such a way that would eliminate any relation to the original argument. This is through the use of a fallacy in paragraph 15 of her article. “…any resistance to this idea begs the question, ‘Then why have sports on campus at all?’” To say that sports not having any academic value justifies the removal of them is farfetched at best. This is mainly because while some people may not view sports as educational, they may probably see them as recreational with some sort of college application. To remove them from college campuses would just further the gap between sports and academic recognition. While the NCAA may not be doing much in the way of integrating college sports academically, the basis of it is still there.
Hi Marvin. I'm not entirely sure I understand your answer for number four. I, for one, do not think that stating the fallacy is hurting her own argument in any way. It shows how one-sided the opposing belief is in regards to her claim; this only strengthens the argument. I'll also disagree on the fact that students accept college scholarships because it is their true passion. I know of plenty of student athletes that have solely monetary motivation to stay in the sport. The sport is not their incentive to be in school. The sport is instead a way to sneak into the academic setting of their dreams. Regardless, the main point being is that I fail to spot a particular situation where Jenkins contradicted her own argument. Perhaps the only contradiction to her writing is her very one-sided style of writing. Her failure to give value to the current situation we have, contrary to popular belief, weakens her credibility because she's especially inclined to only her opinion. Her one-sided style of writing ironically parallels her exact criticism of how strict the rule with athletics is against integrating it as a subject.
DeleteMarvin, I agree with you on #8 with the fact that there really isn't any input from the side of the argument. It was really interesting that you brought up the fact that removing sports would further gap between sports and academics because Jenkin's whole argument is focused on bringing the two together.
Delete3. The assumption that "students would pay more attention if they did not have Internet distractions" supports the false idea that when presented with an opportunity to use the web in a lecture/ class setting, students will be more inclined to pay less attention to the class than if they did not have online access. This claim only recognizes the internet as useless and non-beneficial to a student's educational environment within a lecture hall setting, which could be easily countered by offering the perspective of a student who utilizes the web to think and learn more efficiently by using it to gather notes, do more intensive research, factcheck, pose questions, clarify details and other tasks in such a circumstance. It would be easy to point to many situations where the internet has been integrated into students learning environments to facilitate a higher capacity to learn. Jenkins comparison of college athletes and musicians is another assumption that denies a well rounded perspective of the claim being made. Are those in college pursuing professional sport comparable to those studying music at the university level in this circumstance? According to Jenkins yes, but the drastically different nature of these areas of study should be clarified and not made out to be so similar.
ReplyDelete7. Jenkins argument that college athletes should receive more academic privilege and be exposed to more "sport" oriented curriculums is well put and justified with good reasoning, but I think it is easy to write off her argument due to the celebrity and privilege already experienced by man college athletes. She makes college athletes out to be underprivileged and taken advantage of by universities, but is this truly the case? Is the fame, celebrity, idolization, scholarship money, and exposure not enough for these young athletes? Jenkins also points to the need for universities to treat athletic departments like "legitimate athletic departments". Are many colleges not already offering sport oriented degrees in medicine, business and journalism? What Jenkins is supposing should be put in place is in fact already very much part of the university system nationwide.
8. Jenkins begs the question "Why is an Alabama football player of Tennesse women's basketball player less worthy than a Yale drama student?" At first glance, this would be a convincing point to most readers, but is this a logical point? Well, if one considered the prestige of the colleges mentioned they would most likely note that Yale is a far more notable institution than Alabama or Tennessee. If Jenkins is going to attempt to draw conclusions by comparing the worth of a student from different schools, perhaps she should compare more comparable schools. A film student at USC in contrast to a Bruins footballer would be far more convincing.
Hey Charlie, I can definitely agree with your #8 response. I do feel that Jenkins claim could've came across a lot more stronger if she was to compare students from different schools, yet different schools of the same level of academic reputation and praise.
DeleteCharlie, I really liked the way you challenged the author's perspective of athletes being underprivileged. With all the exposure a college athlete gets, do they really NEED more academic privilege?
Delete7. Hello Charlie. I can agree with your answer to this question and I like the way you questioned what Jenkins had to say. But I disagree with you when you say all the fame and glory of college athletes should be enough for them. Is that what it is all about?
Delete5. What I think of Jenkins' ethics and values is that she shares very true points and has excellent sources to support her claims. She compared sports to theater majors. In paragraph 8, "Yale drama undergraduates don't get a cut of the box office-their recompense is first rate training for the stage...They're privileged." In a way she is saying that sports should be as appreciated as drama is.
ReplyDelete7. If someone was to go against the argument, they might feel as if sport is underrated. Or even considerate a hobby. Something to pass the time and receive leeway into colleges. If you was the question that person about players in the NFL or NBA, their first thought might consider those careers as a "struck of luck".
9. I honestly cannot think of anything the author had missed or could've add on to her argument. She had a appropriate amount of sources and claims. Jenkins did not give too much information nor did she give too little.
Hi, Teonna, for #9, there are actually some of them in Jenkin's argument. In paragraph 7, the view of Yale Drama professor, Toni Dorfman, Professor Dorfman only said sport can be same as drama IF they studying sport like drama did. However, like the note in the argument, they have to studying it, not playing it. Jenkin should put more effort on this point to strength her argument.
DeleteLei Hio Long
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSolana Murray
ReplyDelete2. In this article, Jenkins does support her reasons with evidence. She uses multiple quotes that are cited from organizations such as the NCAA and also academic professors. Her evidence is specific, credible, and relevant because she made sure to mention where she got her quotes from and she also used them specifically to each of the reasons she wrote. Maybe when Jenkins mentioned how Yale students are privileged and not exploited she could use more evidence to back that up. I would need to know more facts to accept the reasons because some writers have a tendency to switch stories or ideas up without evidence to back what they state.
5. I think Jenkins ethics are not skewed because she believes that athletes educations are more important than collecting revenue for their schools. She believes that a college athlete is playing their sport and are not good enough for the pros that they will be stuck with a mediocre education and will not have anything to fall back on. Many athletes are more focused on the sport than education and she says that making it a major will get them more in tuned with what is important. Although playing the sport is what they are passionate about not everyone will make it and that is just the reality. So having the sport as a major may get the athletes to focus a lot more on the education side so they will not be stuck if they do not make it to the pros.
6. In considering the author's argument and seeing if people agree to have sports classified as majors it would not be too bad. If the sport was the major they would not be only learning about the history of whatever sport they play but taking other core classes. I believe that Jenkins intended it to be a major that you can actually use in the real world because some college athletes nowadays take majors that usually do not require as much work and are easy to pass by. Having a major in a sport would give athletes the education they deserve even if they are on a full-ride scholarship. All in all they are increasing the schools revenue and the school is paying them back with nothing to fall back on when they graduate.
Hi, Solana, for #2, I agree that she give plenty of evidences. However, most of them only show the views of the experts, but the useful information about how sport is "look down" by or how can we get through the situation she said. She did have a good amount of supporting points and evidences, but I would say we need more of them.
DeleteLei Hio Long
While I don't agree with the fact that her ethics/views aren't skewed, I can most certainly agree with the idea that focusing on college sports can most certainly leave them with nothing to fall back on. There have been plenty of incidents in which a promising athlete has been injured to the point of not being able to play their sport, which in turn has left them at a least desirable job afterwards. A problem that could be remedied by the creation of an academic sports major.
Delete"Having a major in a sport would give athletes the education they deserve even if they are on a full-ride scholarship."
DeleteYes, athletes today nowadays take majors that usually do not require as much work and are easy to pass but would the proposed curriculum actually be rigorous? Would taking this degree make you more competitive in the job market in case that your dreams don't pan out?
Hi Solana, on #5 I agree with what you're saying in how it could help more people out who aren't going for the "normal" major. I think that if there is the opportunity for people to major in sport that it could possibly open more doors for people.
DeleteRandy Cabral
ReplyDelete1. The key terms used by Jenkins are definitely implicit throughout her article, which leaves readers responsible for solving the meanings. In paragraph 7, when Jenkins says "less worthy," she is comparing sports to an academic class. She believes that sports should be on par with drama or art, and should be treated as a serious educational course rather than a way for the college to gain profit through box office sales. Jenkins wants sports to be treated as an academic branch because she believes that athletes should have the opportunity to pursue their passion as a business and an art. Having sports as a major with the appropriate courses could prepare athletes with a back up option if they do not enter the professional level. Athletes would be able to still find a career they are interested in, involving sports.
2. Jenkins uses multiple sources of evidence to support her claim that sports should be treated as an academic course comparable to a drama or art course. She reaches out and emails Toni Dorfman, the director of the Yale Theater Studies program, and cites him within her article, "The theory and practice of sport are are certainly as ancient as those of theater." Both Jenkins and Dorfman agree that sports is just as important as drama is. This is a highly credible source, and it is also relevant to the argument she is creating.
9. Jenkins is able to make the argument that sports should be a legitimate academic branch and supports her claim with multiple credible sources. But she overlooked the fact that this situation can be made for other subjects. For example, what if subject X or subject Y are just as important as athletics? Would these subjects be brought down to the same level as sports or would they be elevated to the same prestige as an academic course? If Jenkins was able to include this into her article, it might have strengthened her argument.
9. Hello Randy. You bring a good point in mentioning the fact that other subjects should be brought up and where they would be ranked. But I am confused when you say "brought 'down' to the same level as sports'. Did you mean sports are not that important?
DeleteI completely agree with you on question number 2 Randy. I also liked how you focused on Jenkins and Dorfmans statement that Sports although are just as ancient as those of theater, both should be ranked equally.
Deletefor question 1, I agree that they should have a back-up plan in case sports doesn't become their profession. However, i disagree that sports, or any of Jenkin's proposed classes, should be a major on it's own. There already exist majors related to and surrounding the sports world besides playing, and there are ways of getting there already in place. One of her classes was even a sports law class, which would not prepare them to fall back on a nice job as a lawyer, only prepare athletes to better realize they're able to sue the league for things they should expect, like concussions.
DeleteAmerika Gillett
ReplyDelete1. The key terms in Jenkins article in my opinion are vague but to a certain point where the reader can still understand what is meant through further reading. For example when she states that the NCAA should instead treat athletic departments as "legitimate academic branches" it is unclear what is meant by "academic". Without further reading one can infer multiple meanings for the word academic;however, if you continue to the next two following sentences one can see that what Jenkins really meant is that sports should be treated at the same academic level as an art major. Her reasoning for this is because "High-performance athletes study a craft, with a science, theory, history and literature, just like music or dance or film majors do". This idea bring us to paragraph 7 where Jenkins compares a "less worthy" Alabama football player and a Tennessee women's basketball player to a Yale drama student. After reading this paragraph several times I have come to a couple of ideas. 1. I think she hit the ball a bit too far out of the park by comparing schools that are not on the same level of education.. Yale an IVY league to Alabama/Tennessee regular universities. 2. It is clear and safe to say that she believes these two majors should be treated the same because of her strong belief that athletes should be given equal opportunity to pursue a career in what they love just as an art major is allowed to do.
2. Jenkins uses countless sources of evidence to support her claim that athletics should be held at the same level as academics. She has evidence varying from the NCAA to professors at different universities. These sources are relevant and definitely support her claims which cause her to be credible for what she is trying to convince her readers of.
5. From the jump it is easy to see that there is a clear bias in her claim of athletics being leveled with academics. Jenkins is firm about her beliefs throughout her entire argument which can cause one to think that she is unable to see any other side of the argument.
Greetings Amerika, sure there is evidence presented but do all of them really back her claim? In paragraph 8, she makes a claim that by changing the way we think about college sports, we'll stop worrying about "exploiting" athletes and whether to pay them anymore. She uses Yale drama students who don't get monetary compensation for their craft because they get first-rate stage training but their performances don't have the same gravity as the billions in revenue that the NCAA generates. Should student athletes feel privileged as well with the "athletics curriculum" that they'll be receiving for the billions of dollars that they're generating for the NCAA?
DeleteDiego Carlos
ReplyDelete2. In paragraph 13, Jenkins makes an assertion that athletes are viewed as academically illegitimate. That they are looked down on as vocational students. This is used as evidence for the current perception on the student athlete and that this must be rectified with his proposed solution (academic branch for athletics). How will making an academic branch for athletics correlate to changing the current perception of them as being academically illegitimate? How are vocational students looked down as academically illegitimate in the first place? No evidence of this claim is presented.
8. In paragraph 9, Jenkins constructs a straw man of college presidents viewing athletics as "trivial". That it's entertainment that merely exists to please donors. An evidence to support this claim is presented. That in 2004, the NCAA president learned that some schools gave athletes limited academic credits for varsity participation. In paragraph 10, she proceeds to tear down this straw man by elaborating on the virtues of the student athlete, that they create beautiful performances. The problem with these two paragraphs is that the assertion (athletics is viewed as trivial) is too ambiguous. Yes, athletes create beautiful performances but how does this make them more significant (less trivial)?
9. Jenkins left out how the current academic and athletic life of student athletes would change. It is important to know how much time current student athletes spend in the classroom and in practice and how all of this would change with the proposal of making an athletics academic curriculum. Jenkins also neglects how this would affect student athletes in lower division colleges/universities and student athletes in less commercially lucrative sports. Depending on how the author presents these subsets of student athletes that would be affected by her proposed change, it could either strengthen or weaken her argument.
Isis Casillas
ReplyDelete1. Jenkins refers to Alabama football players and Tennessee women's basketball players as "less worthy" than a Yale drama student because in the eyes of society, if one studies at a "good" school, then no matter what you do is extremely valuable. However, if you are from a school that is not as well known for its academics such as Yale, you and/or you're education is not seen as something as important or as valuable as that of Yale student. In Jenkins's eyes, academics can be just as valuable as sports, which was why she emailed the director of the Yale Studies program.
3. The assumption being made is indeed a safe one. Mainly because it goes to show that the reason and claim being given are well connected to it and because with the assumption, a discussion can be carried on more in depth than if it was not given. If it had not been given, then the readers would make their own assumptions and there is a possibility that they are completely different than what the author really meant.
7. Someone who is on the opposing side of Jenkins may stand on that position because they hold contrasting opinions based on their own experiences. For instance, if someone who has always been a proficient student when it comes to academics instead of sports, then they will disagree with Jenkins because most of their life, they were used to focusing more on their grades than being athletic and therefore, hold no interest or curiosity in the idea of sticking to a sport as a career.
to respond to question seven, i feel like what people don't realize is that there are tons of sports related degrees already, and the only people telling anyone they can't get a good degree while playing sports to get drafted is Jenkins. You're painting a very stereotyped picture of good students. Sports takes a lot of thinking, with a working body to back it up, so a good student gets good grades, while a great student gets good grades and plays sports.
DeleteJesse Brodeur
ReplyDelete1. Jenkins presents many supporting sources of evidence to back up her belief that sports should be treated as if an aademi ourse. Jenkins lists supporting evidence from the NCAA, to her father and universities around. I personally liked how Jenkins states that on page 26 "the NCAA should stop treating athletic departments as ticket offices attatched to universities like tumors and instead treat them as legitimate academic branches". I too, support and agree with Jenkins on this matter simply because I was a high school athlete. Perhaps if sports were higher on the academic list i'd be elsewhere.
5.Jenkins ethics and values towards sports bring treated as equals regarding academics are valid and agreeable, especially for those whom were athletes once. I also agree with Jenkins when on top of page 22 Jenkins states that "Yale drama undergrads don't get a cut of the box office--their recompense is first-rate training for the stage. They are not exploited, they're privileged".
9.Although Jenkins makes her argument clear, due to her tunnel-vision by her own thoughts of this. Their are plenty of elective academic courses which would surely follow through with Jenkins and her push for sports to be integrated as academic importance.
Mariko Pearce
ReplyDelete1. When Jenkins is comparing the Football play from Alabama and the basketball player from Tennessee to a Yale drama student she says why are the less worthy. She is comparing the two in saying how can someone majoring in drama have higher expectations than someone playing a sport and possibly trying to make a career out of it. Jenkins defines academic by the knowledge you have in your field of choice, not just the basics.
2. I believe Jenkins had some good claims and some good evidence to back it up with. She is able to show the reader perspectives from former players, NCAA members, and from professors. I believe her sources to be credible and relevant to what she is trying to get across to her readers.
6. I think that if Jenkins claims become reality and sports end up having a major that maybe more people would consider higher education. I think it would lead to people having sport based classes just like every other class rather than just on the field. I think it could potentially open more doors for some people.
Marcos Sanchez
Delete2. I agree, Jenkins does have a good claim and also uses persuasive evidence. She definitely gets her point across by using facts and athletes experiences. As well as history. Something i'd like to point out is that i'm dubious some of the evidence being credible.
Isabel Gutierrez
ReplyDelete3. There are indeed several assumptions in Jenkins's argument. The one that stands out to me the most is regarding the successful implementation of sports as a college major. Claim : college sports should be integrated into the rest of the university by recognizing their value as a college major. Reason : the resulting shift in the perspective at which sports are held would put an end to corruption and scandals in college athletics. Assumption : college athletes would be willing and interested in pursuing their sport as an academic field of study. Her goal of elevating the outlook on sports depends on the assumption that athletes will help improve that outlook by engaging in sports not only as an extracurricular activity, but as their academic major. For many college athletes, this may not be the case. Her assumption is not a safe one to make.
5. The author has moral values, shown by her motivation to address the opportunistic interests associated with college athletics. Being a sports commentator, she obviously has pro-athletic values. But rather than viewing sports merely as a means of entertainment, she suggests a way in which they'd be more beneficial to the athletes themselves. Her priorities are the athletes and the righteousness of college athletics.
9. Jenkins makes strong and well-supported claims. To strengthen her argument, I would suggest that she points out professional athletes' lack of an educational degree. Since their athletic ability drives their career, it is the sole thing they work to improve throughout their lives. Being a professional athlete is indeed a short lived career. Majoring in sports would give them a resource to fall back on once they've reached an age that impedes them from performing physically.
Joseph Sepulveda
ReplyDelete1) In the matter of Jenkins argument when she responds to a saying that a student involved in athletics to being "less worthy", compared to a student in a Theatre Study course, i believe she means that in retro-spec the two are very similar and one shouldn't be deemed less than the other. Especially when it comparison academics are deemed to be based on "complex cultural practices, and combined practical training of theory and history" for simple matter that in itself sports in general are, "complex cultural practices with body knowledge, history, and theory". Just as would musicians, actors, and doctors for the matter share the same idea just on a different subject and way of learning.
5) I believe that Jenkins ideals on the matter are very accurate. That a athletes education should be prioritized, rather that the revenue they are gaining from them. To be in any athletic department should be not be only considered a skill acquired by hard work, commitment, and in some cases genetically superior, but as well as an privileged earned in an academic field, and not solely what a particular athlete can offer a school for their own financial benifits.
7) In the sense of essentially disagreeing with the author and putting yourself in another's shoes i can see how her argument could cause distress amongst some. For the matter that some are not physically inclined to perform certain feats that others can, but in versa to them they can contribute more on an intellectual level that they deem more important than being able to run 100 yards in a matter of seconds. Especially in the matter of universities only being able to accept a set amount of students, and to them may feel unfair that even though throughout their educational career they have committed more intensely into their academics than some athletes, only to be denied for the matter than someone else was more physically skilled, rather than a more educated mind.
Ernesto Villalpando
ReplyDelete2) Jenkins tries to get her message across with valid reasons in which are being supported with specific and credible sources. For example, Jenkins stated that she emailed the director of the Yale Theater Studies for her own opinion between the contrast of athletes and drama student because it is safe to say that some sports are older or just as old as some genres of theater.
3) The assumption that students would pay more attention to lectures if wi-fi was not provided in lecture halls is a false assumption. How I look at the claim that wi-fi should be turned off in lecture halls is a form of control in a way. This way the students have no choice but to accept the idea that the professor is spreading. We as students are to think critically not just be expected to have the same mind set of the professor lecturing. We as students are meant to question the ideas we are learning and without the internet how are we to full fill our role as students if we are not able to look up if the facts the professor is explaining are true. We need to have the right to question and make up our own minds whether or not we accept an idea to be correct. Yes it is true that laptops may give students more distractions than there needs to be but the primary reason the students are at the lecture hall is to hear the lecture. It is up to the student to either pay attention or not, but at the end of the day the only person who is affected will be the individual student.
6) Jenkins is exploring the idea that universities should allow students to be able to major in sports, I see this a great opportunity for those students who are passionate about sports and dedicate long days in improving their game. But on the other hand I believe that doing so will increase the competition in the athletics department. Jenkins keeps comparing and contrasting athletes and musicians throughout her paper. Every music major whether they are aspiring singers, DJs or musicians they all know how incredibly competitive their goals will be. A music major knows that they have to be 100% dedicated to their craft because thats the only way they will make it, when in reality only a small fraction of them will actually reach their goal, even if they are truly gifted. I mean no offense to music majors and no means to discourage you in any way or form. I believe if sports were to become a major that competition would sky rocket. After the NCAA, there are few higher statures, whether the individual goes pro or goes to a different country to play just to pursue their passion, but there are already many devoted souls in the world whose dreams were crushed from not be drafted into the next level. And if they dedicated their life to only one goal, what will they be left with afterwards?
To respond to question two, while it's hard to deny the credibility of a Yale professor, the problem with your example is that this professor has no relevance to sports whatsoever. Her opinion is irrelevant to the conversation, except to back up the author's earlier comparison between theater students and student athletes. While i agree with them both being age old human practices, I do not agree that a degree in sports will be as useful as a degree in acting in the real world, which should be the purpose of going to college aside from hoping to be drafted.
Delete7. Hi Teonna. Although I agree that some people regard sports as mere pastimes, I also believe that this is the sort of thinking the author wishes to change. She claims that establishing sports as a major will not only end corruption in collegiate athletics, but also give sports the value they deserve to have, in par with other practices like music or theater.
ReplyDelete2. Hi Mariko. Jenkins does make some strong points that strike to me as very convincing. However, I think she could've used more evidence to support all the opinionated claims and assumptions she made. Statistical evidence, for example, could have been more effective in supporting her claims than dogmatic writing.
Rebeca Avalos
ReplyDelete1.According to Jenkin athletes deserve a certain amount of academics to be credited because of there intense heavy hours of practice and training. Introducing Sports Law can acknowledge a player or anyone about recent cases that might have caused quiet a scandal. The Origin of sports would take you to the past to address the full history. Therefore adding these curriculum would help educated our world for all sports lovers.
2.The assumption that collage students will pay more attention in there classes without internet accesses can be better for their minds to memorize exactly what they are doing. Although having the internet access can quickly bring up any data you need at that very moment. Without internet we wont be able to rely on our phones or laptops it would require more time to study and perhaps increase the percentage of graduates.
5.I Agree with the Jenkins plan to expand the athletics department with more education classes about what many people might be interested in. Having an education background in sports can open many doors for many people.Weather its knowing the origin of the sport or the ethics in sports.
Marcos Sanchez
Delete2. I agree with you that having internet access can benefit the students when they are searching up information. I would also like to add that not only would it benefit students but teachers as well. Also no internet means no Instagram or Facebook and more study time with no distractions.
Oliver Day
ReplyDelete4) Jenkins' arguments tend to stay fairly consistent with what the issue is and how her view of this athletic crisis is similar to other college corruptions, however it isn't up until the ending of her entry that she begins to contradict herself and her main point. And although I do recognize that she is speaking in behalf of a common disbelief towards the end, when she ironically states that “College sports are salvageable," I suppose it is of essence to emphasize that it is that sort of acknowledgement that makes it a fallacy in the first place and that using such patho-like statements can come off as redundant, unprofessional, and even confusing in attempting to persuade an audience.
6) I recognize that, although at some point can be very confusing and misleading, Jenkins' main point was to bring attention to the injustices of athletes being "used" to bring profit to schools without receiving even a diploma in return and proposing that, changing this, would both be of the benefit to the athlete and the school itself. I do agree with Jenkins' in that, by providing the athletes with credibility and a diploma, those whom decide to proceed in athletics, after graduating, may bring positive attention to the school and their track record while also supporting the students future by providing experience, expertise, and a background in schooling to future employers.
7) Although I personally agree with Jenkins' that athletes whom are pursuing a career in sports, after graduating college, should receive a certificate/diploma in their specified field, I can also see why some may disagree with this. Now, to start off, there are lots of reasons to *not* do something, especially within such a broad subject. Some may argue that a major in sports would over populate the already limited jobs in the sports fields - for example - if everyone whom played football, then took the corresponding as a major, expected a job in the big leagues, the high demand can become more overwhelming than it already is and those whom pursue such a career and are denied, because of the very limited spots, will have a very small choice of what they can do with such a major and to which, I also agree.
Marcos Sanchez
ReplyDelete2. Jenkins does support her argument with facts. Jenkins states “High-performance athletes study a craft, with science, theory, history and literature, just like music or dance or film majors do” (para 2). This is specific evident that fully supports Jenkins argument, sports are just as qualified to be a major just like film or music. They have a special history just like other majors do.
3. The assumption that student would pay more attention by turning off the Wi-Fi during lecture halls is a false assumption. Why? Students always have something to distract them. Let’s consider that the school does turn off the Wi-Fi during lecture the majority of students have a cellphone these days with hotspot so they can potentially connect their laptop to the internet or just use their cellphones to get access to the web. Even a funny story that one of your fellow classmate might have heard could distract the students. The only way I see that students would pay more attention is if the students wanted to pay attention it’s their responsibility and their education they have to own up to that responsibility.
9. Jenkins makes a strong case on makings athletics a college major. Something that she overlooked is that even though the athletic students could major in basketball let’s say, that student might not even get a job where it involves his major, just like an English major might not go to be a great English teacher. She can strengthen her argument by including the biggest flaws in the athletes which is a lack of mental education. An athlete has to be physically active, if he ever wants to make it professionally or at least play good the athlete is going to practice more instead of studying a math book.
Isaac Lee
ReplyDelete3. The author seems to assume quite a few things about Americans and their attitudes towards sports. First she assumes we are half ashamed of college sports in the first 10 words, which is odd considering the amount of profit the business makes from those shamed individuals. She then begs the question of why a Yale drama student is more worthy than a college athlete, which assumes that society attributes value to either of those things, let alone one more than the other. She then makes an assumption about the number of University principals who approve of sports, calling their hatred for the "evil" sports a secret, thereby destroying the point she had just made. The last and weirdest assumption isn't made by her, but Oriard, when she states "Oriard observes that athletes devote as much time to their craft as a student violinist." Now whether she grossly misquoted him or he actually thinks that, I don't know. But the assumption being made here is that the learning curve and skill ceiling of these two "crafts" are the same. Unfortunately, they aren't, and even if they were i doubt Oriard spent equal time observing both crafts with equal understanding of how well the time was devoted.
5. I believe Jenkin's heart is in the right place, but she is only seeing this scenario from what seems like a concerned parent point of view. From the player's point of view, he is either going to the pros, or he wants a good fall back job. I really can't believe that anyone who wanted to go pro would really settle for a sideline job, and even if the practice time takes away from a students ability to get a high paying degree, that was part of the risk they signed up for when they decided they wanted to play sports for the rest of their lives. They could just as easily go towards a decent paying degree at a slower pace while playing sports and trying to get drafted (the entire point of college football).
6. If Institutions of higher education offered more diverse sports centered degrees (besides the sports marketing and management degrees offered at lots of schools that Jenkins doesn't mention), I think it would result in people getting into these degree programs, then being discouraged by not getting on the sports team. The reason people assume people going to college for the sole purpose of being on the sports team are less academically inclined is because they do not have a guaranteed future. By committing to an academic degree and excelling in a sport, the student athlete is going above and beyond in his time at school, and their potential reward is going professional in their sport. If that doesn't work out, at least they have a decent degree, rather than a degree in a supporting role of the sport they wish they could be playing. Making "sports" a degree without any words after it will just waste the money of students who don't really have what it takes to go pro.