Article in today's Wall Street Journal (11/29/12).
online.wsj.com/.../SB10001424127887324352004578137330732319310.html
Read some of the comments if you have time.
I find this article hilarious, because last Saturday, on 11/24/12 I was swimmming and shared a lane with a guy wearing a UCLA swim brief. What was hilarious was that I out swam this guy. I continously lapped him, as well continuing to swim after he got out of the pool. I asked him if he was done with his workout and he stated yes. I semi-scolded him for only swimming a 2000 to my 3000. He shook his head, laughed, and walked away. He did one length of a Butterfly, and all the rest was Freestyle. I expect UCLA athletes to be in much better shape than I, especially in a pool.
Last evening the Masters Coach at CSULB invited me to join them in their Christmas/Holiday swim, 100 x 100 on 12/22/12. She thinks I can handle it. I am taking her up on the offer to see how well a non-coached swimmer can do against coached swimmers. This is gonna be fun.
This is the part of the article that I found strange:
A University of Chicago spokeswoman says the changes to the physical education requirements were intended to give students more choice in how they exercise. Colgate University sank its swim requirement in 2005 with a bit more of a splash, after a faculty committee called it "arbitrary and indefensible."
Granted, who knows how accurate the quote is, but I don't understand what the swim test has to do with how people choose to exercise. And I don't see how it could be said that it's "arbitrary and indefensible" that people should be required to know how to swim.
And I agree with the comments that the swim class option should be free or an extremely low cost. Because that's what the point of the test is, to get people to learn how to swim. Rightly or wrongly, some people will be upset that they have to take the class. There's no need to give them another issue (cost) to get angry about, because that's just going to make it harder to achieve the goal of getting them able to swim.
This is the part of the article that I found strange:
A University of Chicago spokeswoman says the changes to the physical education requirements were intended to give students more choice in how they exercise. Colgate University sank its swim requirement in 2005 with a bit more of a splash, after a faculty committee called it "arbitrary and indefensible."
Granted, who knows how accurate the quote is, but I don't understand what the swim test has to do with how people choose to exercise. And I don't see how it could be said that it's "arbitrary and indefensible" that people should be required to know how to swim.
And I agree with the comments that the swim class option should be free or an extremely low cost. Because that's what the point of the test is, to get people to learn how to swim. Rightly or wrongly, some people will be upset that they have to take the class. There's no need to give them another issue (cost) to get angry about, because that's just going to make it harder to achieve the goal of getting them able to swim.
