There has been a lot of discussion since Athens about foreign swimmers training in the United States. Most of them attend U.S. Universities, receive athletic scholarships, and compete at NCAA's. Some notable examples include Duje Draganja (Cal), Fred Bousquet and Kirsty Coventry (Auburn), Markus Rogan (Stanford), and the South African sprinters (Arizona). Some train in the U.S., but don't compete for a university (Inge de Bruijn). All of these athletes benefit from U.S. coaching, from training with U.S. swimmers, and in some cases, from financial support provided by U.S. entities (athletic scholarships). They all turn around and then win medals for other countries.
A couple questions: 1) What do you think about this arrangement generally? 2) Is it of benefit or detriment to U.S. swimming to have these foreign athletes training and competing here? 3) Should we be giving athletic scholarships, which are a scarce resource in swimming, to foreign athletes who will represent their own countries internationally instead of U.S.-born swimmers who will represent us internationally?
I'm sure there are other issues, but these come directly to mind.
Former Member
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
Also google Alexander Tyler.
some_girl - You lost me on the genocide part. Views that were once popular are not seen in the same light today. Hind sight is always 20/20 and it's not for us to pass judgement. They obviously did something right as we are the only remaining super power. Swimmers from all over the world come here to train and we have been a swimming power house for quite some time. ( Have to somehow tie swimming in here. ) And how we treat our people in this country is substantially better than many countries even in today's terms. Some places in the world, women still do not have many rights and China is killing thousands of its people due to the waste from industrialization.
Originally posted by some_girl
Pool_monkey, if you think people are poor because they won't work, I'd look at _The Working Poor: Invisible in America_ and _Nickel and Dimed_. Laziness isn't the problem.
some_girl: I'll look at the book. Thanks. But we used to give gifts to some of the poor of our community and one year we gave to a family with a young man in his twenties, who didn't work because he didn't want to. He was satisfied with the amount of aid he received from the government, plus what we suspected to be some not so legal side activities, but we were very upset that we were giving food and Christmas presents to this family, because this man did not want to work and provide for his family. Years ago, I worked with people who didn't care if they got fired, so they could get back on unemployment. And a number of people keep their hours down, so they get additional benefits from the government. I cannot condone the activities of these people that take advantage of the system.
To me some foreign swimmers fall into this same category. It is unacceptable for a person to have their way paid for by their country and receive scholarships from our institutions. To those that are paying their own way, they should have access to some swimming scholarships.
My history is fuzy, but I believe the founding fathers were against taxation without representation and big government, not necessary taxes themselves, but I could be wrong.
Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Again, invite all the foreigners over to train you want. Just don't have US colleges pay their way.
John Smith
There has yet to be a single compelling argument for why we should not give foreign students a scholarship or two. First, it's part of the process of higher education to be exposed to different people. Secondly, and most importantly, it gives us a competitive advantage, not just in sports but also academics and business, to train and study with the best. I guess if your intent is to have US kids not compete against the best, you are definitely on the right track. Personally, if I hire a college grad, I'm assuming they had a broad exposure and are ready to compete for my company against everyone.
I vehemently resent your accusation that my son has a free ride at the US Merchant Marine Academy. The truth to that is quite the opposite with his MULTI YEAR commitment to the US Navy after graduation.
And I might point out that the US Merchant Marine Academy is the ONLY Academy that 142 of its’ Midshipmen lost their lives while serving this great Nation in time of war, while STILL ENROLLED IN THE ACADEMY.
Originally posted by some_girl
Geek and Gull, have you been to a hospital that serves only poor communities, say the one that serves Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg, and parts of Bushwick, Brooklyn (all poor neighborhoods, though the second is gentrifying quickly)?
I trained in Houston and spent quite a bit of time at Ben Taub, the county hospital. What I saw were dedicated physicians working long hours to deliver quality care to indigent patients. Ben Taub is a Level I trauma center and is considered the place to go if you're shot, stabbed or in a motor vehicle accident (the private hospitals aren't nearly as well-equipped to handle those problems). Sorry if that doesn't fit your view of the American healthcare system.
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
"There are hundreds of millions of dollars of scholarships that aren't used every year so these few swimmers aren't denying anyone an education. "
NOT IN MEN'S SWIMMING IN THIS COUNTRY....SHOW ME ONE DOLLAR IN NCAA MEN'S SWIMMING THAT IS NOT USED....and I WILL WEAR A MOOSE SUIT TO WORLDS....A PINK MOOSE SUIT AT THAT....!
While trying desparately to find money for college, I kept hearing about the "hundreds of millions of dollars" in scholarships that are not used every year. Thinking (as many did) "I can get a scholarship", I started looking for the money. Often times, what they don't tell you is that these large pools of money are often for VERY SPECIFIC scholarships. There may very well be swimming scholarship money not used at American colleges and universities. Why? Perhaps the scholarship also requires you to major in Comparative Literature and have a documentable Polish background. Perhaps the swim team consist of 12 people and is coached by the dean's wife. Maybe it requires you to spend your summers teaching swimming in Third World countries. The point is, most unused scholarship money is unused because of the way the money is set up.
I noticed, Tom, that in responding to the info about scholarship $$, you specified "NCAA" - when the original poster didn't mention which schools may have money going unused.
I used to do applicatant interviews for my alma mater and always warned parents and students about the dangers of assuming their kids are "shoe-ins" for scholarships - whether academic or athletic. If you're worried about paying for your kids college, better to do the research on need-based aid, college/university endowments, and financing. They're much better bets than performance-based scholarships.
Kae (who worked for 2 years as an assistant to a financial aid advisor at a private university and got more money from the private university as need-based aid than from the public uni I attended for grad school, thanks to a better endowment).
Originally posted by Tom Ellison
"There are hundreds of millions of dollars of scholarships that aren't used every year so these few swimmers aren't denying anyone an education. "
I was quoting another post here....I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At all!
Originally posted by poolmonkey
Years ago, I worked with people who didn't care if they got fired, so they could get back on unemployment. And a number of people keep their hours down, so they get additional benefits from the government. I cannot condone the activities of these people that take advantage of the system.
Maybe it's the rampant liberal in me, but all this means to me is that perhaps, as a country, we should do something to make sure that if ARE working, you can afford to provide for yourself and your family. This doesn't mean subsistence living, either - it means decent food, permanent shelter, clothing, health care (preventative and curative), reliable transportation (maybe not a car, but public transport costs money, too), and the ability to save something in case of emergency. I know in my current state of residence as well as in my home state of Missouri, making minimum wage does not cover these things and yet is considered too high of an income to qualify for state aid. I heard a report not too long ago that in Missouri you have to be making less than somthing like $8,000/ year to qualify for public assistance. How many of you could afford a place to live, food to eat and feed your kids, costs for education, transportation, health insurance, etc. on that?
To get this back to swimming scholarships, my theory is that if you're good enough to get 'em, you should get 'em, regardless of where you were born. After all, aren't foreigners educated in the US more likely to stay in the US after graduation? And therefore contribute to our country? What REALLY sticks in my craw is the schools that lower their ACADEMIC standards to get athletes.
That should be enough to get me lynched if I ever get to one of the big meets :D
Kae
Dima,
I was unaware that I could cross the border illegally into Russia and: attend school, get a drivers license and if sick/injured show up at a hospital emergency room and get free treatment? I think they handle it a bit differently over there! I also encourage to try it in Mexico some time.
By the way, the NCAA last year adopted a change to their eligibility rules: for every year you wait after graduating from high school that you do not enroll in college you lose a year of eligibiliy (you also lose a year for every year a person is older than 21). This was pushed thru because of major fuss that came ou of tennis in the college ranks.
Some_girl,
Sorry if you thought my post was contained a nuanced argument. Assuming that you understand the definition of nuanced. Actually, I wasn't making much of an argument. I was simply using sarcasim to point out your failure to employ logical reasoning.
Assuming that you also felt that I misrepresented your post, I don't see how I mispresented anything. Maybe you simply prefer to think of yourself as a socialist instead of a communist. Either way, you are advocating a communistic/socialistic approach in that you think that the government should provide for everyone a decent standard of living. You specifically stated, "I'm saying the sign of an advanced nation is the willingness to provide a decent standard of living for all its citizens regardless of their economic situation." Your words not mine.
As for the constitution hating, I never said that. I was simply pointing out the flaw in your dismissing of the founder's rational for declaring independence. Specifically, you bash Geek for relying on the founding father's ideals to be free from taxation without representation. His reliance on the founding fathers, which you ppointed out as being "poor", was one of the main reasons that the documents I referenced were created. In essence you completely dismissed the reliance on any of the ideals and beliefs of our founding fathers because of their views on a few issues unrelated to taxation. Then you go on to say that we are supposed to learn from our forefathers. Thats funny considering your complete disregard of them. How can you learn from our forefathers if you completely dismiss all the ideals of people that had a few bad ideas and acts? ALL societies, including ours today, have problems, but that doesn't mean you dismiss everything else.
So, exactly how did I misrepresent your post?
Hook'em
Blue
