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.
Originally posted by some_girl
As for your other question, no I do not think private charity is a reasonable option. Private charity is never disinterested, and I especially don't think people should have to endure prostelyzation to get help. Even the most reprehensible people deserve help and compassion, and a disinterested government is the best way to make sure people are helped regardless of their personal charms.
So, let me see if I understand you. You contend the only way to help people is to throw high tax dollars at inefficient gov't run program and agencies? Maybe we should all stop giving to charity and just give it all to the gov't, such fine stewards of our money they are. What in the world makes you think the dollars people give to church require prostelyzing? We give to habitat, soup kitchen, homeless shelters, women's shelters. If we never see a single of these folks in our doors, we don't care. That's not what giving is all about.
Are you also saying the gov't should dicatate how I spend my charity dollars? Wow, are you an American?
Originally posted by Frank Thompson
Kirk:
Was one of the those swimmers named Michael Green who swam for British team in the 1988 Olympics and swam at MSU. He is now a citizen and living, working, and swimming in USMS.
Yes, the two I thought of off the top of my head were Michael Green and Chris Clarke who was from South Africa.
It actually does make sense for me to get back to work as tax liberation day usually passes in May, so now I'm theoretically making money for my family and not the government for the rest of the year.
And, you, Gull, lay off! Why don't you go operate on some folks for free. You have a moral and ethical obligation to do all your work for free as a health care provider.
Just for fun,
I was on one of those Nebraska teams for a semester and swam with Peter as well as the other South Africans and Canadians great guys, but us Americans were definitely second fiddle and maybe we should have been, they were bettter swimmers. I had always felt our rankings and conference titles were hollow due the large amount of foreign swimmers. We were the only program at UNL with so many foreign athletes.
This discussion sure has digressed into political ramblings and differences of opionion that will never be settled on this board.
Again I state my case that if STATE Universities want to support foreign athletes with Alumni money fine. I would love to know how many of these athletes even NEED the scholarships since so many of them are supported by their respective governments any way...
botterud,
That is a very interesting quote. That quote comes from FDR's second inauguarl speach. Specifically, he was speaking of how to measure his administration. There had been quite a bit of corruption and the depression was taking a toll on a very large portion of our society. Something drastic had to be done and the government needed to be cleaned up. He did not state that government should provide a decent living to all people. On a side note, there are probably many people that believe that FDR was a socialist to a certain degree.
Hook'em
Blue
some-girl,
Actually, that isn't what you said. Also, that isn't what I said. Anyway, if you think that is sound logic . . .
This thread is way off topic, I am done. Time to get back to work.
Hook'em
Blue
Originally posted by aquageek
Are you also saying the gov't should dicatate how I spend my charity dollars?
The federal government knows how to spend your money better than you do. You should be happy they let you keep some of it. So shut up and get back to work.
I wonder how many of the foreign athletes who get scholarships actually live here, and their parents live here and pay taxes here.
Our age group swim team has an assistant coach who swam for Bulgaria in the Olympics. His son is on full-ride scholarship here and also swam for Bulgaria last year. They have lived here since their son was small and work here and pay taxes here. So how many of the "foreign" athletes actually pay taxes in the USA?
Folks,
I'll leave the politics to others. Let me simply observe that we are looking at two distinct problems. First, college is expensive. There is not enough scholarship money to go around to help all or even many swimmers and other deserving students, and male swimmers present a particular problem. Second, many of our most promising age group swimmers chose to quit the sport in their teen years, males especially, and do not participate in college or world class swimming.
Also, some have suggested that the performance of U.S. swimming at the international elite level has suffered recently. I'm not sure I buy that argument.
As a proposed solution, some have suggested changing the rules concerning athletic scholarships so that only U.S. citizens are eligible to receive them. I have to wonder whether this will have much impact on either of the two problems IDed above. The number of swimming scholarships available is miniscule compared to the number of college bound age group & high school swimmers, and miniscule even compared to the number of swimmers who do compete for college teams. I don't see how a couple dozen full rides at a Div I school is going to make much difference helping middle class swimmers who are wondering how they will pay for college (even if you restrict it to swimmers fast enough to compete at the Div I level). I also don't see how a slim chance at a college scholarship is going to be much of an incentive to stay in a sport that has lost its appeal.
("Comrades of high school boys swimming, we must unite against the common enemy!"
"Girls, cars and hanging out with friends!")
Some have argued that regardless of the effect on swimming, athletic scholarships to U.S. universities should be restrictied to U.S. athletes. I'll simply tip my hat to Aquageek's arguement that who is an "American" swimmer and whether money comes from "American" sources are complex issues. Don't get me wrong. I am receptive to arguments that college athletics should have core values in addition to win at all costs. (Graduation would be at the top of my list.) But, I find the value of give the money to the fastest American swimmer, rather than the fastest swimmer, to be a somewhat odd selection.
Bottom line: Swim because you love it. Get an education because it makes good career sense, and pay for it the same way everyone else does. Don't expect the former to bail you out of the latter. You could end of seeing swimming as just another job.
Matt
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post. If not, I don't believe anyone on this thread proposed anything like "let 'em eat grass." As for "arguing the condition of poor people" while sitting in a "climate controlled space," I can only speak for myself. I have spent many nights caring for indigent patients suffering from life-threatening conditions, neither expecting nor receiving compensation for my work. If we can't save the world, we can try to make our little corner of it a better place.
