As of 8:10am this morning one of the finer programs in the country is lost due to "budgetary" problems.
No one saw it coming and they just recently signed some top level recruits that gave them one of the top 3 recruiting classes in the country.
Not really.
The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports.
We're not in the '60s!
I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue.
Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc.
The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them.
The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation.
To a degree.
But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring.
It's a loss-leader.
The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.
Who says they're not interested? And what do you mean by the statement that women "take what they want from" sports? Don't much like the sound of that ... Is this somehow different than men? And if the new women's crew team is currently undersubscribed or unsuccessful because it's a fairly new women's sport, does that mean it will be 10 years from now when high school teams are more common? Let's not write off women's interest in sports off so quickly! I just read in the Post that the DC area has nationally ranked crew teams, but no school funding.
And how exactly can "financial stupidity" be a red herring in light of the dollar numbers we know are spent on football and basketball?
If alumni won't give money without a football team, it's a decent reason not to go to that school. After this third or fourth discussion of Title IX, I will continue to encourage my kids to pick their school for academic reasons. I have no regrets that I did.
Not really.
The interpretation of Title IX has evolved, and the problem is that it hasn't evolved to accommodate social changes and the fact that women now have the opportunity to compete in sports.
We're not in the '60s!
I'd prefer that some money be spent on getting women through the glass ceiling that still exists for women, instead of offering more and more sports that women just aren't interested in.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students w/ children so that they can finish their degree in a timely manner.
Put $100K into programs for female graduate students that will enable them to have children if they so desire and still reach tenure when they become a professor, which is a MAJOR issue.
Or put $100K into programs that link female business leaders w/ undergrads so that they can network, learn about which battles to fight and when, foster female solidarity in the business world, etc.
The reality is that women nowadays have played sports and take what they want from them.
The reality is that there are better ways to spend money on a student-body that reflects their true needs, not the standards put forth by an outdated, archaic piece of legislation.
To a degree.
But just like there's a knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on Title IX, so is "financial stupidity" a red-herring.
It's a loss-leader.
The reality is that w/o a football team, alumni just won't give nearly as much money per year.
Who says they're not interested? And what do you mean by the statement that women "take what they want from" sports? Don't much like the sound of that ... Is this somehow different than men? And if the new women's crew team is currently undersubscribed or unsuccessful because it's a fairly new women's sport, does that mean it will be 10 years from now when high school teams are more common? Let's not write off women's interest in sports off so quickly! I just read in the Post that the DC area has nationally ranked crew teams, but no school funding.
And how exactly can "financial stupidity" be a red herring in light of the dollar numbers we know are spent on football and basketball?
If alumni won't give money without a football team, it's a decent reason not to go to that school. After this third or fourth discussion of Title IX, I will continue to encourage my kids to pick their school for academic reasons. I have no regrets that I did.
