"Women are losing athletic scholarships because they can't say that came in first" - good, athletic scholarships shouldn't be a thing
Really, what we need to do is desegregate things like track altogether, then you can pick whatever metric you like (top black athlete, top male athlete, top trans athlete, top cis female athlete, etc).
@mewmew I think that gets into trouble with some competitive sports mind you. Like with the translady who was beating the tar out of the previous stop athletes. She wasn't even on HRT for all that long (only 2 years) at the time -- that's not long enough.
i mean once you go on t blockers your muscles start deteriorating, even with upkeep you're going to get around to the same muscle mass as any other woman within a few months iirc
it's a huge non-issue and just comes out of people being anti-science shitheads (and transphobia)
@kazuma @mewmew My understanding is it takes much longer than a few months, closer to 3-5 years for it all to go away. As always, the research data would just be what I go by, but I'm not aware of any real studies being done on the subject and all I've got to work on here is subjective options from various people I've spoken to.
If you don't have respect for sports just let sports fans and athletes decide what to do with their hobby
@mewmew Yeah it probably is. Although I'd still want a waiting period (ideally to be determined by research) so someone can't just pop a few titty skittles and start beating down people.
@mewmew I think your conclusion is nice. However I think you may underestimate the difference in athletic ability between the men and women. Low ranking male athletes can be champions in women's sports.
@mewmew Well, I don't really care about sports at all, but the reason they were segregated in the first place is because of the high disparity.
-Recipient shows extremely high aptitude for the field the college teaches, and will probably raise the reputation of the institution upon graduation (for example, scholarships for high iq kids)
-Recipient is very talented in an activity that will benefit the college directly or through publicity, and the college's standing in competitions against other colleges (for example, sport scholarships)
-Recipient fulfills a set of criteria that will enhance an image the college is trying to show by attending class (for example, racial quotas)
So it's less about individual popularity contests and more about being good at an activity that is considered popular and relevant by the college board, enough that the college considers it stands to gain more by having you on board with them or preventing you from going to another college than by charging you.
I wonder why tennis grand slam for men is 5 sets but for women only 3 hmm
As I see it there's nothing wrong with private colleges giving scholarships to whoever they like, it's their money after all. For state-paid scholarships, it's a bit more complicated as they should be granted solely on the basis of aptitude for the field of study.
I just think that institutions whose goal is to educate students shouldn't be doing stuff that isn't, well, educating students
instead, we're seeing them almost exclusively doing that stuff, and leaving actual education in the dust:
- teachers are underpaid (both public and private schools, outside of the ivory league, and even then it's not great)
- classes are overpopulated
- actual education quality is in the absolute gutter, for a large variety of reasons (I've had this multi-page rant a bunch of times, no really in the mood to get into it again)
I don't think there's anything wrong with talented athletes/individuals/etc getting money for being good, I just think it should be **ENTIRELY SEPARATED FROM THE ED. SYSTEM**
also, considering how collegiate leagues work (look at basically any headlines regarding college athletes, it's almost always about them being abused or exploited by the system), it shouldn't even be gated based on being in college or not - just a semi-pro league in general is fine, maybe with an age restriction
The issue with class overpopulation and poor conditions for teachers is of severe gravity, and isn't tackled at all by either private or public education, and both problems are tightly related. The optimal size of a class is about 16 students per teacher, something you'll almost never see in practice because it is too expensive when nothing stops you from cramming >30 people in a class (t. actual teacher)
There's also the whole thing with universities taking poitical positions instead of just focusing on teaching students, which means a lot of good teachers get fired or harassed for ideological differences, and students just drop out as they can't stand it.
I think there's a place for college sports, and a very long tradition endorsing them, but yeah it needs to start being more about enjoyment of physical activity and genuine, friendly competition between students like they were at the beginning, and less about exploiting the league for generating huge amounts of money and publicity. Sports in general should become a bit more amateur again to both improve conditions for athletes and reduce profiteering and abuse related to sports.
tl;dr it's all due a combination of corruption, self-sustaining bureaucracy, free secure student loans, "inclusionism", and the universal boomer meme demanding EVERYONE go to university even if they're as dumb as a rock
The problem is also exacerbated by the belief that a college degree is a must to get basic employment, when it shouldn't be. University should be completely optional, but careers that give a direct benefit to society like medicine and engineering should be at least partially tax-funded as even in economic terms, getting talented people to go into those careers and not be kept out due to lacking money is a net positive. And not being treated like a necessity, people that have no real interest or talent for it just wouldn't sign up, so there's not a lot of wasted money in it.
But ye let's talk about it again I never open IRC so add me on discord (Nerthos#7093)
@mewmew Don't we like have some kind of way to measure how good an athlete is and put them in classes? So an athlete would gradually rise and always have challengers within the bracket they can actually fairly compete with.
I guess it would make a lot of the steroids and stuff pointless though.
@daughter @kazuma @mewmew That seems likely, yes, and playing around with hormone levels is often dangerous. They are powerful things, and the current thought on them seems to be that they can just be played with without repercussions, or the changes can be reversed, etc. In particular changes hormones can be really hard on the heart.