- August 19, 2008 at 9:33 pm #10216
- August 21, 2008 at 12:43 pm #25958
$ – plain and simple it is money. If Phelps would have won 8 gold in the EdOlympics he would not have won a Million dollar bonus from Speedo, nor would he be projected to earn up to 50 Million in endorsement contracts.
He might have been able to get a good summer job making $8-9 per hour.
- August 21, 2008 at 1:46 pm #25959
Sadly, Ed is right on. Sadly, great athletes get paid more than great doctors, scientists, teachers, engineers, mathematicians, etc. Of course, the question is why do they get paid more? Sadly, because we actually value athletic achievement more than we do intellectual achievement.
As great as I think athletics is, it's intellectual greatness that improves society. We need to get our priorities straight.
- August 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm #25960
That is quite disappointing…
It's unfortunate that America tends to put more emphasis on things like football rather than Math and Science and etc.
I know quite a few people in my school that haven't missed a football game of The Ravens in years but forget their homework assignment nearly every day…it's sad. For me education is a higher priority than xc/track.
- August 21, 2008 at 5:28 pm #25961
The question is – Would you pay $75.00 a seat to attend the EdOlympics? How often does someone spend $100.00 per ticket to see an orchestra performance or an opera?
Right now the entertainment dollar has the power. As a parent I am totally rewarding my children for doing well in school and teaching them that their education is highly important. As my children start to take interest in sports (thankfully running) I will guide and teach them how to use running as a part of education and how to use running to enhance their education.
- August 21, 2008 at 7:33 pm #25962
Honestly, I don't think I'd pay $75.00/seat to attend anything that involves just watching someone else doing something but I also know I'm not exactly the typical American in this regard.
- August 21, 2008 at 10:23 pm #25963
Actually, you might not be as rare as you believe. Most US families have a hard time affording the cost of a major league sporting event. Factor in not just the expense of tickets (which has become huge), but that of parking (plus gas to get there and back is no longer inconsequential), maybe stadium food (major rip-off) and souvenirs for the kids to add to their experience. Even college sports are getting ridiculously expensive, I believe it would cost me at least $30/$50 (and that is for the crap endzone seats; the $30 is for the cupcake game of the schedule, $50 is the norm) to see the local U's football team play at home. Is it any wonder I would rather pay $5/game to see the volleyball team play, especially since volleyball is just as interesting to me as a spectator as football is?
Hey, nobody paid even 5¢ to go see Bill Gates do his computer wizardry as a young man, but I think most anyone you ask would rather be him today than Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning, or Alex Rodriguez. You can say that it is about money and that nobody is paying to watch anyone derivatize or titrate, but just consider the real odds at work. How many kids who play sports end up getting a college scholarship for it? How many of those end up doing that sport for a living? How many end up making a living doing something else? Which would be most likely to pay off in lifetime earnings or at least in allowing one to function better in the world and derive greater enjoyment from life, time spent on swimming in a pool or on batting practice or on lifting weights or time spent on becoming more proficient at math, science, and just acquiring a greater understanding of the world?
To me, the bottom line statement from this is that the US is all gung-ho about competing athletically, but has to a degree lost the desire to compete intellectually and thus economically. Why does the competitive fire not translate? Why are parents all attentive in attending Johnny's football games – even if it were obvious to everyone that Johnny would never compete in that sport beyond the scholastic level or even if Johnny were nothing but a bench-warmer – yet seemingly would not be as behind him if he were “only” a student and not an athlete?
- August 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm #25964
Another thought, to some sense we highly revere athletes but we tend to talk down intellectual prowess. Again, not endorsing a candidate or party because I see this happen in both directions but just yesterday I saw this quote: “I think people have made a judgment that [speaker's preferred candidate] is not an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type based on his life story.”
In other words, it's bad to be a “pointy headed professor-type”? Intellect is a bad thing in a candidate for public office? Personally, whether on the local school board or in the White House, I want someone who is more intelligent than me holding the office. I know I couldn't do the job so why would I want someone who is no more intelligent than me trying to do the job?
- August 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm #25965
Nerds and geeks – versus Jocks. Who has the better time in school?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.