By Professor Doom
Every few years,
institutions discuss the course requirements for degrees.
Invariably, these
requirements, at least in terms of credit hours, are “more.” Admin doesn’t
really care, as long as the new coursework is very easy (good for retention)
and mandatory (good for growth), but most departments take this as an
opportunity to ensure their own job security, advancing coursework that is
obvious on the face of it to be worthless. Other departments take the
opportunity to add coursework to make the degrees more valuable in the
marketplace. No departments will let go of the courses that are already
mandatory, since that might cost jobs in the department. It’s always a tug of
war, as there really is an upper limit to just how many credit hours a student
can be expected to take over the course of 4 years.
Student:
“I’m taking bowling this semester.”
--I’m
serious, legitimate campuses offer bowling courses. I’ve nothing against
bowling but why pay thousands of dollars to learn about it? It’s not that
complicated a game, honest…it’s why we have leagues for 8 year olds, after all.
There’s a push to
open a whole new mandatory field for our students: physical “education.” Like
most people that read, I hated the mandatory phys ed of public school—it was
basically on opportunity for the bullies to polish their craft on the
sportsball fields, while the thieves honed their skills robbing the lockers as
the other students were out getting their mandatory physical “education.”
Student:
“I’m taking tennis this semester.”
--the point
of these quotes: student already can take physical education courses for
college credit as it is. Many do, because it is an easy A. I’ve never heard of
a college course on chess, though I consider it a vastly deeper game than
tennis and bowling. It’s no surprise, since chess doesn’t sell well…
Don’t get me
wrong, I believe in physical exercise, and it seems the people I see using
obesity scooters get younger every year (granted, everyone I see looks younger
every year…). While I don’t believe in mandatory public school, I can accept
our kids probably should get encouragement to engage in physical activity. The
fact is, we already have mandatory physical “education” in our public schools.
How can anyone possibly justify forcing it down the throats of our college students?
Poorly, as it turns out:
The above article
is so loaded down with fallacies and invalid thinking that I don’t understand
how anyone can be swayed. I assure you, the Poo Bahs of higher education will
be swayed, but only because the retention rates of college courses on jumping
jacks are much higher than courses on chemistry, calculus, or English
literature.
Many ASU
students wake up before 7 or even 6 a.m. to do so, but this dedication does not
come easy. Recently, it has been suggested by many states in the U.S. that
there be a physical exercise requirement reinstated for college students,
especially at large universities such as ASU.
So, the
push is on for mandatory physical education as ASU; I’ve
covered before how education is the lowest priority at ASU, not that
ASU is exceptional in this regard. However, when you point out that students are
already exercising, it’s tough to say we need to make it mandatory, right?
According
to a study at Oregon State University, all college students in the U.S. were required to
take physical education courses or fill exercise requirements in the 1920s,
however, this number has fallen to 39 percent, which is the lowest is has ever
been in the country. According to the study, in which 354 universities were selected, many
educational institutions are cutting courses that offer physical exercise from
their programs. With more than 34 percent of adolescents being overweight and 17
percent being obese,
Yes, in the past,
our institutions did have physical education, but this was before mandatory
physical education was a thing in the public schools (their grip on the nation
wasn’t nearly so strong in the 1920s). As it became clear that the benefits of
exercise were already being taught, the higher education system abandoned such
mandatory courses, in favor of focusing on scholarly activities. Yes, there are
benefits to exercise, but exercise isn’t the critical thing for academic
success; the gentle reader is encouraged to consider if Stephen Hawking’s
insights are due to all his exploits on sportsball fields, or due to his study
of science.
Pointing out that
34 percent of adolescents are overweight is just smoke: college isn’t for
adolescents. The article may as well point out that baby blue whales weigh 3
tons.
Some would argue that college should teach independence; therefore,
students should be able to form healthy habits on their own without this
hand-up from the university. This logic is not faulty. However, most won’t
realize the merits of exercise until they get a taste of it.
The article’s
ham-fisted attempts to look fair are risible here. Our college students, the
vast majority of them, got a hefty taste of forced exercise in the public
schools, there’s just no reason to force them to learn how to play tennis or
whatever in college. I mean “no reason for the students” here. Obviously,
institutions have much to gain by forcing students to “study” tennis, and you
can bet tennis teachers will be cheap hires.
Additionally, gym intimidation is a real thing. Many individuals are anxious to
partake in exercise because they believe they will look ridiculous doing so in
a large room of people.
Again, the one-sidedness
of the arguments slaps me in the face. Our universities are already loaded down
with large rooms full of people; courses with hundreds of students in them are
already quite common. I suspect you could easily have a “class” of 10,000
students doing jumping jacks…as huge courses like this are the goal of ASU, I
once again am suspicious of the pure intentions of this article.
After all,
walking into a room with confusing machinery and physically fit
individuals is a daunting task. Not only do we feel inadequate, but we don’t
know where to start.
This is basically the advertising
campaign for Planet Fitness, right? Anyone intrigued by the above selling
points can just go down to Planet Fitness and pay $10 to get a tutorial on how
to use those “confusing” machines (honest, $10 is a fair price to learn how to
use them).
Wouldn’t freely
paying $10 to learn how to lift weights be fairer than paying thousands of
dollars in college tuition to do the same? Heck, you probably won’t even get
weights to lift in the college course (say it with me: “jumping jacks”),
because purchasing 10,000 sets of weights would cost real money. That would
cut into the Poo Bah’s pay.
Anyway, the
article is just a blizzard of foolishness, trying to get suckers to actually
buy into paying thousands of dollars to learn how to do the things they already
learned how to do for free when they were children.
But that’s what
higher education already is, for the most part.
No comments:
Post a Comment