Back to Unionizing

FYI, this post is a follow-up to a post from quite some time ago.  If you haven't read it, or would like it fresh in your mind, here you go: Unionizing Student-Athletes

And back to it.

So was I in error?  Isn't this the epitome of unionizing?  To organize, unify, and fight for better conditions?  Of course, the contemporary college athletics politics, money, and so on aside, but if we were to boil it down, I suppose I could admit that these students are arguably doing the same as any labor movement.

Of course, let's also take a second to consider that comparison is indeed the thief of joy (Teddy Roosevelt), and what the public does know about the money the NCAA and each university makes from these athletes.  Needless to say, it's a lot.  Several decades ago, the business world attempted to curb the rising salaries of CEO's, thinking that making them public would induce a sort of shame that would drive down salaries and bring about more income equality.  What actually happened, of course, is that now that executives could see what everyone else made, it instead created a competition for a higher income, more perks, and greater benefits.

"Hey! Why is Joe So-And-So over at our competitor making $2 million and gets a jet while I only make $1.5 million?  It's not fair!" And so this guy gets a raise to exceed what the other guy makes, who then, in turn, sees it and demands more money himself.  And to date, the income inequality in the U.S. is greater (by several hundred percent) than it ever has been before, and the gap is growing.  Apparently we're okay with it though.

Anyway, the comparison here is that maybe, just maybe, because the NCAA, coaches, and so on are publicly paid insane amounts of money for the athletes effort, that it may be driving this movement to "get their fair share".  And that's just nature.  Even lab monkeys, when given a treat for pushing a button are excited.  But put two cages side by side (so they can see each other), and task them both to press a button but give them different treats (knowing that one treat is better than the other), the monkey receiving the "worse" treat will throw it away (from the work of Frans de Waal).  Because it's not fair - even though the monkey is getting a treat nonetheless, because the take-away for the same work isn't equal, the monkey refuses the reward.  

I feel it needs to be said that this obviously works both ways.  Executives keep getting more and more perks because they feel they're getting the raw end of the button-pushing deal, but since the rest of us lowly peons don't have the leverage, we unionize.  Hey, it's my job to give you the info.  What you do with it is up to you.

So perhaps if the NCAA wasn't getting the lion's share - if not more - or if they simply reduced the income for these people, this would be a non-issue.  So at the same time, I suppose I can empathize with the players.

And of course, don't bother making the argument because I'm already there - I am well aware that a significant chunk of money streaming into departments and programs at universities that funds education, research, scholarships, and many other things that make a university a university, come directly from athletic programs.  I understand.  So perhaps because players are bringing in money to the school they should be employees paid for their contributions who don't even need the pretense of class.

I mean, then we could give more scholarships to more "regular" students and then soon they can unionize too, after all, student research has been rumored to be plagiarized by faculty advisers and, really, all they want is compensation for their work and maybe a little recognition. 

Unionizing Athlete-Students

A topic in the news for a couple weeks is the ruling that athletes participating at Northwestern University have the legal right to unionize, and it's something I've been rolling around in my head for some time but haven't been able to form a coherent reaction just yet.  Almost as though I'm arguing with myself about how to feel... But I figure at the very least I could sit down and (figuratively) put pen to paper, so I apologize if this reads somewhat stream-of-consciousness-ly.

To begin, I can understand and empathize with where this athletes are coming from. It is true that the NCAA has made bank from their efforts - coaches and executives making millions atop millions season after season, often being paid more than any other person on campus, from professors to the president.  Only a few years ago, Barry Alvarez filled in for the recently-vacated head coaching position of the Wisconsin Badgers football program for the final game or two of the season, receiving a six figure bonus for coaching, and another five figures for going to the Rose Bowl, all on top of his seven figure salary as athletic director.  So I get it.  If I was working day in and day out, seeing none of the fruits of my labors, I would be frustrated as well.  Hell, I'd probably go work for Wall Street where the same thing happens but at least I'd get a paycheck.

That being said, I think this is a systemic issue within the NCAA that needs to be addressed, rather than continue to erode out higher education system.  The title of this post is no mistake. These people are more frequently referred to as "student-athletes", to stress that the "student" comes first, but that's not really the case, now is it?  One of the primary arguments for the team is that they spend upwards of 60 hours each week on football, therefore, it's a job.  But let's think for a second: if they're spending all this time at practice, when exactly are they going to class and/or doing homework/studying?  And going a step further, how, then, are they all pulling 4.0's?

I can't help but feel this movement undermines the entire history of unionizing.  We've all read Grapes of Wrath at some point (at least many of us, or at least know the premise), and I couldn't possibly imagine that this is the same thing.  Hell, even Boy Meets World tackled the issue when the 9th grade students "unionized" after reading the book in an attempt to protest their tests at the school.  Thank you 90's TV for portraying more than any show these days ever could hope to imagine.

But I digress.

The point is that I don't really think this is a positive portrayal of our current system - neither our educations system nor labor movements.  These people are brought to schools for one reason. And when they graduate, chances are they still read at a fifth grade level anyway (and to think that I'm worried about undermining our higher education).  If anyone needs more evidence, simply listen to any professional athlete be interviewed.

And chances are they majored in Communication.  Explain that one to me.

These athletes are receiving a free education, comped room and board, and an almost guaranteed graduation from any number of universities, while the rest of us flounder in student loans for the next two decades.  So could I make an argument that perhaps students themselves should organize?  The masses could fight for lower tuition or better dorms.  I mean, they spend more time at class, studying, and doing homework than many full time careers, so they really should be compensated for it, right?  Not to mention extra-curricular activities like student government, clubs, and the like.  Why are these different than athletics?  Because athletics brings in money?  So now we give more leeway and perks to athletic students while the smart ones drop out and start tech companies.  Go figure.

All in all, I think I would stick with the argument that the NCAA needs to heavily overhaul their entire system, and, at the same time, we need to remember that athletes should students FIRST.  Breakthroughs in human development - medicine, science, economics - rarely, if ever, come from the field or court.  They come from educated, progressive-thinking, insightful individuals.  Believe it or not, their is no Nobel prize for running the 40-yard dash (but those who can run it best call the prize money for winning the Nobel a slow night out.  So at least we have our priorities in the right place).

Perhaps this is yet another case of affluenza.  And the gap widens.  

Why Go to College, revisited.

In the spirit of arguing with myself, I revisited my post regarding going to college.  I know why I went, but obviously that's not why others may opt to attend or not.  Am I advocating for everyone to attend a four-year institution?  Of course not.  What's right for one isn't necessarily right for all.  Am I advocating that everyone develop themselves enough to think critically and synthesize information and evaluate the validity of an argument?  Of course.  That's a vital part of what I see as a rounded individual.

But what does it mean to be "educated"?  Does it mean an associates degree? A technical degree? Undergrad?  Master's?  Doctoral?  Is one inherently better than another?  Let me pose a side question: what would happen if 100% of United States citizens had a doctoral degree?  Or a graduate degree?  What would happen if 100% of us had a bachelor's degree?  Is that required for most jobs?  Is it necessary to survive?  Would we not still have jobs and careers that don't require that piece of paper?  Would anyone want to do them anymore?  Too often through my undergraduate education and after, I've heard people decrying their entry-level or manual labor jobs, that such work was below them because they "have a degree".  What a crock.  A piece of paper doesn't make you any better or worse than the next person. 

What I DIDN'T learn in my undergraduate experience has been much of what I'm finding to be the more important aspects of adult life.  College didn't teach me anything about engines or car repairs.  I didn't learn any electric or plumbing.  I didn't learn how to build of fix a house.  I didn't learn how to mend, sew, or cook from any class.  

So is necessary for everyone to attend a four-year college or university?  Not in the slightest.  Summers between semesters I worked as a landscaper, rising with the sun, sweating and toiling through the day, and when we finished, we could look at what we'd created and be proud.  Helping a friend with some light remodeling work brought the work boots out of hiding as we plastered drywall, insulated walls, and sealed windows.  And again, we looked at what we'd down at the end of the day and could be proud with that we accomplished.  I've found that some of the most satisfying moments in my professional life have been those where the visible fruits of my labor are apparent (I'm a middle child so I suppose I was born to crave attention!)

And I have caught myself wondering if, knowing what I know now, would I do it all over again?

Why Go to College?

What I can't figure out is why anyone would go to college anymore.  It seems, at least I was told, that if you go to college and do wel, you can graduate and will get a great job.  "Everyone wants a college grad!".  That's the way it was decades ago, and that's - I'm told - the way it was as I was finsihing up high school.

And then I foolishly followed my interests and majored in History and Anthropology, both without the intent of becoming a historian or anthropologist.  I had been under the impression that liberal arts (and I did study a wide range of topics) wasn't so much about WHAT you studied, but that you LEARNED HOW to study and think and create.  And to that end I did very much.

However, "if the U.S. is to remain competitive in the global market, we need more emphasis on engineering!".  "More hard science!"  "More math!"  More than once (more than three times even) I have been told by instructors through my graduate education that wanton studies like the arts, the social sciences, and the humanities are draining precious resources from our education system.  That the only thing that matters is how we keep up with the evolving technological market.

And yet high school graduates still flock to four-year institutions in droves.

But what's the point?  We can't package and sell intelligence and wisdom to our oversees markets, so why bother.  It's not something we can buy, sell, or mass produce from an assembly line (as much as our policy makers would like to believe...but that's an entirely different post).  So why continue an education, bury yourself in debt, and find very little reward at the other end?

Because people need to learn.  People need to continue to grow and develop and THINK.  I'm glad I studied history because I believe that those who ignore the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.  I'm glad I studied anthropology because I see the need, now perhaps more than ever, for people to respect and understand one another.  To recognize and move away from ethnocentrism.

Would I be doing just fine without having gone to college?  Undoubtedly.  And I'd be debt free.  Am I glad I did anyway?  You bet.  What I took away from the experience was the ability to LEARN.  To THINK.  To REASON.  And those are the skills that will truly matter through the 21st Century.