Should NCAA Athletes Receice Pay?

Tiandra Williams
ENG 131.02
Professor Lucas
30 April 2014
Should NCAA Athletes Receive Pay?
Do you feel as though NCAA athletes should receive pay? Many fail to realize that there is a large difference between high school sports and college sports. In college, sports are taken very seriously; moreover, the sports in college is purely business. This is a business matter of maintaining a good name for the college; nonetheless, a recruiting tool to obtain more players. Games aren’t taken too lightly either. Not only does their athletic performance have to be up to par, but their grades have to be as well. It’s stressful enough to worry about not possibly earning the grades necessary to maintain their spot on the team; not to mention, they have to worry about possibly losing their scholarship.
Although, the minimum amount of credits hours for full-time status, it’s still “full load” for a first year student. The athletes are obligated to attend meetings, practices, lifts, and games. This means that majority of their time is devoted to these events. After attending these events plus class, there is not time for any rest. School work must be done to maintain a certain GPA to remain an athlete and a student. Staying up countless hours to complete assigned school task could possibly bring about stress after a while. If the athletes were to receive pay they might feel more encouraged to not only play well, but also to reach high achievements as a student. The NCAA couldn’t care if the athlete is stressed mentally and drained physically because the winner only matters at the end of the day.
Subsequently, what about the other average college students? Wilfred Sheed, wrote Why Sports Matter that was published in the winter 1995 issue of The Wilson Quarterly for scholars, and had this to say:
It is saying, for instance, that playing in the band at half time is still fun (no one has ever suggested paying the band), but that throwing and catching a ball is work- and that even this depends in what kind of ball you’re using. A football equals work, volleyball is only play. Appearing on television is obviously work, but even here distinctions are made: players work, cheerleaders have fun. Shooting baskets is work, helping to clean up afterward is its own reward. (Sheed, 497)
Unfortunately, this topic on deciding whether the athletes should get paid or not, is like a tug-of-war. Michael Wilbon, a featured columnist for ESPN.com, states:
I used to argue vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough. And even if, increasingly, it wasn’t enough and virtually every kid who accepted a scholarship was in the red before Christmas of his freshman year, the notion of pay-for-play was at best a logistical nightmare. Where exactly would the money come from? How could you pay college football players but not baseball players or members of the women’s field hockey team?
Some college athletic programs don’t have the profits to pay their athletes even if they wanted to. Major schools such as, John Hopkins University, Duke University, Yale University, and Stanford University can afford to disperse money to their athletes. Unfortunately, colleges such as, Lenoir-Rhyne University, Florida Southern University, Western Washington University, and Winston-Salem University aren’t able to pay their athletes. Luckily, through donations, ticket sales, media rights, advertising, and anything else with a price tag, these athletes are symbols for their school and their program. Some the extra profits have to be shared between one or more programs.
So, how does the NCAA feel about their athletes receiving pay? The NCAA President Mark Emmert said:
It’s a dynamic tension that we really need to work on because it’s at heart of part of what (we’re) talking about here. Why would we want to force someone to go to school when they really don’t want to be there? But if you’re going to come to us, you’re going to be a student.
Emmert made it clear that athletes should appreciate what they receive. The\ athletes already have a slight advantage as far as paying for school. The NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors has twice approved rules that would allow schools to give athletes a stipend to cover expenses not covered by their scholarship. Yet, at the NCAA’s national convention, there will be a day-and-a-half forum held. That will allow the entire membership a chance to formulate options. The board hopes to start this membership very soon. The NCAA tries to satisfy all of its athletes, and it seems as though the athletes are being selfish and greedy. Are the student-athletes really trying to stretch their inch to a mile?
Molly Block, a mass communication major at University Star, strongly feels that the NCAA should not come out of their pockets for the athletes. Block states:

Despite this, the fact still remains many student athletes have everything provided for them in college, giving them a distinct advantage over their peers. The experience of playing on a college team itself is valuable, working much like an unpaid internship for other students. For non-athlete students, however, the experiences of unpaid internships do not come along with a full-ride scholarship. In a way, college athletes are already getting paid. Universities should never have to shell out even more finances just to satisfy their athletes.
Block has a valid point. Would it truly be fair to the non-athlete students who have to struggle just to make ends meet for their tuition? Maybe it would be unfair.
In conclusion, NCAA athletes should not receive any form of extra money other than what is already funded. All students should be treated equally and fairly. Why give money to those who only play sports instead of trying to help those whose families don’t have the extra money to send? Even if the NCAA were to begin paying their athletes, it would create even more controversy over how much would they would receive, who will receive the money, and what division would be eligible. The value of education is more important than receiving extra pay. Many athletes should be glad that their education is paid for and those who are lucky enough to continue their desired sport in a professional field.

Work Cited
Wilbon, Michael. “College Athletes Deserve to be paid.” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, 18 July 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
Block, Molly. “College Athletes Should Not Receive Payment for Playing.” The University Star. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
Sheed, Wilfrid. “Why Spots Matter” “They Say/ I Say” ”: The Moves That Matter in Academic
Writing. 2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russell Durst. New York: Norton, 2012. 222-242. Print.
Hayes, Matt. “Emmert: NCAA Doesn’t Want Athletes to Be Employees – Dan Patrick Show.” Dan Patrick Show. SporttingNew.com, 19 Apr. 2014. Web. 06 May 2014

Advertisement

Unit 2 Group Project

Jeffrey Davis, Emily Hefner, Vivian Ortega, Tiandra Williams, and Carlos Zamora
ENG: 131 Section 02
Professor Lucas
2 April 2014

Television: Does It Make You Smarter, or An idiot?
Character Guide
Gerald Graff: A co-author of “They Say, I Say” and a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He was the 2008 President of the Modern Language Association, a U.S.-based professional association of scholars and teachers of English and other languages. This essay is adapted from his 2003 book, Clueless in Academe: How Schooling Obscures the Life of the Mind.
Steven Johnson: An author of seven books, and essays including “Watching TV makes you Smarter.” He was a contributor and editor for many works including Wired. Johnson writes a monthly column for Discover, and teaches journalism at New York University. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” was first published in New York Times Magazine.

Antonia Peacocke: A student at Harvard University majoring in philosophy. She was born in London, and when she turned 10 she moved to New York (the same day that the fourth Harry Potter book came out). She has always loved writing and worked as a copy editor and columnist for her high school newspaper. She received the Catherine Fairfax MacRae Prize for Excellence in both English and Mathematics. She is also a National Merit Scholar.

Dana Stevens: A movie critic for Slate who has also written for well-known companies such as the New York Times, Bookforum and, the Atlantic. She received her Ph.D. from University of California at Berkeley in comparative literature and published “Thinking Outside of the Idiot Box” on Slate, as a direct response to Steven Johnson’s “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” article.

Jason Zinser: A teacher at the University of North Florida. He received a Ph. D. in philosophy in 2007 from Florida State University, and he researches both evolutionary biology and environmental philosophies. This essay first appeared in The Daily Show and Philosophy: Moments of Zen in the Art of Fake News (2007), edited by Jason Holt.
Scene : The new Family Guy movie has just came out. All of the cast members have decided to meet up and go to the movie together. They are all riding to the movie when a debate breaks out.
Dana Stevens: Johnson, You claim that television is a great tool to enhance the brain. Personally, I think your comment is baloney! “Not unlike the graphically mesmerizing plot diagram you provide of “any episode” of Starsky and Hutch as a foil for the far fancier grid representing The Sopranos. But, I don’t know that I have a lot more sympathy for the wet-blanket Puritanism of the anti-TV crowd” (296).
Steven Johnson: What most of you don’t realize is that “the usual counterargument here is that what media have lost in moral clarity, they have gained in realism. The real world doesn’t come in nicely packaged public-service announcements, and we’re better off with entertainment like The Sopranos that reflects our fallen state with all its ethical ambiguity” (279).
DS: “There couldn’t be a better time to test Steven Johnson’s theory than National TV Turnoff Week- just turn the set off till Sunday and see if you get any dumber. I’d participate in the experiment myself, but in my case, watching television is definitely a smart thing to do- I get paid for it.” (298).
SJ: If your job is to literally watch television, you would understand that turning off the set is not the only way to “evaluate whether our television shows or video games are having a positive impact. Just as important— if not more important—is the kind of thinking you have to do to make sense of a cultural experience. That is where the Sleeper Curve becomes visible” (279-80).
Gerald Graff: Real intellectuals turn any subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest subject” (381).
Antonia Peacocke: “’Sure these ‘screenagers’ might sit back and watch a program now and again’ Rushkoff explains, ‘but they do so voluntarily, and with full knowledge of their complicity. It is not an involuntary surrender’ In his opinion, our critical eyes and our unwillingness to be programmed by the programmers make for an entirely new relationship with the shows we watch.”(305)
DS: “Wait a minute- isn’t a fictional program’s connection to real-life political events like torture and racial profiling one of the “social relationships” we should be paying attention to? 24 is the perfect example of a TV show that challenges its audience’s cognitive faculties with intricate plotlines and rapid-fire information while actively discouraging them from thinking too much about the vigilante ethic it portrays. It’s really good at teaching you to think…about future episode of 24” (296).
Jason Zinser: We need to examine the function of television for our society, and we can examine past situations for example, “Journalists like Tom Fenton have blamed the media for failing to anticipate the pre-9/11 threat posed by terrorism. By reducing the number of foreign correspondents and cutting down on hard news stories, real foreign policy issues had been more or less remaindered to the periphery of the news. Having a population concerned and informed about relevant facts and issues helps guide the future course of the country” (365).

SJ: Shows like 24 allow the viewers to view “the media as a kind of a cognitive workout, not a series of life lessons” (279) as you claim they do. Watching television helps to exercise your brain by allowing you to critically think about possible scenarios, or if we are talking about sports, to repeat plays that you may have learned prior to watching the game.
AP: “I believe that Family Guy has its intelligent points, and some of its seemingly ‘coarse’ scenes offer have hidden merit.”(308)
JZ: What we need to realize is that, “Like most things, The Daily Show isn’t all good or all bad. The question isn’t whether Jon Stewart or the show’s producers and writers are morally corrupt people, but whether or not fake news is, on the whole, beneficial or damaging to society” (364).
GG: “I see now that I in the interminable analysis of sports, teams, movies, and toughness that my friends and I engaged in- a type of analysis, needless to say, that the real toughs would never have stopped to- I was already betraying an allegiance to the egghead world. I was practicing being an intellectual before I know that was what I wanted to be” (383).
JZ: It’s important to question the validity of the material and opinions shared on the show, because, “Cana show unburdened by objectivity” be expected to communicate news to the public accurately and responsibly? Can a program concerned with getting ratings through comedy be expected to provide objective and responsible coverage of world events? Of course ‘deception’ means ‘the intentional imparting of false information to another’ (366).
GG: “Everyone knows some young person who is impressively “street smart” but does poorly in school. What a waste, we think, that one who is so intelligent about so many things in life seems unable to apply that intelligence to academic work” (380).

Work cited
Graff, Gerald. “Hidden Intellectualism.” “They Say/ I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writings: With Readings. 2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2012.382-87.Print.
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” “They Say/ I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing: With Readings. 2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2012. 277-94. Print.
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” “They Say/I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writings: With Readings.2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2012.299-311. Print.
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside of the Idiot Box.” “They Say/ I Say”: The Moves in Academic Writings: With Readings.2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2012.295-98.Print.
Zinser, Jason. “The Good, the Bad, and the Daily Show.” “They Say/I Say”: The Moves in Academic Writings: With Readings. 2nd ed. Ed. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. New York: Norton, 2012. 363-78. Print.

Sherman Alexie

Tiandra Williams

ENG: 131. Section 02

Professor Lucas

3 April 2014

Sherman Alexie:

The Life of an Indian on a Reservation

Sherman Alexie presentation was excellent. Not many writers speak as well as they write. He delivered a vivid and well detailed story about his life. I was expecting him to speak of his books, but I was completely wrong.

Alexie started off with a question that his driver William had asked him before his arrival to Hickory, North Carolina. William asked Sherman, “When did the poor become the villains?” Sherman went on to express his thoughts about the question that was asked. Alexie called whites “poor”. He felt this way because Indians were hard workers and provided for themselves; meanwhile, the whites had no survival skills at all and didn’t know what true hard work was. Since the Indians had survival skills, thus this made the Indians rich. When I say rich, I’m not speaking of money, yet I am talking about them being rich of knowledge.  The Indians were treated poorly by the whites. An example to describe how cruel the whites were; they only gave the Indians half of any pain medicine. The whites justified their reason by stating that Indians could take twice as much pain than a white could. How unfair is that? Although, Alexie was poor he wanted more in life. The reservation was so poor that Alexie’s math book that was thirty years old had his mothers name in it. I couldn’t picture myself in such a horrible position.

The more and more I listened to Alexie, I realized I wasn’t the only one who noticed many stereotypes among many races. Some whites believe that Indians came from a certain part of the world. When in reality we all came from North America. In reality the Christians who believe in God, believe that God is white when in reality that’s impossible due to the climate and location of the origin of creation. Alexie wasn’t trying to purposely make anyone upset; he was only speaking on European stereotypes that others have to deal with.  To be honest Alexie was right when he said many whites are worried and afraid of the wrong race. Primary example, many fear Muslims due to the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. When in reality the Indians have much of a reason to kill whites.

Overall, Alexie had valid many points about life in America. Everything we believe in is based on something we have seen; moreover, this is a nice way of sugar coating racism and stereotypes. No person is alike no matter what their societal social status is. Our society is based on poor people that work very hard to get and keep what they pay for.

In conclusion, we will forever have our differences of how we all came to be in present day. But, we must realize that although we are different in many ways, equality and fairness is something that we never be possible in America.

 

Watching TV Makes You Smarter

Tiandra Williams
ENG 131.02
Professor Lucas
19 February 2014

Steven Johnson’s Watching TV makes You Smarter: An Annotated Bibliography
Introduction
Reality television shows, cartoons shows, and pop culture as a whole tends to target a certain crowd. The crowds television shows might try to target are toddlers, teenagers, or adults. Although the idea of watching television shows makes viewers smarter may seem outrageous, it might be true. Within the hidden comedy, racial slurs, and drama we might need to view these television shows as a lesson.
The bibliography includes the article itself, and is followed by two secondary sources: a movie critic and who has written for the New York Times, Bookforum, and the Atlantic forms an argument against Johnson’s thesis, along with a student at Harvard University, who is also a National Merit Scholar that reasons with Johnson’s thesis to possibly being true.
Personally, I agree with Johnson’s Watching TV Makes You Smarter. While watching TV you are exposing yourself to many genres of television, yet no matter which one you choose to watch, you will gradually begin to learn some things you may not have known. Peacocke’s article follows up with Johnson’s theory, but at the beginning she had doubts. After giving the theory a chance Peacocke slowly started to see what Johnson was talking about. Overall, I do understand why Steven’s feels differently. I do agree that some television shows aren’t appropriate, but life is filled with harsh people. As the saying goes, the truth hurts.
Annotated Bibliography
Johnson, Steven. “Watching TV Makes You Smarter.” They Say/I Say. 2nd Ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 277-94.Print.
Steven Johnson’s “Watching TV Makes You Smarter” he notes that, “ The world doesn’t come in nicely packaged public-service announcements, and we’re better off with entertainment like The Sopranos that reflects our fallen state with all its ethical ambiguity (279).” Johnson goes on to say that although there might be “negative messages” within the media, there are benefits from viewing television shows as well. Some programs place more cognitive benefits. Johnson points out the cognitive benefits of watching these intelligent shows, for it challenges your mind more than watching a typical football game.
In conclusion, Johnson feels as though many people are overlooking the benefits that watching television has. Requires more mental labor and improves our ability to read.
Steven Johnson, an author of seven books, is also a contributing editor for Wired, writes a monthly column for Discover, and teaches journalism at New York University.
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/ I Say. 2nd Ed. New York: Norton, 2012. 299-311. Print.
Antonia Peacocke’s, “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relations to the Unconscious”. She writes that, “Laughing at something so blatantly sexist could cause anyone a pang of guilt, and before I thought more about the show this seemed to be a huge problem ” (302). Not all of Family Guy’s jokes are constructed to be offensive. If you were to watch this television show, many would not be able to deem the character Peter as “worth emulation” (306). Thus leading back to television intelligence. In an average U.S household Pete’s behavior would not be considered acceptable. Being able to recognize certain behaviors out of the norm is helpful. Overall, Family Guy provides a relief by breaking down certain taboos and realist situations.
Antonia Peacocke is a philosophy major at Harvard University and received the Catherine Fairfax MacRae Prize for Excellence in Both English and Mathematics.
Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside of the Idiot Box.” They Say/ I Say. Second Ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. 295-98. Print.
Dana Stevens states that, “Johnson’s claim for television as a tool for brain enhancement seems deeply, hilariously bogus – not unlike the graphically mesmerizing plot diagram he provides of “any episode” (297) of Starsky and Hutch as a foil for the far fancier grid representing The Sopranos.” Although Johnson has fancy graphs to support his reasoning, Stevens claims that then aren’t logical. Stevens believes certain television show invoke behaviors. Lastly, Stevens feels that someone who watches “a hell of a lot of TV” tends to functional, especially for children.
Dana Stevens has a Ph.D. in comparative literature from the University of California. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” was first published in Slate on March 25, 2005, as a direct response to “Watching TV Makes You Smarter,” the article by Steven Johnson.