Tom v Peyton paper4 draft3

Dwayne Miller

Mr. Wysocki

ENGL 101-67

November 24, 2014

To most people Peyton is the greatest of all time. He has the stats to back up why he is better. He currently is there record holder for touchdown in a season and career. He also has the record for passing yards in a season. Tom has records for the post season like wins and touchdowns but not the regular season. So by this fact Peyton must be better, right.

The regular season is 16 games and for both Peyton and Tom they have gone above and beyond for these games with studying their own playbook and their opposing defense to make sure they can play to their best potential. Tom has said to the media that Peyton is the greatest of all time. Peyton said that Tom is the hardest working quarterback in the league. So if within these 16 games of each season Tom has said that Peyton is better why is their in argument.

Peyton also is more liked by football fans because of the way he plays. Tom however gets much criticism because he is the only one that is ever compared to Peyton and it makes people mad for some reason like it his fault. Ben Roethlisberger is more liked than Tom and he was accused of rape but paid the victim to drop the charges. Tom has done nothing like this, so why is he treated like a lesser of a person?

Because he plays for the Patriots and wins games. That just doesn’t make sense. Tom is just as good as Peyton but he has a good running back so he doesn’t pass as much as Peyton does. This leads to Peyton having better stats until postseason when Tom takes control of his team and wins the game.

College Athletes getting Paid? A Counterargument

The major trend in college athletics these days seems to be moving toward paying the athletes.  The controversy of athletes working so hard on and off the field and not receiving a payment for it has caused quite the uproar in the sporting world.  But this trend is not without an opposite side.  The traditional NCAA model has always been that athletes receive a full academic scholarship and are not allowed to receive any outside payment.  Many people within the sporting world would still like to see this model continue, even with all of the controversy that comes along with these policies.

The reasoning of traditionalists when it comes to the argument of payment in college athletics is usually rather simple-they want to see that amateurism remains prevalent.  What is amateurism? Amateurism means that the athletes are not paid for what they do.  This contrasts with the idea of professional sports, where athletes are paid a yearly salary, similar to any other job.  Keeping outside payment out of the hands of athletes keeps amateurism in check.  This is beneficial for many reasons.  A main reason has to do with schools being able to influence recruits using money.  If athletes become enabled to receive payment from other sources besides their academic scholarship, schools could use benefactors to influence an athlete's college choice using money.  Endorsement deals are another issue.  NCAA rules currently prohibit college athletes from signing any types of endorsement deals, and are not allowed to make money off of their own name.  If college athletes are allowed to sign deals with companies like Nike or Adidas, these brands could use their wealth to influence athletes to attend a school with the company's branding rights.  All of these reasons are why many still firmly believe that college athletes should not be paid.

So what does this counter argument mean for college athletics?  Obviously, the big business and money making mentality of the NCAA would like their current model to stay true.  The current athlete model where athletes are not paid keeps the money in the pockets of the NCAA.  Officials for the association have continuously commented that they still firmly believe in this concept of amateurism and do not want to see athletes being paid.  I believe that even though payment for college athletics could lead to the possible corruption that was mentioned earlier, the trend of a new model is going to end up pushing through.  The media has spoken their word and the fans, including myself, mostly seem to be on board with this idea of college athletes getting paid.  The pros completely outweigh the cons, and it is time athletes start getting the money that they work their butts off to earn.  There would be no money in college athletics if it weren't for the players, so how can it possibly make sense that the athletes don't receive that money?  This is why the argument that college athletes should be paid seems to be trumping the opposite viewpoint, and I believe that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.  

Should College Athletes be Paid? Draft 3

            It is one of the most disputed topics in college sports. Should college athletes be paid? No, athletes should not be paid in college.

            If they are not satisfied, there should be a way for athletes to go into a sports club or minor league system, where they could be paid, and universities could give the education to those who truly care about it. This also would give larger universities that bring in more money an unfair scouting advantage of offering more money than those smaller schools who will may only be able to offer a very small amount.

            The fact that many athletes are already on scholarships shows that they are already making more than the common student. Most students don’t receive even one scholarship from the school. Some students work every day just so they can eat, because they don’t have enough money. These students may start to resent their athletic peers should they be paid.

            The NCAA has said that “if college athletes were to start being paid, many schools would leave Division I sports” (Ganim, par. 1). Furthermore, “the universities that stayed in Division I sports would have to start cutting other, less popular sports to be able to afford the salaries” (Ganim, par. 2). Many of the athletes would also be left with nothing to do and may even be forced to transfer to another school to continue moving on in their respective sports.

            If athletes were to be paid, then the game may seem to be more about money and greed, rather than the love of playing the sport. Again Mark Emmert of the NCAA states “if amateurism goes away, so will the games as we know them now” (Ganim, par. 8). He goes on to mention that many schools lose money on the sports but they keep them for social cohesion, most likely among students who love to watch their respective teams play.

            One more huge issue is who would actually be paid. Would all athletes receive the same pay or would the most well-known and popular athletes receive more than those who barely get to play? Would football and basketball (being the two largest sports) make more than smaller sports teams because they bring in more money? This is possibly the largest group of questions regarding whether or not athletes should be paid. They would be the major issues needing worked out before many would change their views on the issue.

            There are many people who feel that college athletes should be paid. They have a variety of reasons as to why. They feel that because college athletes bring in so much money to the school that they deserve a cut of the pay. What they don't realize though, is that many schools are struggling to stay around, because their sports programs cost them so much money. They earn no money and in no way would they be able to pay all of their players. They feel that players are so special to the school that they deserve the compensation, but most players at any given level of any sport have been replaced and almost always are replaced.

            As you can see there are many reasons as to why athletes should not be paid in college sports. Many will still argue this topic long after it is truly settled, but college athletes should not be paid. That is unless there is a way for all schools to have a fair shot at bringing in athletes by paying them.

Constructing Arguments (Digitally) Draft 3 - Counterargument

Because education is the foundation of everyone’s future, teacher’s salaries should be raised to complement their work efforts. Teachers/instructors are the torchbearers of the entire countries future. Although this may be true, others may argue that since teaching is a government paid career, there would simply not be enough funds to raise the wages of the entire countries working teachers. According to the BLS reports, the annual median salary for high school teachers, in America, was $55,050 in the year of 2012. And, according to nces.ed.gov, there are 3.3 million working public school teachers in the United States as of 2012. If these stats are true, this means that in order to raise funds to pay each teacher in the U.S., the government has to raise well over $181 billion in tax money in order to pay each teacher. According to usgovernmentrevenue.com, the government collects about $3.2 trillion in a year income and payroll taxes. If this information is indeed correct, then it’s more than evident that the government holds enough money that has been raised in government taxes to accommodate teacher’s, that are working in high schools, salaries without breaking the bank. If the government raised the median annual salary for high school teachers by just 20%, this would not place a dent that is even noticeable in the revenue that the government collects.

With all of these stats, you may be wondering what the main point is. The point is that the distribution of funds within the United States should be distributed a bit differently to ensure the stability of the states’ future. This is more than possible considering the gargantuan amount of funds collected every year. In order to do this, we would have to ensure that the teachers in the education system feel appreciated, thus wanting to work harder to provide the country with this stability. These are YOUR children that the teachers are instructing. The government is going to take money out of your checks for taxes whether you like it or not, so why not be sure that it’s for a good cause. What better cause than to ensure that your child is getting the best education possible? Although, it may seem like raising the salaries of our countries teachers may be a huge stretch on the countries funds, it won’t be. Besides, BILLIONS of dollars go to waste that have been collected by the government each year. According to articles.sun-sentinel.com, about $125 billion is wasted on improper payments in federal programs.

This money that is being wasted could be used to help raise the wages of our countries teachers, and more. So that leaves the question of why not?

Sources:

-"High School Teacher: Salary." High School Teacher Salary Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

-"United States Government Revenue History - Charts." Federal State Local Government Tax Revenue in United States for 2015 - Charts Tables. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

-"Federal government waste." Sun Sentinel. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Draft 3

Shaqquan Aaron      

11/24/12

Draft 3 Paper 4

            I will be discussing about how college athletes do not get paid. This argument has been going on for a while. It has been going on for probably about the beginning of sports in the NCAA. Many athletes like myself feel like we should get paid and others do not because we get scholarship money. One of my main arguments on why I think athletes should get paid is the time commitment we put into the sport. Coaches of our require us to practice so much that we do not have time to do other things like having a job so we can make money for ourselves. Also there is so much wear and tear on the body. Why wear and tear on the body is big for me is because coaches get paid millions of dollars a year and are not close to having as much pressure on their bodies.  Also Athletics bring in substantial amounts of money to colleges. Why cant athletes at least get something if they do not want athletes to get paid? Athletes can’t even get a candy bar from someone without getting in trouble. We cant even sign jerseys and get paid for our own name. They will end up getting suspended or something for getting “special benefits”.

            There were times this year when I was low on money but there was no way for me to make some. The only money I had was from my mom and scholarship money for food. Thank god for that because if those were not sources for me I would be struggling. Also my coach demands his athletes to perform as hard as they can everyday causing tremendous wear and tear on the body. I would like to at least receive something since athletes can’t get paid. But the thing about that is what would we receive then. Extra food? I already get food. So the only thing that could really work in this situation is money right? What I am trying to say is what is the big problem with athletes getting paid?

            College athletes really have no time to for another job. Let me tell you an average day of a college basketball athlete, myself. The first thing I have on my schedule when I start is class at 9. That class goes till 9:50. Then I have study hall at 10 till about 11:30. They actually really want us to be in there 2 hours but sometimes I can’t. Then I have a practice for about 30 minutes. Right after that I have weights for about 20 to 25 minutes. Then as soon as that’s over I immediately have to run into the locker room and get dressed fast so I can get to my 1 o’clock class on time. Sometimes I have to run.  My one o’clock class lasts until 1:50. I have a 2:30 practice everyday so the only rest I really get is about 15 to 20 minutes in between. Basketball practice is always about 3 hours so practice does not end until around 6. Then my day is done, but actually it really isn’t. I still have to study for school. So where in the day of my college life can I actually have a full time job where I can make myself some money? There is no way in possible that could happen. And on top of that there are times where we have events or community service events we have to attend too. Oh and I almost forgot about the big days for us college athletes, game day. When there are days I have games there is no way in possible I can work. So why shouldn’t college athletes get paid? Shouldn’t we at least get a chance to at least make some money doing something since they do want to pay us?

            A lot of people think college athletes should not get paid. They all have their different reasons but some of the main reasons they have are that being able to be a student athlete at the collegian level is a privilege and that they get their college education paid for. They say that most Americans do not get the chance to attend college so student athletes should be grateful because of that. But I still think people are failing to realize how much college athletes are worth to these colleges even though they do make valid points. College athletes bring in money to the school every year. Also the coaches get paid tremendous amount of money. Shouldn’t the athletes at least get paid a little something? I mean don’t get me wrong the coaches do work hard everyday but at the end of the day it’s the players that are helping them get paid. If coaches don’t win games then they get fired and lose games. So they need players to help them succeed and get paid. There also a lot of wear and tear on the athletes bodies. They put so much time and dedication into their craft.

Paper 4, Draft 3.

Police officers, the protectors of our city. The ones we call upon first when there's a disturbance in the peace within the society. Police officers assist, protect and defend those in our community and are willing to risk their lives to do so everyday. So the question is, are they really paid enough to do the job they risk their lives to do? Some would argue yes, they are extremely underpaid. There are some who counter-argue that and believe some police are over-paid for their job.

The average salary of a police officer in the United States this year is $30,000 a year. Most commonly a police officer will work a 12 hour shift a day. Of course the day to day beat of an officer can have all types of activity happen within it, whether it be a high risk situation or a simple traffic stop or even directing traffic, law enforcement faces potential danger everyday. They are constantly on the move. Why are their salaries so relatively low for all that they do? Many factors go into this, the fact that there are so many police officers can usually make it a more difficult task to pay all of them. The taxes of American citizens are what pays our law enforcement. There are also the pay of other government employed jobs such as firefighters and teachers who make similar salaries as law enforcement in America.

In America, it has always been a big debate on whether or not law enforcement officers are underpaid and whether or not they should be paid more. Though many citizens believe that our police are very much so underpaid, there are some who believe the government may be overpaying the officers or that they are simply paid appropriately for the jobs they conduct on a daily basis. Those who do not support the raising of law enforcement salary argue that some tax payers cant afford to pay more for our police to have a higher salary. “So many police officers guard our cities, with nothing to do. We don't need as many as we have and they are quite overpaid for what they do” (debate.org, “are police officers underpaid”).

Our cities do have very many officers and many of them may not have much to deal with on a day to day basis but this does not mean a dangerous life threatening situation will not occur at some point in an officers career. Paying officers more for what they do is an appropriate gesture in todays society. Lowering the roster of officers is not an appropriate move just to pay them more. Lowering the level of defense against crime in a city would only make for more danger to the police in a community. Police should be paid more and the ranks should remain the same.

Marty Brown 

Counter Argument

The argument that I am presenting has one main counter argument and one argument that would differ from me on the amount of money issue.  

The main counter argument is obvious; do not pay the players at all and keep the rules how it is now.  Those who still agree that the players should not get paid have a reasonable point with a lot of good points.  A couple of points that was written in an article arguing against paying athletes cites a couple of points centering around athletes get treated above the normal college experience, as well as the scholarship covers everything the athlete needs.  Her big argument is comparing the athlete to the stereotypical college kid.  She starts by saying they receive above average aid then the average student.  She states that everything is provided for athletes giving them an advantage over normal kids.  Also she talks about the value of the experience of playing college athletics comparing them to unpaid interns (Block).  

Another argument against paying them is that if we were to pay them because they do not have a chance to work a part time job, is that a normal college kid not playing college athletics would be working that job to pay for the tuition, room and boards and books covered by that athletic scholarship.  The normal college kid isn't going out and having a nice dinners and buying new cloths all the time either which is what the "part time job" money would go too (Block).  

Another argument against paying athletes is the fact that the disparity between big revenue schools like Texas and small school would increase from the fact that big schools could just buy all the good players (Block).

Although these arguments make very good points I still feel like my argument is still superior.  While no one can dispute the "value" of playing college athletics, the overall experience of playing I can argue that none of these arguments bring up the issue of the millions of dollars being made off the players and sports teams.  My argument takes care of all the points she brings up.  The issue of schools buying players, there is no salary being paid to players.  The other arguments that are made are being compared to the average college student. They are not regular college students, they bring in millions of dollars.  While i agree that they are not professionals yet, they are however should be compensated some for their time and effort.  Through paid hour vs the scholarship hours.  I like that the argument brought up the point that many of these kids could not go to college if it wasn't for the scholarship they receive from the university, that has to be taken more seriously and looked at highly.  

Block, Molly. College Athletes Should not Receive Payment for Playing. University Star, n.d. Web. 21 November 2014.

Draft three

Even though it is known that the military doesn’t get paid enough for the work they do, one might believe that because they get so many extra benefits the budget should be left alone.  Along with guaranteed pay, the military receives housing assistance, clothing assistance (for the many required uniforms), medical insurance, dental care, and other extras that come along with deployments. When they get stationed in a different state or country they don’t have to pay travel costs and they get help moving all of their things. Many of these aren’t added into the annual income statistics because they aren’t received as cash income. The work factory men do is also considered dangerous, and worthy of good pay. Both works are important on the macro and micro levels, in the economy and at home. Another benefit not added into cash income is the bill that allows the service member and potentially their families to go to college for little or even no costs. Getting an education these days is almost priceless (while still being extremely pricey) and very necessary. Many people might believe that we already spent too much money on war efforts and that the national budget is already way too high. Working in a factory comes with very long work days with many hours on your feet. Most of the time they end up working 3rd shift for some period of their lives, which cuts out a lot of time for family and friends. To really, really succeed in a factory job the person will have to stick with it for many years, sometimes all the way until they stop working. Fixing the budget would cause many other problems, not just good.

It is true that the military gets perks, just as much as it’s true that they deserve those perks. Knowing the benefits doesn’t change the fact that they are volunteering their lives to protect the country we all live in. In order to be persuasive the reader must not side with the military, or believe the work they do is as important as the work of factory jobs. The argument I posed is still very true and more persuasive because there are many factors that help it out, mostly the emotional appeal. The counter argument only has logical appeal, dealing with the nation’s budget. Most of the country today is still very patriotic and believes in the good of the military. 

Draft 3

In the last few drafts I have been arguing why college athletes should be paired fairly. However, there are a few counter arguments that can be made on the topic of paying college athletes. When talking to people that believe that college athletes should not get paid the argument that I hear most often is that these athletes already receive scholarships for a free education to there universities. So if you think about it, assuming that they stay all four years of college, these athletes are getting sometimes over a hundred thousand dollars. So, if these athletes were to be paid an extra amount that it would be pretty unfair to other students that may work just as hard as these athletes and do not get any sort of scholarship money from the university.

            Another major argument that could be made is that it would be almost impossible to fairly regulate how athletes are going to be paid. For years there has been two main sports that bring in the NCAA all the money that they receive. But, it would be unfair for the NCAA to only pay the athletes of these sports. Also there are five major conferences that bring in the major money for the NCAA. But, just as it would be unfair to pay only the basketball and football players, it would be unfair for the NCAA to pay the athletes of these five conferences. It would be very difficult for the NCAA to regulate the amount the athletes should get paid because of these reasons. Major universities would argue that there athletes should be paid more and the smaller universities would argue that this is unfair which would just make things worse than they already are.

            Both of these arguments are very good ones and definitely have a negative effect on why I think college athletes should be paid. The first argument is fair and pretty good, however, I think the second one effects the argument of paying college athletes a little bit more. If you look at the statistics over the last decade they show that on average athletes make the NCAA and there universities is way more than what they receive with the scholarship money that they get. The argument that it would be difficult for the NCAA to regulate how the athletes get paid is one that I personally agree with. That being said I think that the NCAA is smart enough to come up with some kind of process of paying each and every one of their athletes fairly no matter what sport or what university that they attend.

Zach Olson

There are many different arguments stated in this article. One of them is that the Industrial Revolution is the main reason for the rise in IQ scores. They say it is because of easy access to information. It is a lot easier to get a hold of information in today's world because all you have to do is get on a computer and type in what you want and thousands of suggestions will pop up and you are done. Although this may be true, there are a few reasons why technology may not be the answer to the question. One reason someone may argue that technology is not the answer because you do not know if everything you read on the internet is true. Some websites are reliable, but not all of them are and if you do not know which ones are reliable and which ones are not, you might be reading wrong information. In past generations, people went to the library, where the information is all correct, to learn and write down what they need. I think that technology is still the biggest reason for the rise in IQ scores. I think this because a lot of the information on the internet is correct and if some of it is wrong, it gets changed pretty fast by someone else to the correct information, so it is not that big of a deal.
Another argument is that family size helped the scores rise. "The intermediate causes are things like smaller family size. If you have a better ratio of adults to children in the home, than an adult vocabulary predominates rather than a child vocabulary."(Gambino. par.7). They say this is a factor because if you have a smaller family, the kids will pick up their parents vocabulary and will learn to speak like them, which will be the correct way and will help them in school. The only problem with this is that not every adult talks with correct vocabulary and that is where you can get a counter argument. Most likely adults will talk with correct vocabulary, but if they do not, it will not help their kids develop a strong language. I agree that smaller families will help, only if the parents talk correctly and watch what they say because if an adult cusses a lot, their kids will listen and start to cuss, which is obviously a problem. If a family is bigger, the kids will pick up what they are saying from each other and that can become a problem also. Again, I agree with a smaller family size, but the adults also have to watch what they say if they care how their children will be brought up and how they talk to you and other kids because they feed off of each other when they are around each other, like at school.

                                                                     Works Cited

Gambino, Megan. "Smithsonian" December 3, 2012. November 24, 2014.

U.S Education System (Draft 3)

Having experienced an educational system other than United States’, I must say that the U.S is trailing behind many developed countries in quality of its system. Before moving to U.S, I lived in Russia where I went to 1^st through 3^rd grade. And after starting my education in U.S, surprisingly, I had no trouble adapting to school. I guess you could say that it’s because the content for 4^th grade math here was similar to 2^nd grade math in Russia. And once I learned English, I had no trouble with any other subject due to the difficulty levels being lower here than my classes in Russia.

But of course, I was not paying attention to these types of issues while still in school. Now that I’m done with school, I can easily point out the faults in the system and the society. And yes, it’s not only the education system, but also the society that brings down the quality of education here.

And I can give many examples. For instance, getting good grades is not very important for many students. However, I’ve observed that grades are valued more than actually learning here. As long as you have good grades, you don’t care if you actually understand the concepts being taught in classes. And honestly, you can’t really blame the students for doing this, because there is a 99% chance that you will never put that knowledge to use in real life. Also, in my opinion, parents’ expectations from their kids aren’t as high as they should be. As predicted by the Eccles socialization model (Eccles, 1993), parents’ educational expectations had both direct and indirect effects on children’s academic achievement scores. And that’s very obvious, if your parents don’t care about your education, the chances of you not caring either are very high.

With that being said, what kind of actions can the government take? First of all, I believe that teachers should be selected carefully, and there must be more competition for jobs. Teachers shouldn’t be so laid back. It is without a doubt that students decide their own future, but teachers can guide them to the correct paths. I’ve had many teachers who let kids sleep or use electronics in their classes, and they don’t even call them out once. Teachers are educating the leaders of tomorrow, so they must spend more effort preparing them for the future.

In order to fully understand how the countries with the best education systems got to where they are, we must figure out what they’re doing right. So let’s analyze the Finnish education system. Not because they have the best system, but because they worked their way up from the bottom. This way, we can see which steps Finland took to be the best.

For a very long time, Finland had one of the worst education systems in Europe. And it wasn’t until 1970s that the Finnish government started making major improvements and launching reforms. Now let’s take a close look at these changes. One of the first steps they took was eliminating the practice of separating students into different paths based on their test scores. Later, they got rid of these examinations altogether. Another great move by Finland was making higher investments on teachers. Nowadays, their teachers get a lot more education and training. Matter of fact, Finnish teachers receive a three year graduate-level teacher preparation program, completely free of charge, including a living stipend. Whereas in the United States, teachers have to go into a lot of debt for their profession, knowing that they will get paid poorly. Also, in Finland, teachers are picked very carefully. Only 15 percent of those who apply get admitted. So their schools are filled with teachers that know what they are doing. Here is a quote that gives us a visual of what Finland’s schools are like:

"Most visitors to Finland discover elegant school buildings filled with calm children and highly educated teachers. They also recognize the large autonomy that schools enjoy, little interference by the central education administration in schools’ everyday lives, systematic methods to address problems in the lives of students, and targeted professional help for those in need." (Sahlbert, 2009, p. 7)

According to nea.org, the core principles of the Finnish system are:

·         Resources for those who need it the most

·         High standards and supports for special needs

·         Qualified teachers

·         Evaluation of education

·         Balancing decentralization and centralization.(Laukkanen, 2008, p. 319)

What has United States been doing all of this time? Forcing more and more standardized testing.

When we focus only on the flaws of the United States’ education, it may seem as a terrible system, when it’s not. Although I am for a change in the system, I can’t say that it’s failing. A country with a perfect education system is yet to exist. All systems have their flaws. And when we compare U.S to a country with very few of these flaws, it makes the system look bad. We can always compare it to a bad system and feel good about our own, but that is not the purpose. Our intention must be to find the flaws and get the U.S educational system where it belongs.

Despite there being a lot of proof about U.S lacking a good system, there are still arguments about how it’s fine as is. One of the most common arguments against a change is freedom. Some people claim that the United States offers freedom to students unlike many other countries. For example, you get to decide on your own future here, whereas in China, students are told what careers they should pick in order to be successful. Also, there are some heavy punishments in some countries for poor academic performance. So one can argue that kids are “forced” to have achievements. However, that is not an excuse. You can still upgrade the system while maintaining the same amount of freedom.

Another advantage of U.S education is that it guarantees education for all students until the age of 21. And it doesn’t limit access to those who can afford uniforms, supplies, and transportation like in many countries. No school system anywhere in the world exceeds the United States in providing free access to education for everyone. And I don’t think anyone can argue with that.

When we compare test scores, the scores of other countries likely don’t include the ones of poor rural children without education. Some believe that the broader the spectrum of students that take the test, the lower the average score will be. But this is a false impression, and I can back that up. According to a recent study by Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), the percent proficient among U.S. students whose parents are college-educated or who are white is significantly less than the percent proficient among all students in countries such as Korea, Singapore, and Finland.

No matter who says what, the United States must make some serious changes in its educational system. There is a reason why people are working on these studies. And thanks to their efforts, we can easily see what areas we must improve on. Some people just want to ignore these studies, but numbers don’t lie. It doesn’t take much to realize the need for improvements. Let’s hope that these improvements will come sooner rather than later.

Works cited

• Kean, Pamela E. "The Influence of Parent Education and Family Income on Child Achievement." Journal of Family Psychology 19.2 (2005): 294-304. Print.
• Eccles, J. S. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, self-perceptions, and activity choice. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 40. Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 145–208): Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• http://www.nea.org/home/40991.htm
• Paterson, Paul. Lastra-Anadon, Carlos. “The International Experience.” 12.1 (2012). Web.
  <http://educationnext.org/the-international-experience/>

  
  

Paying College Athletes- Counterargument (Paper 4: Draft 3)

According to uslegal.com, the definition of a profession athlete is “an individual who is employed as an athlete by a team that is a member of an association of 6 or more professional sports teams whose total combined revenues exceed $ 10,000,000 per year, if the association governs the conduct of its members and regulates the contests and exhibitions in which its member teams regularly engage; or any minor league team that is affiliated with such an association.”(uslegal par.1). If we begin to pay our college athletes then we would be considering them to be professionals. Student athletes are not professionals who receive salaries as an incentive for a career in sports. They are students who receive an education through the opportunity given to them to play sports. Sports are their way towards an education not a way out of it. For student athletes grades and education should come before scoring touchdowns and slam dunks. Professional athletes are professionals for a reason; they have one job and it is to perform well for their team. Paying college athletes will mean that they are professionals. College athletes are not professionals because academics come before sports. Their main focus in college should be their schoolwork not sports. We should not twist college athlete’s priorities by paying them.

These athletes are not professionals. If paying athletes does not end at a college level who’s to say where it will end. Why not pay high school athletes for their efforts in their respective sports? If we go by the logic “They are making money off of the athletes so why not give the athletes a cut?” then we will never find an end. The high-schools that make profit off of their successful sports teams will pay their players and so will the grade schools and so on. The argument of profit will not work in every situation. Where do athletic salaries stop if we adopt this mindset?

While the argument for not paying college athletes does a good job of explaining that student-athletes’ priorities should have academics first but it does not consider the well-being of the student-athletes. This aspect of the entire debate is by far the most important. The bottom line is that student-athletes should be able to support themselves. Whether their college expenses are paid for or not, it still has to be taken into account that these players have to support themselves monetarily on a daily basis. In order to be effective any argument about college athletics should have the players’ health and well-being at the top of the priority list.

Bibliography

"Professional Athlete Law & Legal Definition." Professional Athlete Law & Legal Definition. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. <http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/professional-athlete/>.