NY Times Loyola op-ed
[Apologies if this has been posted but I haven't seen it here.]
Earlier this week, the New York Times carried an opinion piece by a Loyola professor contrasting education (i.e., Loyola) and "big-money" schools (i.e., Michigan).
A good education means knowing the importance of evidence. Yet this champion of education neglected to note that 4 of Michigan's top players made All Academic Big Ten. In addition, he ignored Michigan's international reputation for academics. (It's also harder to get into than Loyola: UM's 29% acceptance rate vs. L-C's 60%).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/poetry-march-madness-basketb…
I'll take Michigan's academics over any school on the planet. No offense, but Loyola-Chicago is even less well know for academics than it is for basketball.
You really have to squint to try to see a swipe at Michigan here.
After reading some of the comments here, I was expecting to get fired up by the article, I actually thought it was a pretty good piece. Seems like some folks here are being overly defensive about a perceived slight against Michigan. I didn't really see it that way. I also didn't think he was necessarily claiming academic superiority to "big-money" schools, but rather his appreciation for the smaller role that athletics play at (his) smaller school. Thought it was a mostly fair criticism of the NCAA in general.
Absolutely correct. There is no slight here whatsoever to Michigan – or any of the other schools in the final four, as I see it. It was an interesting article, and you could only interpret that the author was bashing anyone if you were looking to have hurt feelings. I could easily see something like this being written by a Michigan professor, only with a much more negative view of athletics and its impact on academics.
of hearing about Loyola. Period. Good team, good story, nice nun.
Finito. Story ends tomorrow night. Loyola's own version of The Alamo...
Let's do this, Blue!!
About a dozen years ago, one of my sons applied to U of M. He was a 3.9 student at a well regarded Michigan public high school with a good ACT. He waited 4 months to get in and only after he agreed to take an extra academic class in his last semester. While his application was being considered, one of his best friends decided to apply to Loyola. They both applied, on-line, during lunch one day. There were no essays required by Loyola. My son was accepted in 10 days and for more than a month he received calls from Loyola admissions offering him scholarships to attend. Loyola may be a fine school, but it is nowhere near the academic institution that Michigan (and many other Big 10 schools) are.
To be clear, when I posted the NY Times op-ed, I meant no disrespect to Loyola-Chicago. I teach at a Catholic school myself, and believe we provide a good education. I believe Loyola-Chicago does too. I also believe they've got a good team.
I posted because Michigan is implicitly included among the "big-money" schools, where players "become in-house professional athletes, without the paychecks, but often with plenty of valuable perks. Their training, practice and game schedules leave little time for class, let alone studying. Many don’t get diplomas, which they’ll need because the majority of them won’t play pro."
A problem in higher education? Absolutely. Sometimes a problem at Michigan? Maybe. Sometimes a problem at Loyola? Enough of a chance that he probably shouldn't be throwing shade, even if he covers his ass by not naming names.
And now, like Ace, I will curl into my own ball of anticipation.
Yeah, no. You pretty much entirely misread and misrepresented this piece.
March 30th, 2018 at 10:39 PM ^
Story is about students and the college experience with an emphasis on the comaraderie that is created when sharing an experience.
With all the emphasis on the the money behind the national sports landscape and the NCAA I see no reason to think this guy had any thoughts of Michigan. I doubt he wrote it with any thought of the next opponent.
Thank you for posting. I thoroughly enjoyed the article.