Overall, most things I saw while in the US, I could relate to in some way (industrious New York, beggars in Philadelphia, the tourist traps of New York, the hectic fast food restaurants), but I never managed to connect to the "college town experience" even though I had something like four weeks to do so.
Everything seemed to be curated, just like some footage of childhood christmas you see on television. Students and the interests of students dominated the entire experience. I felt as if I was visiting a theme park.
Funnily enough, I only tangentially registered the obsession with sports that seems to be very prevalent there. What I distinctly remember is wondering, why the "Academic Bookstore" had more Sports apparel and team merchandise than books in it.
It is hard to say if any meaningful insight can be gained from my personal experience there. I heared somewhere that going to college is an important way for young people in the US to escape culturally difficult surroundings (say, a radically religious community), but IMO it feels kind of sad that the college world is so separated from the rest of US culture.
My problem with football is the toxic environment that develops around it, all the abusive fans (a bunch of misogynist, homophobes, xenophobes and racist lowlifes), all the damn betting agencies - the black spot in any neighbourhood, all the scandals about bribes and such.
It's a shame, because the sport itself is very nice.
I think fundamentally the problem is in watching other people sport. Sport is great for people to do. As entertainment for mass consumption, it's not so great.
It might be that the laundering of loyalties through colleges helps the US a bit here. The 17-23 year-old athletes are inside, and must feign allegiance to, a system of more supervision and higher educational aspirations. Many fans acquire collegiate affiliations far from their home region, and the overall fan base might lean more college-educated, because of all the co-marketing during college years.
I really hope that was sarcasm and I'm just missing it. I don't think the American system is all that great but seriously, have you listened to an English footballer give an interview? They can barely string a sentence together. Think of the kids who believe as you say, it's a legitimate career. The ones who then don't become professional and can't get a job as they left school so early.
People who play sport with nearly all their time from age 10 or so are going to be less academically developed - that's not necessarily a tragedy in and of itself, although it might be a shame.
That's not the issue here. The issue is that in the USA, apparently, these athletes are all enrolled in higher education courses that they will either fail or drop out of. In the UK, and Europe, athletes aren't required to pursue such courses as part of their athletic development - they can go straight from school to professional sport, via privately run clubs which maintain youth teams and leagues.
> Look at the numerous recruitment scandals in which players or players' families were offered money or perks in exchange for matriculation.
I graduated from Penn State in 2011--the year before the Sandusky scandal broke. It was easily the darkest time for my school, and I don't know a single person who wasn't feeling a mix of horror, shame, and disgust at what went on. While the connection between the football program and Sandusky's actions (a retired coach since 1998) leaves room for disagreement amongst reasonable people, Penn State is one of the few schools that handles student athleticism properly. Recruiting scandals, perks from boosters, and lackluster academic achievement from student athletes are problems that Penn State solves as well as any school out there.
The New America Foundation ranks top-25-BCS-ranked football programs by academic achievement of their players. Anytime Penn State's football team was ranked in the top 25 in the BCS, they have also ranked highly (usually #1) in New America's "Academic Bowl".[1]
I'd also like to point out the fascinating example set by John Urschel. He finished his math undergrad degree in three years with a 4.0 GPA[2]. He then finished his math masters degree the following year, again with a 4.0 GPA[3]. He has written academic research articles[4]. He writes software[5]. He teaches an undergrad math course[6]. He's also a graduating offensive lineman with a real shot at the NFL. He's weighing that prospect against the option of pursuing a Ph.D[7].
[1] http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/blogposts/2012/the_2012_..., http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/blogposts/2009/third_ann..., http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/second-a...
[2] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/cv.html
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/publications.html
[6] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/cv.html
[7] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/sportsman/news/20131204/joh...
http://news.psu.edu/story/293418/2013/10/30/athletics/penn-s...
This is what I was responding to, and at least at Penn State, it's measurably false.
> I was actually referring to the Sandusky scandal and how Paterno knew Sandusky was sexually abusing children and let the legal process die with minimally plausibly deniable effort.
I don't disagree with you on that point, football culture can absolutely be toxic, and Penn State is a perfect example of how it can go wrong.