Value of Learning and the Number of Bucks

College is a time to broaden your education and develop your skills. Different people go to college for different reasons but mostly for an education. The National Athletic Association is meeting next year and will decide if it needs to change its policy of not paying college athletes. I do not understand why this should be an issue. The main reason people go to college is to learn. So the NCAA will be deciding whether the athletes should be paid for playing their sport of choice thus demeaning the reason they are at college in the first place. There are millions of students who go to college each year; some play sports, others are in student government, and some are in theater. Each group is equally important to the college and in some cases are treated the same. If the athletes start being paid for playing sports then what†s going to stop the other students from finding a way to be paid for what they do. Does this mean then that students in student government should be paid for what they do or that the theater students should be allowed to join an equity theater union and be paid for doing shows? Paying athletes will create a rivalry among the students, for why should one group be paid for going to college while the others are not. The other thing to look at is that most student athletes are receiving scholarship and grant support from their college. Majority of the money that athletics being in is given back to the students through grants and scholarships. At Notre Dame, for example, grants-in-aid to student-athletes are worth about $5 million annually. Add to that the millions spent on travel, housing, equipment, health care and other costs and pretty soon you're talking real money. So yes, while athletics does generate millions of dollars in revenue for universities, there also are millions of dollars in expenses, most of which directly or indirectly assist the student-athletes. Sometime scholarships and grants are not enough which is why the NCAA recently passed legislation allowing student-athletes to work year-round. In addition, Pell Grants are available to the truly needy, and general student loans are another alternative. With all these options available, there shouldn†t be a need to pay student athletes. What's awful about the persistent whine for money is, it's saying a college education is worthless. People are suggesting that the value of learning can only be measured by the almighty buck. Paying students will put; too much emphasizes on sports and not enough on education. An education is priceless, and student-athletes at American colleges and universities reap the benefits of the finest higher education system in the world. From their education, students can go on in life and do what they want because they have the drive and education to. Student-athletes entertain us with their special skills and, in compensation, receive: all expenses paid competition in the sports they love, education that is worth thousands of real dollars with the promise of thousands more in future earnings, and the lifetime benefits of wisdom and character that come with being educated men and women. If we decide to pay college athletes, the only thing we accomplish is to move the universities further away from their stated ideals by making them more businesslike and disrupting the main point of college — to learn.