"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > Unfortunately, Title IX, which states that colleges and universities must > have a number of intercollegiate athletic slots in proportion to their > total male-female enrollment, is a well-intentioned idea with two serious > flaws. > > 1) It presumes that men and women students are equally interested in > intercollegiate athletics. Now, granted that the disparity between > male-female interest in intercollegiate athletics was not anywheres near as > great as the disparity between male and female intercollegiate athletic > slots before Title IX existed, this does not mean that the level of > interest is equal across the sexes. Again, Title IX has accomplished > some good things - but this does not mean that it is without flaws or room > for improvement. Additionally, a number of factors correlated to sex can > affect interest in intercollegiate athletics, including likelihood to stay > in dorms vs. commuting from home, and interest in the other extracurricular > options available at the school.
One interesting data point: On a local radio sports talk show, the host mentioned that his neice had just received a full-boat sports scholarship under Title IX from an expensive school to row for their crew team. How much crew experience did she have? None - she had never pulled an oar in her life. The school needed to fill the slot despite lack of demand/qualification. It's a fantastic deal for her, but it something seems a bit out of whack.about that. I'm reminded of something I heard a while back (probably apocryphal) - some city passed a law requiring that all new large buildings must contain 2 women's restrooms for every men's rest room (since, according to the story, women averaged twice as long in there). The end result was that builders just started building less mens.rooms, to keep the total the same or less than before. -bry _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
