WHY THEY SHOULD a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes, and film sessions. College athletics are extracurricular activities, but the schedules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) tournaments require an extended period in which the student-athletes must miss school. Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article “21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize.”
Since student-athletes also bring in revenue for their team and college or university, especially in the championship games, those who debate in favor of paying them say the students could receive a small portion of the profits. Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams.
College football and men’s basketball programs earn far more than any other athletic program, so these athletes would likely earn more as well. This may not be considered fair pay, but many of those who argue in support of paying college players point out that team popularity and consumers generally determine what is “fair.” These sports also tend to support other less popular sports that do not bring in a lot of money on their own.
Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. Coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the offseason, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it, writes Tyson Hartnett for HuffPost.
Most profits from college athletics do not go toward academics. Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman. Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes. Scholarships often cover most of the student-athletes’ books and room expenses, but even few extra hundred dollars per year could compensate for the lack of time these students have to earn spending money at a regular part-time job, argues Harnett.
It’s also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university’s advertising team. For example, the “Flutie effect” is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win. It’s named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the College’s admissions rose significantly in subsequent years—though the extent of Flutie’s impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then. Still, colleges and universities use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools. WHY THEY SHOULDNT
In 2013 survey expert John Dennis found that 69% of the public is opposed to paying student-athletes. (This proposed payment would be in addition to the scholarships given in men’s football and basketball programs.)
If scholarships were taken out of the deal, and only salaries were given, then it would be more fair and affordable for the university, right? Wrong. If salaries were given, then these college student-athletes would have to pay taxes. Depending on the student-athlete’s income, those taxes could be high enough to reduce what they earn until they can barely cover tuition, according to John R. Thelin in his article “Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes.”
Those who opposed paying college student-athletes say scholarships are the best option; there is no question as to what the scholarship money is going toward. Cash or a salary could be spent on wants rather than necessities, potentially leading the athletes into a debt they would not have with the benefit of a scholarship.
Furthermore, those who debate against paying student-athletes say it would change the very nature of college athletics. College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. It’s difficult to earn a position on a college team. Though a dream for many, only about 7% of high school athletes move onto the bigger stage. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division
Sixty percent of those polled said that salaries should be paid to all athletes, and 38% said salaries should only be paid to athletes playing sports that bring in revenue. ... When asked whether athletes should be allowed to profit off their likeness, support was even higher.
Women's lives did not improve at all if anything they were worsened. Rich woman during the renaissance had very little say in anything and was taught to help their husband run a business and take care of him and the house. The poor woman had no say in anything they only had to choices at life, they could either be a housewife and take care of the kids and the house ore they had to become a nun. The poor woman could not be single or have any rights.
The role of women was very scarce. Women were supposed to be seen and not heard. Rarely seen at that. Women were to be prim and proper, the ideal women. Females were able to speak their minds but their thoughts and ideas were shaped by men. Mostly everything women did had input given by men. Women were controlled by her parents from the day she is born until the day she is married, then she would be handed directly to her husband so he could take over that role. In the time of the renaissance, women were considered to legally belong to their husbands. Women were supposed to be typical ‘housewives.'
Though women were inferior to men, women in different classes had different roles. Low-class women were expected to be housewives and take care of everything to do with the house. The expectation of working-class women was a little bit different. These women were expected to work for their husbands and help them run their business. They would work alongside their husbands and then go home and take care of the household. Upper-class women may have had servants and workers working for them but the women were still expected to take care of the household.
Women could not work by themselves. Neither could they live alone if they were not married. If a woman was single, she was made to move in with one of her male relatives or join a convent and become a nun. There was no other option at this time for women.
In conclusion in different classes of women, the only women that were allowed to express themselves were upper-class women, but not sufficiently. The existence of women was there but it was a marginal existence. Very rarely would a woman of less than upper class be seen or heard expressing herself. It was unheard of. When women did express themselves, what they would express was tainted by male influence.
Explanation:
please make mine the brainleist answer so i can get 19 more points. thank you
President Barack Obama's back-to-school remarks emphasize on the importance of education and staying in school. Through the different options students can pursue in school, President Obama strongly persuades the students to discover themselves and achieve thier own dreams.
Therefore, if Moritz is designing an advertisement to go with President Barack Obama's back-to-school remarks, he should make the advertisement persuasive as well.
Answer:Parents and caregivers offer their children love, acceptance, appreciation, encouragement, and guidance. They provide the most intimate context for the nurturing and protection of children as they develop their personalities and identities and also as they mature physically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially.
