(04-20-2021 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I actually think 'critical part' is, well, critical.

I think Rice like most Universities recognizes the value of athletics in creating well-rounded graduates/people. It is not the only contributor, but it clearly differentiates us from 'online' universities. It is in my mind, as important as arts and many other student activities, and because of the size of the 'business' behind it, arguably vastly more important than most. Why is dance considered 'academic' but gymnastics is not? Football is as artistic to those who appreciate it as ANY other artform... and more accessible to most.

I think the difference is that most schools do it because it is profitable, to the EXCLUSION of its academic purposes, and RIce could fulfill what McKinsey told us to do... and be seen as LEADERS in 'doing it right'.

If we don't embrace the mind/body aspect of athletics, accept it as an art form without selling out to the business of it... then we are failing our founding purpose, our charge by McKinsey, and our unique role as a highly academic institution that challenges to exceed in EVERY (major) aspect... and not just a few.

Its not an us/them... its a 'we'.

Very well said.

Another thing that occurs to me, because Rice has such a small student body, relative to many other schools (P5), we have a much higher percentage of students who play college athletics. On that basis, it is a much bigger deal to our student body to be competitive and to provide a good experience. Our brothers in Austin have 52,000 students enrolled (all schools) this year-does Rice have 5200?