(05-09-2014, 12:21 PM)g1313 link Wrote:I'm not sure if the distinction you draw between student-athletes and full-time employees is valid. The chef (or any other full-time employee) is by definition not a student (in addition to likely being in a different age range and life stage). Wouldn't a better comparison be to any of your classmates that worked part-time while in school, like an RA, RCC, TA?
SCU didn't have teaching assistants when I attended it. The RA's there received room & board, unlike the football players who received tuition, room and board. They received no separate compensation. I don't know what an RCC is. If that means Resident Community Coordinator, I never ran across one there.
The athletes are entertainers who work 40+ hours per week at their craft. The veneer of amateurism is very thin, barely thin enough to recognize those individuals as just-one-of-us fellow students.
Student athletes are student entertainers. When I was in school, student-actors didn't get paid for the plays, neither did the dancers, neither did the students in the fine arts department who created paintings or sculptures that were ultimately put on display. I paid $15 for a ticket to a play at my son's school, but my son sure as heck didn't get paid. But you bring up a good point. Along those lines, there is a professional actor who does get paid well, who does attend school there. He is not particularly close to the amateurs in the University's theater department, and when they refer to their fellow actors, they aren't referring to him.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
