"It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated?"
--Alec Bourne--
"There is a big difference between being educated as opposed to being certified. One is a lifelong pursuit. The other is done at graduation."
--Bart E. Beals--
There has been a lot of debate since the high school basketball player announced that he was going to leave school before his senior year in order to play basketball in Europe. The debate has raged about whether an athlete should leave high school before his senior year in order to pursue the money and play ball in Europe. One side asserts that it makes the most sense to go after the money while it is available. The other side asserts that the athlete loses something by not getting his education. Both sides miss the point. The real question is what is education? And is a diploma or degree always the result of getting an education?
In my opinion an education is a lifelong experience that is the result of an endless hunger for understanding about oneself, one's surroundings, and one's existence. The only tools that are required to help satisfy that hunger is an intellectual curiosity and the skill of critical thinking. There is a big difference between someone that knows how to fix a couple of problems on a car and a mechanic. The one person can only fix what they have seen or done before because he/she does not really know how a car works. The mechanic can fix most problems regardless of whether he/she has seen it before because they know how a car works and can use the skill of critical thinking to diagnose then solve the problem. Since critical thinking is a skill it is like wine. It gets better with time and practice.
In my opinion the answer to the second question is no. You do not need a degree to be educated. You may need a degree to prove you are educated. A diploma or degree is just a certification that a person has completed a designated number of courses depending on the discipline. It does not guarantee that the person is intellectually curious or a critical thinker. It does not certify that the person is a problem solver. So . . . what does this have to do with whether an athlete should leave high school before his senior year to turn pro? The answer is in the analysis.
Typically I do not oppose athletes choosing to postpone or even forgo college if a rare opportunity to become a first round draft choice and possibly a star professional athlete presents itself. Since education is a lifelong process and you do not need a diploma or degree to be educated, I think there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that rare opportunity when it presents itself. However, that is not the end of the analysis. In the case of an American Athlete leaving his country and culture and losing his/her college eligibility to go to a different country with a different language and culture, I think the risks greatly outweigh the rewards so it is not a good idea.
If an athlete is already good enough before he even graduates from high school to play in Europe then that athlete has the potential to be something very special in the pros here in the United States where he can make even more money. He would only need to use the next two years developing his athletic skills before receiving a very large initial payday with many more to come. The bottom line is why risk his big bank for a little bank?
Special talents come along once and a while. Look at Michael, LeBron, and Kobe. The athlete would be better suited working on his sports skills and his image so that once he does turn pro he can win on the field of play and in court of public appeal. The former will get the athlete into the hall of fame. The latter will allow the athlete to make money long after his playing days are over. Once the athlete is done playing for an owner he could have the net worth to become an owner. The real question is why settle for a few millions when there is the possibility to make nearly half a billion? You don't need a degree in math to know which one is better.
Comments