Recently, there has been some controversy about Lincoln University not allowing students with a BMI over to 30 graduate because they didn't complete a mandatory, 1-credit gym class. Some students think it is ridiculous that their college cares more about their weight than their academic achievements. I disagree with them.
This sort of policy is definitely a step in the right direction. There are undoubtedly imperfections in it, but since when has a new innovative idea of something a bit outside the box, or in other words the beta version of a concept, ever been perfect? I applaud Lincoln University for having the boldness to do something about the current obesity epidemic that is ruining millions of peoples' lives and is the largest contributor to America's huge health care costs. Foreign students have to complete mandatory courses that non-foreign students do not; what is so different about people with a high BMI being required to complete a course that those with a lower BMI are not? Could healthy living not be considered a part of general education that every university requires its students to obtain? People fluent in a foreign language test out of their university's foreign language requirement. Similarly, people that are fit "test out" of the healthy living requirement. Students who complain about this type of policy are actually complaining about the concept of the "general education" requirement that all universities employ.
6 comments:
Amen! I agree with this and think its a good idea. I love the show 'The Biggest Loser" and think that statistics are scary these days...
But I also wonder if I'd feel the same way if I was obese.
What?!? This is ridiculous. I guess that if those people knew what they were signing up for, then they should have to do it; but BMI has nothing to do with whether or not one should graduate. In fact, BMI doesn't necessarily mean anything because it doesn't account for body composition. I don't think that the role of a university is to regulate students' personal health/nutrition decisions. If it were, I can think of multiple risky health practices in which college students engage that should be a much higher priority than mass/height. Would you also applaud a university's decision to require a social drinking course since this can be an important skill to succeed in business?
Right, using BMI as the indicator of health is one of the major flaws of this system, as it is well known that BMI often does not correlate with health. If a different, more accurate and effective measuring tool was used, it would obviously be much better. At least they are trying to do something about this issue, but undoubtedly they could do more and do it better. Should a university not be concerned about the health of its students?
Some professors might find it appropriate to include a lecture about social drinking in their business course, but I doubt anyone could justify an entire course about it. It also poses questionable ethical issues--educating unhealthy students about health is quite a different thing than educating students to use alcohol as a means to clime corporate ladders or transact business deals. Your extension of reasoning appears to be somewhat of a straw man fallacy to me.
My point is that it isn't the university's role to involve itself in the students' health. The university should mind its own business. The university should not involve itself in the students' marriages, pet choices, food preferences, ipod playlists, etc. to any degree without the individual student's request or in the face of the student's objection. I disagree with the "do[ing] more" being better. I think that doing less in this area is better. The university has no authority to govern that aspect of students' lives.
My analogy to the social drinking was an illustration of another scenario in which a university would be outside its role if it were to impose on the students a requirement which is not necessarily directly relevant to their chosen area of study. However, you could effectively argue that social drinking is a more relevant topic than BMI for several reasons, including: (1) there is a need in this population since college students are notorious for abusing alcohol (2) regardless of your opinion on the morality of alcohol use, alcohol plays a big role in business or work situations (3) irresponsible alcohol consumption is a more immediate threat to one's health than obesity (4) irresponsible alcohol use does much more damage to a university's image/reputation than obesity (5) alcohol consumption can directly result in obesity.
To require a physical education course implies that you believe that the students just don't know how to be healthy. If you're assuming that the students are too dumb to figure out that they're out of shape and they have no idea that exercising more and/or eating better could help them, then maybe you need to tighten admission standards because small children in elementary school know that. Also, doesn't every public school in America require some physical education and health courses? I can't believe that people are ignorant on these issues. Their problem is their lifestyle. Maybe universities should focus more on giving their students a quality education which is relevant to their desired occupations instead of imposing frivolous coursework upon them and intruding into their personal lives.
Then I suppose it all comes down to what your definition of a "quality education" is. There are plenty of people out there who are very intelligent in one area but totally ignorant spiritually, physically, and socially. Are you under the assumption that a university should only concern itself with academia and ignore the other areas that make a person well-rounded? I suppose every university has a different point of view about this, which can be reflected in their mission statement. A look at BYU's mission statement makes this point clear:
"The mission of Brigham Young University--founded, supported, and guided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--is to assist individuals in their quest for perfection and eternal life. That assistance should provide a period of intensive learning in a stimulating setting where a commitment to excellence is expected and the full realization of human potential is pursued."
Hence, it becomes very obvious why BYU focuses on spiritual matters, but it also explains why their GE requirements contain a physical education/ health class and why the university is concerned about its students' lifestyles. Many universities are very different. UofA, a pubic school, does not require any physical education or health classes. I can't say this about UofU, but I read their mission statement and it only focuses on academics.
There will never be total agreement on what kind of education a university should offer, but I don't think the world would be worse off if universities tried harder to produce well-rounded individuals with better lifestyles (and yes, I would support the view that alcohol is an issue that needs to be dealt with, perhaps in health-related classes. Business departments could choose what they may in offering lectures/seminars on this topic).
**I kept reading the UofU's mission statement, and their last paragraph does discuss health and cultural things, although the first, summarizing paragraph, only discusses academics.
Post a Comment