There is no denying the role athletics play in universities and colleges across the United States. Some would argue that athletics are an integral part of what makes the college experience, and I would have to agree with them.

Whether you are the star quarterback of the football team or the hardcore fan, there are gains by being associated with your school’s athletics teams.

Sports have an unprecedented ability to foster cohesion and campus participation like no other. However, they also have the unique skill set to install a particular mentality of entitlement and arrogance. This can be seen across all schools: big, small, private, state owned, Division I to Division III.

The extent of "student-athleteism" as I will term it, is vast. In fact, student athletes in some cases have become such commodities within their school that they have become something similar to "celebrities." This seems a little extravagant for young individuals whose primary purpose of going to college should be to get an education. An education that is nurtured in academia, not necessarily on the field. The special treatment that is given to student athletes extends beyond that which is provided for other students in almost all cases.

The "celebrity" status that gets designated to these students not only comes from peers but also professors and athletic department staff. Nearly everyone knows of a story where the athlete gets an extension on their paper because they have a conference game that day, or the student-athlete received extra help that was followed up by lenient grading.

While this seems harmless in the grand scheme of things, we have to consider the integrity of academia. Does the constant flexibility that is issued to cases where athletics are concerned cause detriment to what it means to be a part of academia?

There was once a day when every Tom, Dick and Harry did not participate in sports at a University. It was for the intellectual elites, the professionals who wanted to pursue a future in engineering, medicine and law to name a few.

Now we bear witness to the ever-increasing curricula of schools across the country. Should a student athlete, whose primary focus is athletics, be allowed to do so while studying public relations, sports administration or multimedia and journalism? It is not that studying media, sports admin or PR lacks stature, yet instead I would argue that the student athletes completing these degrees, while having often given only half the commitment completing a bachelor requires, diminish its worth.

I can not help but compare the educational-athletics system of the United States to my own educational institution in my native Australia.

I feel they are entirely different, with my home university having only what would be considered "recreational sports" available for students to participate in. This system ensures greater emphasis is placed on school and sport is merely an outlet, rather than a hugely time consuming commitment.

Although I see athletics as a significant opportunity, I also question the traditional meaning of attending a university.

Have we seen such a fundamental change to universities structures in the United States that, perhaps, we will see another shift in paradigm? What will the future of academia look like if other "additions" are made to the system? I ask these questions out of pure curiosity.

I wonder how far the system of profit will go. As I have no doubt the extravaganza that is "collegiate athletics" exists only as a money-making machine. In a system where deans and presidents are forced to make immoral and distasteful decisions to maintain their positions, it seems a little contradictory that they are representing institutions that are supposed to signify intellectual superiority.