Last Thursday, there was
an article on Deadspin about the discovery of a letter written by 18-year-old Michael Jordan to his high school sweetheart. The letter was written atrociously, containing sentences like "I know that you feelings was hurt whenever I loss my necklace or had it stolen." and "Everyone think you are a very pretty young lady and I had to agree because it is very true." It was both poorly written and rather egotistical.
If I were to guess from this letter (perhaps employing a little bit of eisegesis), little MJ wasn't the brightest crayon in the high school box. Yet, look at him today: He sports a Hitler 'stache without condemnation, stars on Hanes commercials inexplicably located on airplanes, and, oh yeah, he's retired from being the indisputable greatest at what he did (which, I hope I don't have to tell you, was play basketball). In other words, he did all right, despite being incapable of constructing proper verbs at the age of 18.
Now, take a blogospherical Segway with me to the present-day debate of whether or not collegiate athletes should get paid. If taken, this step would essentially eliminate the already frailly secured title of "student-athlete." Athletic directors love to shove it down the world's throat that these college-aged individuals are students first and athletes second. Yet, we all are under the impression that most of them are focused solely on sports and get favorable treatment in academia. And we're totally fine with that — mostly because of this argument: They're going to college to prepare themselves for their careers, and sports is their field of study. This is why it doesn't matter that Michael Jordan is (or at least was) stupid. A college-aged future MJ needs to be smart (at least outside of knowing how to manage his forthcoming extravagant finances) as much as I need to know how to dunk. It'd sure be nice if I could, but it's not gonna affect my non-dunk-related career path.
