On 2/19/04 3:14 PM, "Debbie Bell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It's interesting that Barbara raises the age issue.  I've always thought it
> odd that someone aged 24 "needs" physical education, but someone aged 25
> does not.  I might be more sympathetic to the requirement if we thought it
> was important to everyone rather than people in a certain age group.  If our
> goal to teach folks the value of maintaining a heathy lifestyle, it makes
> more sense to me to require everyone to take a 3-hour academic course in
> health/nutrition rather than a laboratory in a particular form of exercise.
> It's not our mission to force people into exercising, but to educate them
> about the benefits so they can make informed decisions about their own
> health.
>
> Debbie
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barbara Webb" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] Is physical education expendable?
>
>
>> When I was an undergrad, I was old,  and could have exempted myself from
>> the physical education requirement; but, instead, I took the opportunity
> to
>> learn how to play tennis. I had a great time and was able to fit physical
>> activity in to my schedule. I also took a class in health and first aid
> and
>> learned a lot of life saving techniques that I hope I never have to use. I
>> should probably take a class every semester. I know my health would
>> certainly benefit.
>>
>> Just my 2cents -
>> Barbara
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Melissa Burchfield
>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:32 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Is physical education expendable?
>>
>> When I was an undergraduate, I was required to take SIX hours of physical
>> education "activity" courses.  That requirement did more to make me hate
>> exercise than anything that's happened to me before or since.  My
>> conversations with current students indicate that many of them have the
> same
>> reaction to UTC's requirement.  I don't think we can assume that requiring
>> students to take physical education courses will result in their adopting
>> healthier lifestyles in the short or the long term.
>>
>> Since UTC is being forced to comply with the 120 hour rule, cutting 2
> hours
>> of physical education seems a reasonable move.  I think it's a much better
>> strategy than cutting 2 hours of major courses.
>>
>> Melissa Burchfield
>> UHON Program Secretary
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Laura Mincy" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 12:43 PM
>> Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Is physical education expendable?
>>
>>
>>> I have heard that the Faculty Senate is proposing to eliminate
>>> physical education requirements.  I understand that some hours need to
>>> be shaved
>> off
>>> but is this a message that we want to send?  Over the years, Americans
>>> (me
>>> included) are getting more sedentary and fatter.  Thusly, the rates
>>> for obesity-related diseased are through the roof.  We need to be
>>> stressing
>> the
>>> importance of a healthy lifestyle, proper nutrition, and exercise--not
>>> ignoring it.
>>>
>>
>
Debbie:

EHLS 021 "Concepts in Wellness" does provide students with documented
information about physical activity. It is done in lecture, with a required
text. This course also has a laboratory component where lecture materials
are applied in the physical activity setting.

Please know that students who come to UTC have had little or no information
about the benefits of a physically active lifestyle. The reason for their
lack of knowledge is that the Physical Education requirement has been
eliminated or reduced over the past 30 years. No state in the US has a
physical education requirement K-12. Thirty years ago most states had this
requirement. When economic times are hard, we cut the arts. Currently
Congress has appropriated $70 Million dollars to begin to reestablish
physical activity requirements in middle, elementary and high schools.
Congress is on record recommending that physical activity should be an
important part in the development of the whole student.

We (UTC) have an obligation to clarify values and provide information to our
students about the quality of their life. What we know is that physical
activity, when used regularly, will increase the quality of their lives
while increasing their capacity to learn. We know that we reduce by some 75%
the incidents of cardiovascular accidents and type 2 Diabetes. We know that
their level of production and output will be enhanced and we know that they
feel better about themselves.

Several members of the faculty mentioned exemptions that exist for not
taking physical activity (25 years exemption, military service exemption,
had a baby exemption). These exemptions were put in place directly after
World War II by the Registrar. The EHLS Department did not agree with these
exemptions at the time and does not agree today. We have been unsuccessful
in removing these exemptions.

The Vision of EHLS is "Quality of Life through the Joy of Effort." We are
teaching students about a higher quality of life and the dividends available
through regular physical activity. We do not believe there is a separation
of mind and body. We support the idea expressed years ago by Aristotle:
" Man of Action - Man of Wisdom" Aristotle knew then that what one does for
the body will assist the mind.  Investigators who work in brain research
are documenting the fact that physically active students learn at a higher
rate of learning than their sedentary counterpart. Multiple investigators
and research projects have concluded the same findings. It's about
intellectual integrity not about perceptions.