ABSTRACT Myles Brand offered a provocative defense of intercollegiate athletics (IA) by arguing that it is substantively similar to traditional performing arts, such as art or music, and so should be accepted by faculty as a legitimate part of a university's educational mission. Randolph Feezell characterized Brand's analogical argument as 'sophistic' and defended the reasonableness of what Brand termed the 'Standard View' of athletics whereby it is peripheral to a liberal arts education. I contend that Brand did not bring his persuasive analogical argument to its logical conclusion: IA should contribute to a new, first-of-its kind academic major in Competitive Sport. Feezell’s criticisms of Brand’s analogical argument were unpersuasive, and his conception of a liberal arts education was outdated. As a result, I defend the legitimacy of a Competitive Sport major comparable to a Music Performance major and give a detailed description of its rigorous, liberal arts-based curriculum that integrates faculty and coaching instruction through shared learning objectives and outcomes. I conclude by identifying, and responding to, several practical issues if such a major were to be implemented in a US university.

中文翻译：

---

将大专院校的田径运动变成音乐等表演专业

摘要迈尔斯·布兰德（Myles Brand）提出了挑衅性的大学之间竞技运动（IA）的主张，认为它与艺术或音乐等传统表演艺术实质上相似，因此应被教师接受，作为大学教育使命的合法组成部分。伦道夫·菲泽尔（Randolph Feezell）将布兰德的类推论点描述为“先进”，并捍卫了布兰德所称的“体育标准观”的合理性，认为这是通识教育的基础。我认为，布兰德并未将其有说服力的类推论点带入其逻辑结论：IA应该为“竞技体育”这一崭新的，首创的学术专业做出贡献。菲泽尔对布兰德的类比论点的批评是没有说服力的，他对人文教育的观念已经过时了。结果是，我捍卫了与音乐表演专业相当的竞技体育专业的合法性，并详细介绍了其严格的，基于文科的课程，该课程通过共同的学习目标和成果整合了教师和教练的指导。最后，我将确定并回答一些实际问题，如果要在美国大学实施这样的专业，则要进行一些回答。