Too fat to pass?

[deep]

Overweight students unable to graduate

By Helena Merriman
BBC News

How would you feel if you had studied for your university degree but were unable to graduate because you were overweight?

This is what some students are facing at Lincoln University in the US which has introduced a unique way of tackling obesity.

In 2006, the university in Pennsylvania introduced its Fitness for Life programme with the aim of encouraging students to lose weight.

The premise was that if a student had a body mass index (BMI) - a ratio of weight to height - of above 30, then they should take some college-sanctioned steps to show they had lost weight or at least tried.

The course includes walking, Pilates, exercises and fitness games.

But this year, some students have not completed the course, so they may not be able to graduate.

Professor James L DeBoy, head of the Health, Physical Education and Recreation department at Lincoln University, who proposed the programme, says that around 30 students are unlikely to pass.

"Around 15% of the student population each fall has failed to earn a BMI of less than 30," he told the BBC World Service. So we anticipate two dozen not being able to complete the course."

'It is ridiculous'

Sharifa Riley, a journalism student at Lincoln University who has been reporting on the uproar amongst students, says that losing weight should not be part of the curriculum.

"The BMI requirement is ridiculous," she told the BBC's Newshour programme.

"I am fully aware that obesity is becoming a problem, especially among people our age.

But students come to colleges to get an education...and for me to work for four years to get to the end of my course, and for somebody then to tell me that I cannot graduate because of something to do with my weight, I feel that has nothing to do with university.

"It should not be a requirement. It should be an option."

But Professor DeBoy says that drastic times call for drastic measures.

"We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic in the United States and we know that obesity is associated with certain co-morbidities such as heart disease, diabetes, strokes, selected cancers and muscular skeletal disorders," he says.

A growing problem

Obesity rates in the US are rising.

At a conference on obesity control in the US in August, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that two out of three adults and one out of five children in the US are now obese or overweight.

And according to a study carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the US medical system spends around $150bn (£90bn) on treating preventable health conditions caused by obesity - which is twice the amount it spends on fighting cancer.

Professor DeBoy believes that universities now have a responsibility to address this.

"We as an education faculty believe that it is our professional responsibility to be honest with students," he told the BBC's Newshour programme.

"We need to let them know where there might be an impending issue that could put them on a collision course with these health issues down the road.

"And we are responsible for their total well-being, not just the academic, but the emotional and psychological state of our students."

While the US government has set a target of cutting adult obesity rates in all 50 states to 15% by next year, a recent report from the Trust for America's Health has said this target is certain to be missed.

BBC News - US university links exam success to weight loss


Hard to believe that they can hold up their degree just for being obese.

 

[Kieran McConville]

At least they should have the guts to show the face of the woman accompanying the story, so she can sue their asses off as they deserve.

Whether it is as reported or not, I don't know. It stinks, of course. I'm sure it's for their own good though, so who cares, right? Anything goes in the fight against immorality.

 

[indra]

Whether it is as reported or not, I don't know.

I don't like "it's for your own good" mandates at all (I do like the no smoking in enclosed public places laws, but think people should be able to smoke outside, in their own homes and cars etc., and shouldn't be denied a job or fired from one because they smoke), but I think some of the reporting on this has been less than completely accurate. I've looked into this a bit more over the past few days and apparently the students only have to take the class and participate -- they don't have to actually lose weight or get their BMI below a certain level. I also believe the class only lasts one term, and the students were informed of the requirement during their freshman or perhaps sophomore years, so it wasn't sprung on them at the last moment.

The thing I don't understand is why the hell didn't the university just make this class a core curriculum phys ed requirement for all students? That way they could get the obese students in the class, but not single them out. Perhaps very physically fit students could test out of the class, just as they often can for other subjects.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Or perhaps they could just stay the hell out of people's private business. And teach the fucking course they're there to teach.

 

[coolian2]

Or perhaps they could just stay the hell out of people's private business. And teach the fucking course they're there to teach.

hey, woah. let's not have any common sense here.

 

[indra]

Or perhaps they could just stay the hell out of people's private business. And teach the fucking course they're there to teach.

True. But nearly all US colleges and universities have a core curriculum or basic general courses that everyone has to take, whether or not those courses are directly related to every major, and often phys ed courses are included in this (at least phys ed courses used to be included -- I haven't been in college for a while). Those general ed courses are part of the deal in US colleges. I don't have any problem with it as a core or general class that everyone has to take. I do have a problem with them singling out students though.

And if a student really does not want to take the class he or she can choose another college (that's how I avoided taking any college level math courses *)


* The year I graduated the college started requiring all incoming freshmen to take at least one math class. My academic advisor was shocked when I pointed out to him the requirements stated math or science not math and science courses were required. I think most people just took a math class when their advisor encouraged it. But I really hated math.... I like to think my refusal to take a math class helped screw over future generations of math phobic students at that college.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I don't think phys ed has much place beyond primary and secondary school. These are adults, by the law at least. I certainly get the idea of a core curriculum that all students go through in first year. Since I did that myself, albeit in Australia.

 

[mysterious_jen]

edit: i promised i wouldnt come here anymore.

 

[indra]

I don't think phys ed has much place beyond primary and secondary school. These are adults, by the law at least. I certainly get the idea of a core curriculum that all students go through in first year. Since I did that myself, albeit in Australia.

I think one or two phys ed courses are pretty typical for many college degrees here though, so requiring a phys ed class or two for a degree is not unusual. Lincoln University does require a phys ed class in their core curriculum. The problem is that only certain students are required to take a specific (and possibly additional -- although I'm not sure it's additional) class based on their BMI. Every student is required to take HPR 101 -- Wellness, but only some students are required to take HPR 103 -- Fitness For Life. Here's what the advising guide on the Lincoln University website states about the Fitness For Life course:

HPR 103 Fitness for Life (by placement only) *
* All freshman students will be tested for B.M.I. (Body Mass Index) and Cardiovascular fitness. Only those who do not meet minimum criteria will be required to complete HPR 103. Testing will occur in September and October 2009.

The simple way around the outcry it is to just have everyone take the damned course. They are all taking a basic phys ed "wellness" course anyway.

I am amazed whoever decided on this policy didn't realise it would not go over well. What the hell were they thinking?

 

[Canadiens1131]

This article really piques my pannus.

 

[BVS]

Hard to believe that they can hold up their degree just for being obese.

Well technically it's because they didn't finish the course...

We still had Phys Ed requirements in college when I went, I know many are getting away from it,

I think the way they're going about it is wrong, like Inda said, make everyone take it.

 

[A stor]

I haven't been to college for a while either. I received my Liberal Arts degree in the early eighties. I had to take two courses of my choice, in physical education. But, no one in my classes "failed" due to weight or any other physical limitation. My college offered a wide variety of choices such as swimming, boating, dance, tennis, yoga and etc.

I think it is ridiculous for any college to withhold a degree, based on BMI. It is a form of prejudice and this should be against the law. Suppose these same students couldn't graduate because of gender, sexual orientation, ethnic heritage, religion or age?

It seems to become a "witch hunt" against those who don't look the way. Some idiot group of "they" tell them to. Who is to say, besides a medical doctor, that the young woman in the photo above, isn't healthy. And even if she isn't. She still has every right to pursue a college degree.

 

[BVS]

It seems to become a "witch hunt" against those who don't look the way. Some idiot group of "they" tell them to. Who is to say, besides a medical doctor, that the young woman in the photo above, isn't healthy. And even if she isn't. She still has every right to pursue a college degree.

I don't know, do you really think it's just about "looks"?

The simple fact is that obesity does effect us all in a way, i.e. health ins costs, etc...

*I don't think this is so much about "it's for you own good", what if this is about OUR good? I mean we make smoking laws not because we want smokers to be healthier, but we don't want them effecting those around them. We make traffic laws not to make people better drivers as much as it is to save those around them.

What if this is the same thing?

*devil's advocate

 

[Kieran McConville]

I don't know, do you really think it's just about "looks"?

The simple fact is that obesity does effect us all in a way, i.e. health ins costs, etc...

*I don't think this is so much about "it's for you own good", what if this is about OUR good? I mean we make smoking laws not because we want smokers to be healthier, but we don't want them effecting those around them. We make traffic laws not to make people better drivers as much as it is to save those around them.

What if this is the same thing?

*devil's advocate

I understand that this is the devil's advocate argument, since you said it is.

I'll simply remark that I despise it, detest it, hate it with ever fibre of my being.

What if this is the same thing as anti-smoking laws? Well. Um. The awful, evil obese person is also a, er, tax payer, are they not? They are also contributing to the common pool, are they not? Or does that not count?

God, this shit gets me riled up sometimes.

No, at some point you have to just stay the hell out of people's private business and accept that you can't blackmail people, you can't hold everything over them, some things are just not done.

 

[Liesje]

We had phys ed core, THREE classes were required to graduate (I took two levels of modern dance, weight lifting and also did gymnastics as extra because I wanted to).

I don't know if I agree, or even care. It is what it is, if someone doesn't like it, go to a different school.

 

[BVS]

Well. Um. The awful, evil obese person is also a, er, tax payer, are they not? They are also contributing to the common pool, are they not? Or does that not count?

Well herein lies the rub. The healthy often pay more than they use, while the sick often contribute less than they use. So we're covering for those that are sick, that's how insurance works. But when it's someone who is sick due to their own lack of trying, I can see where some folks feel cheated. That's all.

 

[Kieran McConville]

what can I say, the world isn't always fair. It's a can of worms that you'd want to be very careful about opening.

Except not really, because it already is open. Which is why threads like this crop up with increasing frequency. This or something similar.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think that's ridiculous. They're adults not kids-and they're paying hefty sums to go there.

The size of your body has nothing to do with what's going on in your brain and your ability to learn and use that brain wisely and well. Not to mention the fact that, in some cases, weight and BMI is controlled by factors that are beyond someone's control-to a greater or lesser extent but it is all the same.

Are they preventing students who drink or do drugs or smoke from graduating unless they get that under control?

 

[UberBeaver]

Is this a course? I don't understand how it works. Is it some sort of mandatory activity that you get course credits for? I had courses that required volunteer work in college, and if I didn't do it, I failed. If you knew in 2006 that you had to do this, and it's now 3 years later and you haven't done it, well, that's on you. You had 3 years to do some walking.

 

[Liesje]

Is this a course? I don't understand how it works. Is it some sort of mandatory activity that you get course credits for? I had courses that required volunteer work in college, and if I didn't do it, I failed. If you knew in 2006 that you had to do this, and it's now 3 years later and you haven't done it, well, that's on you. You had 3 years to do some walking.

I agree. All schools have their own requirements and that's really all it boils down to. I had to take three different phys ed classes to graduate. We also had to complete a pretty extensive core (which most people were still working on in their third year) which included the "CCE" (cross cultural engagement) requirement which basically means you have to study off campus at some point. If people can't afford that or don't want to do it, then they have to do extra work to meet that requirement or they can go to a different school.

I also know of people that were excused or put on probation because of health reasons and not taking care of themselves.

Are they preventing students who drink or do drugs or smoke from graduating unless they get that under control?

Where I went, yes. If you were caught doing certain things then you had to do these "AA" type classes if you wanted to stick around. Even stuff that is legal (like drinking off campus or having porn on your computer) was subject to this.

 

[diamond]

It will be cheaper taxes for everyone if we don't have a nation full of fatties once Universal Health Care is forced upon us-because the tax payers have to pay higher taxes incurred by higher health costs due to general health conditions caused by behaviors of fatties.

This is the reasoning behind this new mindset-in which I do not agree.

You wanted it folks, congratulations-you own it.


<>

 

[AttnKleinkind]

I can think of some healthier people than me who are bigger in terms of weight, or probably have a higher BMI. I just have a naturally high metabolism, so I'm smaller, but they can run farther and faster than I can. If it's about fitness, it shouldn't be about BMI, but rather whether they're able to complete some sort of fitness requirement (a series of physical tests, maybe).

And it's easy to tell someone to just go to another school, but what if they can't afford to live away from home, and this university is nearest to them? What if they have a specialized program that they need to go to this school? What if they have a scholarship to this school?

"And we are responsible for their total well-being, not just the academic, but the emotional and psychological state of our students."

Should someone not graduate if they are suffering with depression? (I sort of feel that that might be a leap in logic, but I'll throw it out there anyway..)

 

[BVS]

It will be cheaper taxes for everyone if we don't have a nation full of fatties once Universal Health Care is forced upon us-because the tax payers have to pay higher taxes incurred by higher health costs due to general health conditions caused by behaviors of fatties.

You really don't understand the current system of healthcare do you?

This is happening now, don't try and pretend this has anything to do with social medicine.

 

[diamond]

This is happening now

And it's going to get worse if you guys have your way.

<>

 

[BVS]

You've shown such an informed understanding of healthcare, I'm sure we'll all take this into consideration...

 

[anitram]

I think it largely depends on when this was imposed on them.

For example, if you apply to a university which has such a requirement and you accept your offer with that knowledge, then that's informed consent and you should have no grounds for complaint later. But if this is something that was sprung on the students halfway through their studies, then I would say it is not what they bargained for; rather it was imposed on them.

If this school wishes to continue on with this program, they should clearly state that to all high school applicants.

 

[phillyfan26]

The state of Pennsylvania is one of the few states left in the US that requires physical education to be taken every year of school up through high school. Lincoln University is a state-funded school in PA, and I'm wondering if physical education is required at that level as well. I go to a state university in PA, and I have a physical education requirement to graduate.

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

At my university you had to take 4 PE courses and one health class in order to graduate. It was no big deal to me. I looked at it as an easy A.

 

[indra]

It will be cheaper taxes for everyone if we don't have a nation full of fatties once Universal Health Care is forced upon us-because the tax payers have to pay higher taxes incurred by higher health costs due to general health conditions caused by behaviors of fatties.

This is the reasoning behind this new mindset-in which I do not agree.

You wanted it folks, congratulations-you own it.


<>

This study shows both smokers and the obese actually cost less over the course of their lives to treat than do thin, non-smokers.

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and nonsmoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas and changing science.

"If we're going to worry about the future of obesity, we should stop worrying about its financial impact," he said.

Obesity experts said that fighting the epidemic is about more than just saving money.

"The benefits of obesity prevention may not be seen immediately in terms of cost savings in tomorrow's budget, but there are long-term gains," said Neville Rigby, spokesman for the International Association for the Study of Obesity. "These are often immeasurable when it comes to people living longer and healthier lives."

Van Baal described the paper as "a bookkeeping exercise" and said that governments should recognize that successful smoking and obesity prevention programs mean that people will have a higher chance of dying of something more expensive later in life.

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

"We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity," van Baal said. "But they should do it for the right reasons."

 

[anitram]

It will be cheaper taxes for everyone if we don't have a nation full of fatties once Universal Health Care is forced upon us-because the tax payers have to pay higher taxes incurred by higher health costs due to general health conditions caused by behaviors of fatties.

This is the reasoning behind this new mindset-in which I do not agree.

You wanted it folks, congratulations-you own it.


<>

Do you try to post things that sound stupid on purpose?

I mean, surely if you had spent 1.2 seconds of thought before replying you'd have realized that you live in the FATTEST nation on earth, one that is currently FATTER than EVERY SINGLE country that has SOCIALIZED healthcare.