The NYT tut-tuts, because of the odds, the choice of poker over study: "While Mr. Sandberg insists that he is not a compulsive gambler, and he seems to bet large amounts only when the odds are heavily in his favor, some experts fear that college-age gamblers are swallowing the hype of big-stakes poker without coming to grips with the dangers of addiction."

 The expert relied on here is Keith S. Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling. He complains that college officials "don't do a good job of telling student (gamblers) how to get help, the same way they're sending the 'prevention and responsibility' messages for alcohol, substance abuse and date rape."

 Students, though, don't make money by using alcohol and drugs or engaging in date rape -- but what if a smart poker player can beat the odds, maintain self-control and make money at gambling? Sure, as Whyte says, that rarely happens: "Most people regress to the mean and wind up with zero or close to it." But what if Sandberg is one of the few, the proud, the poker Marines?

 Only one counter-argument really works, and I hope someone takes it up in a commencement address. It starts this way: The worth of a job is not defined by what it allows you to do when you're not working. A job should employ God-given talents in a way that glorifies Him. Individuals may have to study hard, prepare hard and work hard to get a job like that. But a job like that is worth striving for. Settling for something that just presents material rewards and off-the-job pleasure is trading away our birthright.