At EVERY school there are classes where athletes make up an unusually large proportion of the enrollment. Some of these are music classes, some are general studies, and some are kinesiology. In many schools, you’ll see certain classes that tend to be filled with athletes, with the reputation as being easy or being time-fillers. Generally they live up to that reputation.
Therein lies the problem with this whole controversy: why are athletes thrown together into classes that refuse to challenge them? Why do schools have such low expectations for the academic achievement of their student-athletes?
Obviously, being a college athlete is essentially a full-time job, and it requires a lot of time and commitment. With coaches hired to win games and whose ability to win games hinges on the performance of those athletes, they try to minimize anything that could lead to time away from basketball. They steer the athletes towards classes like the ones at UNC, so they can focus more fully on basketball. For example, a player may be discouraged from majoring in engineering because of the labs they have to take that could interfere with practice time and could be steered to a lighter, less time-consuming major. It is always fascinating to look on a college website and see that half of the football team has the exact same major and many times it is an obscure one – like park management or housing. At schools where that is the case, they are doing the exact same thing UNC did, but the majors and classes just aren’t athlete specific.
This clustering of athletes into non-challenging majors and classes is immensely frustrating to see. These kids got recruited to school for athletics, but it is as if big time schools and coaches see them incapable of doing anything else. These coaches will tell a player to tough out an injury, or may pull a scholarship based on an inability to compete. But when it comes to academics, they encourage their players to take the easy way out. They steer them away from challenging majors into classes where they can coast and get by with minimal work and even less effort.
On one hand, they are teaching their players about overcoming adversity on the court and in life, and on the other hand, they are telling them to take the path of least resistance in the classroom. It is like the NCAA version of social promotion: allow students to achieve at a minimum level and then just keep passing them along.
What kind of message is that to send? How can schools be mad at athletes who don’t do well in class, and lament at the team GPA that reside somewhere in the low 2.0s, when the schools are the ones telling these athletes not to challenge themselves?
Players like Myron Rolle, the former Florida State safety who won a Rhodes Scholarship. or Aaron Craft, the Ohio State point guard who is a pre-med major and has gotten one B in his entire life deserve to be celebrated. Their accomplishments are inspiring, but they are held as exceptions to the rule. They are seen as outstanding student-athletes, and all that is right with college athletics.