Earlier this week, USA Today took a critical look at Division I student-athletes’ choice of majors and the academic advisors who guide their paths. The articles questioned whether student-athletes were being steered toward less-challenging coursework to meet the NCAA’s more stringent progress-toward-degree requirements. They also explored whether the time demands required from participation in sports prevented student-athletes from pursuing a more rigorous academic path. 

Further, the USA Today stories examined whether academic advisors are under pressure from athletics departments to keep student-athletes eligible by suggesting “easier” classes.

The Double-A Zone examined these articles and found some points of disagreement.

Below is a brief summary of the Double-A Zone posts. We invite you to visit the official blog of the NCAA to offer your thoughts.

Is "clustering" bad?

According to the front page of USA Today, Division I student-athletes are “guided toward beating the system.” The paper contends that some student-athletes take “easy” majors to keep their academics compliant with NCAA eligibility requirements.

Despite the fact that university degree programs are developed by university faculty at accredited institutions, the paper implies that “fluff” majors are alive and well thanks to student-athletes who are unable to meet the requirements of more strenuous degrees. While it’s certainly legitimate to ask if a degree upholds the academic integrity of an institution, it’s quite another to imply that student-athletes who select these majors are doing so to receive a pass on their academic obligations.

Click here to share your thoughts.

Are the expectations placed on academic advisors realistic?

With the increased requirements of academic reform, academic advisors in athletics departments around the country are feeling the pressure to keep their student-athletes eligible. Although these advisors report to the athletics director, in many ways their position sits at the intersection of academics and athletics and that can sometimes be difficult to balance.

Last spring, Champion Magazine examined the world of academic advising and found that since academic reform was instituted, “expectations are higher, stress levels have increased and downtime has become almost nonexistent.” According to the article, advisors “might encourage student-athletes to stretch their limits by taking challenging courses. But they also must consider that student-athletes need to meet specific grade standards and show progress toward a degree in order to compete.”

It’s this tension that sparked the article in USA Today. While it’s clear that the dual goals of academic advisors may occasionally come in direct opposition, the USA Today article takes the issue a step further, insinuating that advisors encourage athletes to avoid tough majors altogether.

What do you think about USA Today’s characterization of academic advisors?