Chronicle article : Athletes and majors

[MarkD83]

I have only digested about 1/2 the Chronicle article linked on the first page of DBR. So far it is a good read.

However, I think there is a large caveat that perhaps a psychology major can help address. One of the first graphs was a list of "quantitative" majors and some tacit implication that these are the harder majors at Duke (or for that matter any school). I was a chemistry and computer science major and these subjects were easy for me because I am a very analytical thinker. The history and sociology classes I took were tremendously difficult. In those classes you had to read a lot of diverse points of view and then distill down what was critical to the topic or not and finally put together arguments based on your critical assessment of the reading. There was never a single correct answer and that made these classes very difficult. Even as a STEM major I would contend the non-STEM classes were the most difficult. (I still don't understand anything that was taught in my Philosophy of Law class but I passed.)

So, my psychological question. I know that not all athletes gravitate to "qualitative" classes, but the article shows that most do. In any athletic endeavor there are many "qualitative" factors that one has to deal with to be successful. How do I communicate effectively with my coaches and teammates to get my point across. How do I assess the strengths and weaknesses of my opponents. We also hear that great athletes have a great "basketball, football, soccer IQ". This IQ is a highly qualitative asset.

Therefore, do athletes gravitate to "qualitative" classes because in fact they are easy for them, just like "quantitative" classes are easy for folks that have analytical minds?

One last comment for all of those young athletes and students...Don't be afraid of STEM classes, they might actually be easy for you.

[CDu]

I have only digested about 1/2 the Chronicle article linked on the first page of DBR. So far it is a good read.

However, I think there is a large caveat that perhaps a psychology major can help address. One of the first graphs was a list of "quantitative" majors and some tacit implication that these are the harder majors at Duke (or for that matter any school). I was a chemistry and computer science major and these subjects were easy for me because I am a very analytical thinker. The history and sociology classes I took were tremendously difficult. In those classes you had to read a lot of diverse points of view and then distill down what was critical to the topic or not and finally put together arguments based on your critical assessment of the reading. There was never a single correct answer and that made these classes very difficult. Even as a STEM major I would contend the non-STEM classes were the most difficult. (I still don't understand anything that was taught in my Philosophy of Law class but I passed.)

So, my psychological question. I know that not all athletes gravitate to "qualitative" classes, but the article shows that most do. In any athletic endeavor there are many "qualitative" factors that one has to deal with to be successful. How do I communicate effectively with my coaches and teammates to get my point across. How do I assess the strengths and weaknesses of my opponents. We also hear that great athletes have a great "basketball, football, soccer IQ". This IQ is a highly qualitative asset.

Therefore, do athletes gravitate to "qualitative" classes because in fact they are easy for them, just like "quantitative" classes are easy for folks that have analytical minds?

One last comment for all of those young athletes and students...Don't be afraid of STEM classes, they might actually be easy for you.

There is one very important reason why they gravitate towards qualitative majors: labs. Engineering, physics, chemistry all have weekly lab sections that add an additional 2-3 hours of class time per week. That's simply not feasible for a basketball player who misses substantial time in both semesters. It might be feasible for an athlete in a "single session" sport like football. But even then, it'd be REALLY difficult.

The nicer thing about qualitative courses is that they tend to have less requirement of "in-person" time. Lots of it is - as you note - reading, writing, which can be done anywhere and especially lends itself to filling travel hours. But you can't take an electrical or mechanical engineering project with you, nor can you bring your chem lab.

That's all entirely steering clear of whether or not one is harder than the other. Personally, I found that my engineering classes were WAY harder than my econ classes. But your mileage may vary.

[ipatent]

I was an engineering major who went to law school and found both the law school courses (elsewhere) and the social science courses at Duke to be much easier than the engineering and natural science courses at Duke.

Part of the difference is that the natural science courses tended to build on the previous week's lab or lesson. If you slack off for a few weeks it is hard to catch up. The social science and law school courses were more rote memorization, making it easier to cram before the exams.

[FadedTackyShirt]

There is one very important reason why they gravitate towards qualitative majors: labs. Engineering, physics, chemistry all have weekly lab sections that add an additional 2-3 hours of class time per week. That's simply not feasible for a basketball player who misses substantial time in both semesters. It might be feasible for an athlete in a "single session" sport like football. But even then, it'd be REALLY difficult.

The nicer thing about qualitative courses is that they tend to have less requirement of "in-person" time. Lots of it is - as you note - reading, writing, which can be done anywhere and especially lends itself to filling travel hours. But you can't take an electrical or mechanical engineering project with you, nor can you bring your chem lab.

Always curious about Taymon Domzalski, an undergrad chemistry major who later graduated from Duke Med School. Did he take all his lab courses during the Summer?

[MarkD83]

I was an engineering major who went to law school and found both the law school courses (elsewhere) and the social science courses at Duke to be much easier than the engineering and natural science courses at Duke.

Part of the difference is that the natural science courses tended to build on the previous week's lab or lesson. If you slack off for a few weeks it is hard to catch up. The social science and law school courses were more rote memorization, making it easier to cram before the exams.

I am also really bad at rote memorization so that might be a part of the issue...

In my case it is easy to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, essentially everything moves to a state of randomness and all of the randomness must sum up to a set value (just look at the mess that is my front yard after the winter and how great my neighbor's yard looks. He obviously sent some entropy my way).

Name the genome of Lucy...(that is why I almost failed anthropology).

I will add one other point to consider. In freshman chemistry we had quizzes once a week, labs once a week 3 exams and a final. If you screwed up any one or even two of these you could still get a high B or low A. You were in no danger of failing.

Some of the non-STEM classes were graded on class participation, 1 mid-term and a paper. A lot less work but screw up any one of these and you are in deep trouble.

[Bluedog]

There was a recently reported paper by a Duke professor that evaluated the 'difficulty' of courses based on student surveys and a variety of factors - amount of work required, harshness of given grades, etc. It was overwhelming that the vast majority of Duke students saw math, science, engineering, and econ courses (maybe there were a couple other depts lumped in there) as universally more difficult that social sciences, humanities, etc. As a BME major and psych minor, I concur with that conclusion.....But you're right that not everybody is the same. What is easy/hard for somebody might not be for somebody else. But in general, I think it's fair to say STEM courses 1.) require more time IN class and OUT of class, 2.) grade more harshly, and 3.) attract more intelligent students generally. There is no way to BS multivariable calculus....Having said all that, I certainly respect those that major in humanitities and don't see it as just choosing it because it's "easy" but that COULD be one reason to choose it. I enjoyed the humanities courses I took at Duke and certainly found them worthwhile and valuable, but also enjoyed them becuase they were much easier for me.

[tbyers11]

Always curious about Taymon Domzalski, an undergrad chemistry major who later graduated from Duke Med School. Did he take all his lab courses during the Summer?

Taymon was my year at Duke and a fellow Chemistry major. I know that he took several chem labs at 8am. They were offered during 8am-noon slots a few days/week in addition to afternoon times.

[rocketeli]

When you've dedicated yourself to becoming one of the best in the world at something, and succeeded you can't always put in the time to be ready for certain majors. However, I agree with the other posters: the chief determinate is time and flexibility. It's hard to hold down a full time job with a lot of travel involved and make it to chem lab or work on a hands-on engineering project or spend hours and hours setting up a computer simulation. That's why I was surprised that Kyle Singler was apparently a studio art major. That's a major that typically requires a great deal of hands-on work or projects and the grading isn't easy.

Also there was a guy at Duke when I was there who was a double major in BME and computer science. The only reason he didn't have a 4.0 was freshman english. He just couldn't figure it out--there was no one right answer...

[MarkD83]

When you've dedicated yourself to becoming one of the best in the world at something, and succeeded you can't always put in the time to be ready for certain majors. However, I agree with the other posters: the chief determinate is time and flexibility. It's hard to hold down a full time job with a lot of travel involved and make it to chem lab or work on a hands-on engineering project or spend hours and hours setting up a computer simulation. That's why I was surprised that Kyle Singler was apparently a studio art major. That's a major that typically requires a great deal of hands-on work or projects and the grading isn't easy.

Also there was a guy at Duke when I was there who was a double major in BME and computer science. The only reason he didn't have a 4.0 was freshman english. He just couldn't figure it out--there was no one right answer...

Since it has been 30 years and the statute of limitations has run out I can now admit that the worst grade I got was also in freshman english. When it came time to write the final term paper I decided it was more important to study for calculus and chemistry than to make sure I had 15 pages of words on a page and the proper references. I regret that decision only because my kids found my transcript and could not believe that anyone could do so poorly in freshman english.

[ipatent]

Taymon was my year at Duke and a fellow Chemistry major. I know that he took several chem labs at 8am. They were offered during 8am-noon slots a few days/week in addition to afternoon times.

The achievements of kids like Domzalski and Weldon Williams (the forgotten recruit of the Dawkins/Alarie class who majored in Biomedical Engineering deserve much respect.

[duketaylor]

I majored in History and minored in Anthro after starting with anticipating a major of Computer Science. I am an analytical/math sort, but realized early I couldn't attend many labs and other requirements due to our golf schedule. I did the math on percentage of classes I missed as a starter on the golf team which was/is a fall and spring sport (and had unlimited limitations of number of days competing in the 80's). I missed right at 50% of my classes; I attended summer school once and stayed a 5th year. Year 5 included 2 independent-study classes each semester (minimum requirement to be NCAA eligible). I had many classes with other athletes and came to realize if you/we showed up and made an effort we'd receive a passing grade. I was always told the hardest part of school at Duke was getting in. I agree with that and hope nobody gets upset with that assertion. I didn't always work as hard as I should've but learned to make the effort as I went along; I had many issues distracting me during school. Family being the major one, but golf as well. It taught me how to focus better on priorities and manage time properly.

Luckily, Duke had excellent resources available to athletes to be successful. I credit Tom Butters for this as well as many other great contributions he made to Duke.

Deciding on how to best use your time at Duke or what to find as your major/focus can change quickly. I have twin sons finishing their high school career now and they have an inkling of what they think they want to do. I'm betting that'll change within 3 years. Just a hunch.

I need to go back and read the article.

[Wander]

One of the first graphs was a list of "quantitative" majors and some tacit implication that these are the harder majors at Duke (or for that matter any school).

I don't think the field itself is any easier or harder. Being a serious scholar in literature is just as challenging as being a serious scholar in chemistry. But for whatever reason, I don't think that equality always trickles down to the intro level undergraduate classes. Which sucks for the perception of the departments with the easier undergrad classes. The most extreme version of this is the UNC scandal.

[MarkD83]

My take was the author of the article was trying to prove that athletes take easier classes. Classes were then divided by STEM classes being difficult and non STEM as easy. Athletes take more non STEM classes and therefore take easier classses. The discussion on the board so far is that STEM classes have more work associated with them (labs etc) which is true. Due to time constraints athletes may have to take less time consuming classes.

My thought is that easy or hard depends upon what you like and how you think rather than amount of work.

[coldriver10]

I was a pre-med Philosophy major at Duke (with Biology and Chemistry minors). I knew going in I wanted to be a doctor, so I decided to major in something different and that I enjoyed. My experience was that it was a lot of work to get an A or B in a biology or chemistry class (you really had to study your butt off, provided you weren't blessed with brilliance, which I wasn't). The vast majority of your classmates are all gunning for the same thing (med school) so it was pretty competitive. And many were graded on a curve. I honestly don't know how athletes who are pre-med or engineers do it! Meanwhile, the same wasn't really true of my philosophy classes. It was pretty easy to get a B provided you put in some effort. Now getting an A required quite a bit of thought and effort, though...I would often elicit feedback on my arguments and drafts of my papers before their submission from my professors, which I learned was necessary when my very first paper freshman year got me a C. On that note, Kant remains one of the most difficult classes I had at Duke, in any discipline.

Fast forward to now. It's 1230 am, I'm post-call from a 15.5 hour workday, posting on DBR from my phone in bed. Maybe I should have pursued a philosophy career...I have no idea what that would look like, but chances are I probably would have been in bed 2 hours ago after having dinner at home. :)

[westwall]

I was an engineering major who went to law school

Your screen name made this obvious! (Hope you were EE.)

[HS Dukie]

Taymon was my year at Duke and a fellow Chemistry major. I know that he took several chem labs at 8am. They were offered during 8am-noon slots a few days/week in addition to afternoon times.

I was the Grad Student TA for Taymon's organic lab - he was a bright and down to earth kid. I recall him helping other students who were struggling to complete the labs on time.

I also tutored chemistry for the athletic department for 3 years - it was remarkable how the student athletes could keep up with the lecture material and lab work. I know I didn't have their discipline and time management skills as a college freshman!

If nothing else, when one of my UNC-CHEAT friends tries to rationalize 20 + years of academic fraud with an "every school does it" defense, I have some good anecdotal evidence to quickly shut them down. :cool:

[TKG]

Attached is an article from today's Wall Street Journal on the majors of college student's generally.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-college-seniors-are-falling-short-1493118000

[oakvillebluedevil]

Just want to quickly give the Chron some props here -

I thought they did a nice job of handling what could be a potentially explosive topic. Rooted almost everything in facts/data (except maybe the 'most quantitative point', which is tough to measure), and got several high-level primary sources on the record saying pretty insightful things. Pretty clear that a lot of real effort went into this. I also thought the tone of the article was thoughtful and measured.

I've been critical of them in the recent past on the tone and approach they've taken to sensitive issues, but I thought this was a much more mature way of looking at things and that they deserve credit for that.

[Devils Librarian]

When you've dedicated yourself to becoming one of the best in the world at something, and succeeded you can't always put in the time to be ready for certain majors. However, I agree with the other posters: the chief determinate is time and flexibility. It's hard to hold down a full time job with a lot of travel involved and make it to chem lab or work on a hands-on engineering project or spend hours and hours setting up a computer simulation. That's why I was surprised that Kyle Singler was apparently a studio art major. That's a major that typically requires a great deal of hands-on work or projects and the grading isn't easy.

Also there was a guy at Duke when I was there who was a double major in BME and computer science. The only reason he didn't have a 4.0 was freshman english. He just couldn't figure it out--there was no one right answer...

In my experience at Duke I've found this to be true. Some students excel at abstract thinking, while others flounder if there is not a concrete answer. It's funny how a student can be a brilliant physics major but fail an ethics course, and vice versa.

[MCFinARL]

I am finding the discussion on this thread very interesting. I bristled, initially, at the article's assertion that quantitative majors were inherently more "difficult," which echoed for me the current worship of STEM generally over other fields (understandable but, like many such trends, perhaps going too far). [Personal disclosure: undergrad English major (not at Duke) who has taught freshman English, two Duke grad kids who were English and psychology majors--and chose those fields primarily because of interest and inclination rather than looking for an easy route through school.] And I really like some of the points made here--that what is "difficult" depends on the skills you bring to it, and that a field might have less difficult undergraduate courses but still not be a less challenging field overall. (Admittedly, though, my psych major daughter minored in economics and found those courses among her more challenging ones.)

As others have noted here, the most salient issue for athletes is probably the amount of time required, in class and out, to complete a course. Regular lab commitments, concepts that build on each other, etc., usually require close, steady attention throughout the semester. While Duke athletes attend classes regularly and keep up with work to the extent they can, travel and practice schedules can make that difficult at times.

Realistically, it's not a big surprise that Duke athletes, like D1 athletes pretty much everywhere, would gravitate toward majors that give them more flexibility and more time to devote to their sport.

For some, who may hope to pursue careers in sport (whether as players, coaches, or administrative/business people), and most especially for those very few who don't expect to spend more than one or two years in college, it just makes sense to prioritize the sport in selecting a major and courses.

For others, who may foresee careers in business or other fields that don't relate to a particular undergraduate major or that require a professional degree, there may not be a particular reason or burning desire to pursue any particular major (as is often true with non-athlete undergrads), so finding a path that seems relatively interesting and workable with athletics is a reasonable approach.

None of this bothers me as long as the athletes are given an opportunity to pursue the academic work they want to pursue. "Steering" athletes to less demanding courses can be sound advice if an athlete is trying to take on too much, but if it goes too far and prevents a student from learning what he/she wants to, it starts to undercut the "student athlete" ideal pretty significantly. It seemed as if the athletes quoted in this story were able to go against the suggestions of the athletics-based advisors if they wanted to, so that's good. But it can be a fine line.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Just want to quickly give the Chron some props here -

I thought they did a nice job of handling what could be a potentially explosive topic. Rooted almost everything in facts/data (except maybe the 'most quantitative point', which is tough to measure), and got several high-level primary sources on the record saying pretty insightful things. Pretty clear that a lot of real effort went into this. I also thought the tone of the article was thoughtful and measured.

I've been critical of them in the recent past on the tone and approach they've taken to sensitive issues, but I thought this was a much more mature way of looking at things and that they deserve credit for that.

I thought this was a stupid article. First of all it was demeaning to Soc and Poly Sci majors. As others have written there are many in the quantitative majors that had a tough time in the more qualitative courses.

Its no secret that Duke and other Division I schools gives an admission break to athletes. As others have also written, playing a Division I sport is a major time commitment and athletes need to find majors that give them the flexibility to do well academically when competing against non-athlete students and also do well athletically, when often competing against teams from less academically challenging schools.

I would like to see the majors of the Chronicle staff.

In the last 10 years or so I have gotten to know the members of one of Duke's team. For the most part they are serious students who get excellent grades and manage their time superbly.

SoCal

[cspan37421]

Since it has been 30 years and the statute of limitations has run out I can now admit that the worst grade I got was also in freshman english. When it came time to write the final term paper I decided it was more important to study for calculus and chemistry than to make sure I had 15 pages of words on a page and the proper references. I regret that decision only because my kids found my transcript and could not believe that anyone could do so poorly in freshman english.

Me too ... but in my day (also about 30 years), freshman English (UWC), was themed and largely taught by graduate students. In my experience, they can be a little more prone to using opaque grading standards, especially in the humanities where, as an earlier poster put it, there's not a unique right answer, like there often is in mathematics.

I will grant that I wasn't a very good writer at the time. But I learned nothing about writing well in that class. However, I did learn about the theme of the class, which led me to pursue a second major in the theme. Much later (after graduating), I learned to write well by reading good writers, and picking & choosing elements of their writing styles that I found effective. In my early 40s I discovered Zinsser's On Writing Well, which illustrated to me the value of specific good writing habits, some of which I picked up implicitly through emulating good writers.

It is worth mentioning too that Duke Magazine published an article many years ago (15? 20?) on grade inflation. The article had a chart showing the % of semester grades (at Duke) that were A or B awarded by department. It was very interesting ... the top 1/3 were nearly all humanities majors, with the highest percentages in the high 90s [so does Studio Art really grade that hard?]. The middle 1/3 was largely social sciences. The bottom 1/3 were mostly natural sciences and engineering, with the lowest percentage in the 60s, if I recall correctly (i.e., about 31-39% grades C or lower for the toughest-grading major).

I had two majors and a certificate, covering all three categories, but my grade distribution (such as it was ... pretty low variance) didn't follow the reported aggregate that closely. As someone noted above, sometimes things come easy to some people, and I was lucky, math came easy to me. [Most ... not all.] The flipside ... I am not sure I could have done the reading and writing required for a history major. Maybe now, but not then. I was not very efficient at either reading or writing. I remember thinking at the time that I couldn't write 20 pages about my entire life, let alone about one subject! I did get a bit of history in my certificate program (Judaic Studies), but IMO the workload wasn't quite like what I perceived history majors were doing. I felt our load was reasonable and moderate, and that we had more time to think. Obviously my perspective was limited and naive; I could only infer from my peers' gallows humor about the reading and writing workload how hard it would be to major in history.

[oakvillebluedevil]

I thought this was a stupid article. First of all it was demeaning to Soc and Poly Sci majors. As others have written there are many in the quantitative majors that had a tough time in the more qualitative courses.

Its no secret that Duke and other Division I schools gives an admission break to athletes. As others have also written, playing a Division I sport is a major time commitment and athletes need to find majors that give them the flexibility to do well academically when competing against non-athlete students and also do well athletically, when often competing against teams from less academically challenging schools.

I would like to see the majors of the Chronicle staff.

In the last 10 years or so I have gotten to know the members of one of Duke's team. For the most part they are serious students who get excellent grades and manage their time superbly.

SoCal

Can totally see why this article could cause that reaction - it's a fine line the writer has to walk to have this conversation. In reading the text, though, I actually think they do a decent job of differentiating between 'intellectually difficult' (which would be insulting) and 'time-consuming'.

The logic I took away from this was:

- Athlete major distribution looks very different than non-athletes (pretty clear)
- In particular, athletes' majors are less 'quantitative' (fuzzy metrics, but directionally their list is probably right)
- Two possible explanations proposed for these two trends:
-Quantitative majors take more time (proposed by author and agreed to by interviewed subjects, and most of the comments above)
- Common career interest (proposed by athletic department interview subjects)
- Advisors may have pushed ppl away from quantitative majors due to time commitments, and student-athletes have had to make significant calls on class based on athletic time commitments
- Based on that, how are student athletes prioritizing school vs. sports, and if on a wide scale they've made choices at times prioritizing athletics (esp. if prodded by advisors), how does that fit w/ school mission

I didn't take away anything explicitly saying qualitative majors require more or less intelligence, just sheer time.

I also think it's a worthwhile thing to be evaluating and thinking through. Students / alumni should be interested academic approaches among athletes given how academic improprieties at other places have hurt schools' brands.

[dukelifer]

Can totally see why this article could cause that reaction - it's a fine line the writer has to walk to have this conversation. In reading the text, though, I actually think they do a decent job of differentiating between 'intellectually difficult' (which would be insulting) and 'time-consuming'.

The logic I took away from this was:

- Athlete major distribution looks very different than non-athletes (pretty clear)
- In particular, athletes' majors are less 'quantitative' (fuzzy metrics, but directionally their list is probably right)
- Two possible explanations proposed for these two trends:
-Quantitative majors take more time (proposed by author and agreed to by interviewed subjects, and most of the comments above)
- Common career interest (proposed by athletic department interview subjects)
- Advisors may have pushed ppl away from quantitative majors due to time commitments, and student-athletes have had to make significant calls on class based on athletic time commitments
- Based on that, how are student athletes prioritizing school vs. sports, and if on a wide scale they've made choices at times prioritizing athletics (esp. if prodded by advisors), how does that fit w/ school mission

I didn't take away anything explicitly saying qualitative majors require more or less intelligence, just sheer time.

I also think it's a worthwhile thing to be evaluating and thinking through. Students / alumni should be interested academic approaches among athletes given how academic improprieties at other places have hurt schools' brands.

A big issue here is availability of courses in the summer, where many athletes concentrate their courses. Research intensive faculty do not teach in the summer and there are few courses offered beyond the introductory level in a number of the quantitative majors.

[FadedTackyShirt]

As others have noted here, the most salient issue for athletes is probably the amount of time required, in class and out, to complete a course. Regular lab commitments, concepts that build on each other, etc., usually require close, steady attention throughout the semester. While Duke athletes attend classes regularly and keep up with work to the extent they can, travel and practice schedules can make that difficult at times.

Realistically, it's not a big surprise that Duke athletes, like D1 athletes pretty much everywhere, would gravitate toward majors that give them more flexibility and more time to devote to their sport...

...None of this bothers me as long as the athletes are given an opportunity to pursue the academic work they want to pursue. "Steering" athletes to less demanding courses can be sound advice if an athlete is trying to take on too much, but if it goes too far and prevents a student from learning what he/she wants to, it starts to undercut the "student athlete" ideal pretty significantly. It seemed as if the athletes quoted in this story were able to go against the suggestions of the athletics-based advisors if they wanted to, so that's good. But it can be a fine line.

Thanks to earlier posters who clarified Taymon's lab schedule. My undergraduate degree was in chemical engineering and there was one all-PAC 10 hoops player and an all academic PAC football player in my major, but they were the only revenue sports athletes. Mega conference travel is a lot more problematic now.

Architecture takes up a ton of time, so was pleasantly surprised to see that Andrew Luck earned an architecture degree at Stanford. Did speak with the father of another Pro Bowl/first round pick whose son steered clear of any schools who actively discouraged any (time consuming) specific fields of study during recruiting.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

A big issue here is availability of courses in the summer, where many athletes concentrate their courses. Research intensive faculty do not teach in the summer and there are few courses offered beyond the introductory level in a number of the quantitative majors.

Even if they can't do all of their lab courses in the summer, by taking any courses at all in the summer, it allows athletes (and anyone else) to potentially take a lighter load during the year, which is very helpful. Missing a lab during the year due to sports travel is still far from ideal as it is a lot harder to make up, but at least there are fewer classroom hours to worry about if only taking two or three classes instead of the normal four (or five) that most students take. I know a lot of people who took Orgo in the summer as it is known to be incredibly intense so they wanted to give it their full attention. And if you are planning to go to med school or grad school, it is also easier to take summer classes as grades are what matters the most, vs. someone who plans to go to corporate America, for which it is helpful to have some internships.

I think the typical stereotype is that science and math classes are harder and require more brains - when we think of brilliant people, we usually think of scientists like Albert Einstein. But as others have noted above, difficulty is in the eye of the beholder - I major in the social sciences at Duke but philosophy made my head spin and I cruised through my year of Bonkistry. Similarly, when I went to business school most people would have considered the finance majors to be the smart ones yet I found finance easy (coming from an investment banking background) and the softer strategy classes to be more challenging. I think that for most non-quant classes, it is not too hard to get a B-range grade without very much effort if you have been paying attention and done the assignments, but an A requires effort.

[sagegrouse]

I thought this was a stupid article. First of all it was demeaning to Soc and Poly Sci majors. As others have written there are many in the quantitative majors that had a tough time in the more qualitative courses.

Its no secret that Duke and other Division I schools gives an admission break to athletes. As others have also written, playing a Division I sport is a major time commitment and athletes need to find majors that give them the flexibility to do well academically when competing against non-athlete students and also do well athletically, when often competing against teams from less academically challenging schools.

I would like to see the majors of the Chronicle staff.

In the last 10 years or so I have gotten to know the members of one of Duke's team. For the most part they are serious students who get excellent grades and manage their time superbly.

SoCalI spent more time at the Chronicle than at any other activity, and I majored in math.

[BLPOG]

Engineering, physics, chemistry all have weekly lab sections that add an additional 2-3 hours of class time per week. That's simply not feasible for a basketball player who misses substantial time in both semesters.

Two to three hours is a pretty low estimate, IMO. The freshman and sophomore year engineering curricula are brutal in terms of class hours. A lot of those courses have recitation sections as well. Definitely gets better later on though as many of the design classes have a less rigid schedule.



That's all entirely steering clear of whether or not one is harder than the other. Personally, I found that my engineering classes were WAY harder than my econ classes. But your mileage may vary.

I probably spent 15% the time/effort on my Economics major as compared to ECE.

I think that you've got it exactly right that the hours involved are the limiting factor for athletes in science and engineering majors. Math could probably be done more easily, but most of the non-future-academics doing math are doubling with another major anyway, so the time issue still applies.

[scottdude8]

I spent more time at the Chronicle than at any other activity, and I majored in math.

Dude, no way... that's me exactly! Math major, chemistry and philosophy minor, currently pursuing Applied Math PhD in Computational Neuroscience... yet I was the first-ever Sports Online Editor ;)


There is one very important reason why they gravitate towards qualitative majors: labs. Engineering, physics, chemistry all have weekly lab sections that add an additional 2-3 hours of class time per week. That's simply not feasible for a basketball player who misses substantial time in both semesters. It might be feasible for an athlete in a "single session" sport like football. But even then, it'd be REALLY difficult.


I think you hit the nail right on the head here. You even left out recitation sections, which many of the intro classes in these majors have IN ADDITION to labs. As a pre-med (I gave that up for grad school, but that's where the Chem minor came from, haha), I had friends who in a given semester would be taking two classes that had both labs and recitations. That means they might have 12 more hours "in class" per week than friends who were English or Philosophy majors. That's no knock on the difficulty of either of those fields, or non-quantitative fields in general, it's just a fact of life at Duke that because all classes are worth the same number of "credits" lab/recitation classes take more time in-class. (On a side-note, I've heard rumors off and on that this may change, but I'm not sure if anything has come of it. I know at Michigan, where I am currently, "credits" are based on how much time you actually spend in class for a given course. So you can take less "courses" if you also have labs/recitation/etc.)

I thought the Chron article did a good job in general, with the typical limitations that come from student journalism. A key point that they didn't do a great job of emphasizing is that the tendency to "direct" student-athletes to non-quantitative majors may not be because they're "easier" but because of the extra class time, as CDu noted. It makes a lot of sense that'd it be more difficult to find a class schedule that works with practice/game schedules with the extra hours in class. So while the statistics are definitely there to show the emphasis on non-quantitative majors, the reasoning that it's because they're "easier" is a bit of a leap. It could or not could not be the case. It may be something for Duke to consider if they ever get around to changing how credits for classes are assigned, like I mentioned in the parenthetical above: those with strenuous extra-curricular schedules, like athletes, might be more willing/able to major in a quantitative science if labs/recitations counted as extra credits.

The most interesting/potentially concerning aspect of the article was how this affects athletes in the "non-revenue" sports, who have little if any likelihood of "going pro" in their sport. I would confidently guess that, on average, these students tend to value their degree a bit more than those who have the potential to go pro in sports, however, slim it might be. If a swimmer wants to be Pre-Med but can't because of their sport, and thus their scholarship, that's a bit more offensive to me than if this were to happen to a football or basketball player, who go in with a bit more transparency of what the expectations are and how that would affect academics. All that being said, Laken Tomlinson still was a Pre-Med and was a first-round pick to my Lions (poor poor Laken, haha), so it's hard to generalize any of these issues cause there are always anecdotes on every side. (In fact, I think the Chronicle article might have been better and more rounded had they included some examples like Tomlinson). So it really is hard to tell what is really going on without someone in the department who is directly involved with this going on the record, which would be very unlikely.

[Edouble]

The achievements of kids like Domzalski and Weldon Williams (the forgotten recruit of the Dawkins/Alarie class who majored in Biomedical Engineering deserve much respect.

As does the forgotten end parentheses. Clearly you were a STEM major (but probably something other than coding).

[-jk]

The achievements of kids like Domzalski and Weldon Williams (the forgotten recruit of the Dawkins/Alarie class who majored in Biomedical Engineering deserve much respect.

The real forgotten recruit of the Dawkins/Alarie class, Bill Jackman, says "Hi!"

-jk

[MCFinARL]

I think that for most non-quant classes, it is not too hard to get a B-range grade without very much effort if you have been paying attention and done the assignments, but an A requires effort.

This was my experience grading my students in academic and business writing--not at a Duke-level institution, I should qualify. Most, regardless of quantitative or qualitative orientation, could manage B-level work (assuming they were willing to actually do the work and not plagiarize). But it was a real challenge to do A-level work, and the students who did usually either worked their a**** off or had a natural aptitude for writing.

[ipatent]

The real forgotten recruit of the Dawkins/Alarie class, Bill Jackman, says "Hi!"

-jk

The pride of Grant, NE, if I recall correctly.

[Im4howdy]

The pride of Grant, NE, if I recall correctly.

Having just reached my 40th reunion (for those needing a point of reference) let me mention my recollections (I was from NC) as a Psychology major.

One summer I took a psych. class that included a member of the football team. I don't remember his name, but he was a first team player. After the first week I didn't see him again, but ran into him in the Blue and White room at the end of the semester. When I asked why he'd dropped the class he said he had signed up for it because he thought he'd failed Abnormal Psychology that Spring. He said the class was supposed to keep a journal about their reflections on the lectures and the readings. He said he never got around to it, so stapled a cover to an issue of National Lampoon and turned it in as a joke. When he got his grades, the professor had given him a "C" so he didn't need to go to summer school. *I think it was Professor Carson, known for walking around campus with an unlit cigarette, quite disheveled.

During me junior year I took a Sociology class with Professor Dick Campbell. When he returned my first paper he told me I'd never make it out of my freshman year writing so badly, and told me to write it again. I re-wrote it three times before finally getting a "B" (and a note that the grade was for not telling him where to stuff the paper).

My other psych memory is how surprised I was when I went to Ohio State for psych grad school and hearing several of my Duke professors being quoted in their research. I had no idea it was pearls before swine at Duke.
(I don't remember if it was "The" Ohio State then, but I do remember an adage from there- "What this university needs is a faculty the football team can be proud of")

[lotusland]

I was the Grad Student TA for Taymon's organic lab - he was a bright and down to earth kid. I recall him helping other students who were struggling to complete the labs on time.

I also tutored chemistry for the athletic department for 3 years - it was remarkable how the student athletes could keep up with the lecture material and lab work. I know I didn't have their discipline and time management skills as a college freshman!

If nothing else, when one of my UNC-CHEAT friends tries to rationalize 20 + years of academic fraud with an "every school does it" defense, I have some good anecdotal evidence to quickly shut them down. :cool:

Just spent several days entertaining customers at The Heritage golf tournament in HHI including 2UNC grads of the most obnoxious variety. Just back from the Final Four they were yucking it up good. I learned that Duke basketball players are all Sociology majors who take all their classes at NC Central...

[Ranidad]

As always I appreciate the balanced discussion on this forum.

From what I have read of the Chronicle article it is a two part series. Part one focused on academics and an upcoming part two will focus on social life. My personal gripe is that it should be a three part article with the third being their athletic commitments.

If you leave that aspect out of the equation you are doing a disservice to the Duke students, hopefully those at most D1 institutions, who make the decision to play a sport while attending college.

During my time at Duke, I was involved in several organizations but there were VERY few if any times when I was not in control of how I decided to spend my time. My time management skills then were horrendous. Nothing about my Duke experience improved my time management skills.
Not every valuable skill that you need to acquire is "graded". Participation in D1 athletics can help develop many skills that are essential in a career even though they are not measured in the MCAT, LSAT, GMAT, or GRE.

The third part of the series could enlighten Duke students and others about the demands placed on student athletes. Athletes need to fit their classes and coursework around their practice and competition schedule. Those schedules are also not neatly aligned with the academic calendar. The time that student athletes dedicate to their sports is significant and different from class sessions. During my time I could almost always decide to skip a class if I needed to stay up late to complete an assignment or partied too late. Missing a practice is not an option. Athletes are essentially being graded in their extracurricular endeavors as well as in the classroom. In practice they are competing for playing time.

For many, their athletic skills (as do musical, artistic, scientific, and more for other students) contributed to their admission to Duke. If an athletic scholarship is part of the equation then their dedication to their sport is essential to continuing their studies at Duke. I had the luxury of my parents financing my Duke education so my performance in the classroom and/on a field did not impact my ability to continue at Duke.

We can have a separate discussion about whether or not athletics at the intensity level of current D1 programs belong as part of an academic institution but the Chronicle series doesn't appear to be making that argument.

Adding pressure to student athletes is that fact that their coaches are far more likely to lose their jobs if the student athlete doesn't perform on the field than their professors are if they don't get an A or B.

The vast majority of Duke student athletes understand that they will not be able to make a career out of their sport and are not neglecting their academics. I completely agree that if Duke advisors are actively directing athletes into specific courses and majors solely to maintain their eligibility then the priorities are backwards and Duke, and any educational institution, should be ashamed of itself and called out.

If the Chronicle series fails to include a full discussion of the demands that Duke places on these athletes and that athletics can provide fantastic training in many "soft" skills that augment classroom learning then they have not reported on the whole story.

[ipatent]

It took a year for that class to turn things around, and Jackman was gone before that happened, but hope sprung eternal in the fall of '82 when I was a senior. I remember Bill Jackman hitting a picture perfect face up shot from the elbow in one of the early games. He looked like the future Christian Laettner.

[Devils Librarian]

[/B]

Just spent several days entertaining customers at The Heritage golf tournament in HHI including 2UNC grads of the most obnoxious variety. Just back from the Final Four they were yucking it up good. I learned that Duke basketball players are all Sociology majors who take all their classes at NC Central...

Is there anything more tone-deaf than UNC people mocking the academic integrity of another university?

[duketaylor]

The pride of Grant, NE, if I recall correctly.

Bill was a great warm-up shooter, buried long, outside jumpshots with ease. Rarely played and transferred after maybe two years. Once the Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Meagher, Henderson, Williams class came in, the writing was on the wall for many. We had graduated Emma and Engelland (sp.) and the game was on. Greg Wendt left for Detroit (home), Bill for home, I'm sure others. Long time ago to recall everything and everyone.

[devil84]

Bill was a great warm-up shooter, buried long, outside jumpshots with ease. Rarely played and transferred after maybe two years. Once the Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Meagher, Henderson, Williams class came in, the writing was on the wall for many. We had graduated Emma and Engelland (sp.) and the game was on. Greg Wendt left for Detroit (home), Bill for home, I'm sure others. Long time ago to recall everything and everyone.

Bill also had quite the talent for spinning basketballs, along with that nice outside shot. I was sorry to see him go as I thought he was a good fit at Duke.

Minor quibble: Meagher was the class before Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Henderson, Jackman, and Williams. He came in with Todd Anderson, Jay Bryan, and Greg Wendt. And it wasn't thaaaaat long ago, was it?:rolleyes:

[devildeac]

Bill also had quite the talent for spinning basketballs, along with that nice outside shot. I was sorry to see him go as I thought he was a good fit at Duke.

Minor quibble: Meagher was the class before Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Henderson, Jackman, and Williams. He came in with Todd Anderson, Jay Bryan, and Greg Wendt. And it wasn't thaaaaat long ago, was it?:rolleyes:

No, it's not that long ago unless you start posting about Willie Hodge, Terry Chili, Kevin Billerman...

[luvdahops]

Bill was a great warm-up shooter, buried long, outside jumpshots with ease. Rarely played and transferred after maybe two years. Once the Dawkins, Alarie, Bilas, Meagher, Henderson, Williams class came in, the writing was on the wall for many. We had graduated Emma and Engelland (sp.) and the game was on. Greg Wendt left for Detroit (home), Bill for home, I'm sure others. Long time ago to recall everything and everyone.

Bill transferred after his freshman year. He wound up having a solid though unspectacular career at Nebraska, and getting an MBA at the U of Chicago. He has gone on to a successful career in wealth management with some major Wall Street firms. I think Bill would have done just fine academically at Duke if he had stuck around.

[Indoor66]

No, it's not that long ago unless you start posting about Willie Hodge, Terry Chili, Kevin Billerman...

Not long ago? Nor are Buckley, Harrison, Marin, Lewis, et als.

Not only youth must be served....