Many of the issues the article's author puts forth as a premise for his argument have little to do with young men floundering academically because they can't identify a major or don't feel engaged in their studies. The problem is coaches recruit good football players who are lousy students. I don't see how giving the "student athletes" partial credit for on-field activities will change their behavior -- and the behavior of the schools and coaches -- when they have to apply themselves to the rest of their rigorous course load.
ATK wrote:If you are not good enough to make a team in the first place? If your a walk on to the track team, but come October you find out you didn't make it, does that force you to change your major?
In situations like this you may have to transition to a related major where most of your credits count (like sports management) and may lose a semester; it wouldn't be that different from situations you already have (maybe can't do pre-med because you fail chemistry?)
Bad analogy. You can't fail Chemisrty if someone else in the class is smarter than you. You can fail to make the track team if someone else is a better athlete than you.
ExCoastRanger wrote:The problem is coaches recruit good football players who are lousy students.
There's the underlying notion I disagree with, that somehow student athletes are not worthy of being on a college campus. If anything, I'd pick a well-rounded student athlete with a lower high school GPA and test scores over someone who's only doing well in the classroom.