No one is saying those kids don’t exist. That’s not the question. The question is whether they exist with a higher occurrence in the athlete population vs. the non-athlete population. If you know enough athletes, you know some who had to drop their major or even school because the academics were too hard. If you know enough trombone players, you know some who had to drop their major or even school because the academics were too hard.
As to whether they exist at a higher occurrence in the highly rejectives in the athlete population vs. non-athlete population, none of us have the data. Anecdotally, one of us seems to think her experience is yes, a bunch of us have not seen that happen. The larger group may have some bias, because we are largely parents of athletes. However, the pool that group is familiar with is far greater. I think the likely answer is that if there is a difference between athletes and non-athletes the difference is small, because collectively we are familiar with hundreds of programs and that isn’t what anyone is seeing. The only one who sees it coincidentally is the one without an athlete, and maybe a bit of an agenda.
I read the original question as whether there are (lots) of athletes who just get into their schools because of the athletic hook and then struggle at the school academically.
IMO, no. Athletes often get a hook, which to me means they are in the pool of qualified applicants but get a hook to pull them out of that pool, to distinguish them from all the other qualified applicants. If they were good but not outstanding students in hs, they are probably going to remain good but not outstanding students in college (although some are late bloomers and may do very well).
I really think most athletes choose their colleges for fit, bot athletically and academically. One outstanding athlete I know could have gone to almost any school athletically but he was smart enough to recognize that he would not fit in well at Syracuse, a service academy (he was all set to go) Duke, some of the bigger flagships. He chose a much smaller and more hands on with help school. A much better fit for him academically although a little ‘light’ athletically. So the opposite situation, where he picked a lower ranked sports team to go to the academic fit.
I don’t think they let the best recruited athletes struggle. Many recruited athletes have tutors, study sessions, and easy classes like “rocks for jocks”, that guarantee they get by academically.
At academically selective d3 schools, though? Certainly not true at schools like Emory, Chicago, Williams, Amherst etc, though very true at large d1 schools.
My husband just texted our athlete and asked her when she was taking “rocks for jocks” - this is one of the comments that really gets us parents of athletes going… ugh!
Yeah, let me ask my ds if that’s the secret course they snuck in between his physics classes and multi variable calc class, just to make sure he can keep his GPA up.
My athlete enjoyed O Chem as much as most other students. I.E. he HATED it. I’m pretty sure that was one of his C’s, although the class was scaled to C+ so I don’t attach much meaning to his less than stellar grade.
I did look at the title. It seems like a provocative (and frankly, whether intentional or not, offensive) way to get at a question that isn’t limited to recruited athletes at all.
As I understand it, your question is whether STEM students without a background of AP or IB level courses in the sciences have difficulty early in their majors at academically challenging LACs.
I’m not sure why you didn’t just ask that?
The effect of the way you framed your question is to plant a seed of doubt about all recruited athletes at these schools. And of course, the more negative responses you receive, the more your thread title keeps getting bumped. It’s a common social media tactic but I’m assuming was not your intent?
Just thought you should be aware of why your “just asking” about “some” students might appear to some folks to be a bit disingenuous.
As far as the question you asked, like others I haven’t seen it. As mentioned, I mostly see athletes and students gravitating toward academically appropriate colleges.
I do sometimes see students switching away from STEM majors, but less among athletes than among non athletes. The transition can be tough for everyone and yes, those without a rigorous HS background will have a rougher time.
If you’re seeing a lot of students from your particular high school having trouble in college level science courses you might want to discuss with your school’s principal.
If I was a Pac-12 athlete, there might be some very good reasons why taking the “Rocks for Jocks” course is a very good idea, especially during my sport’s season.
We are all beating a dead horse, but a funny anecdote just popped into my head. When we toured WashU in StL, our tour guide was a psychology major. When asked about it she said, “Yeah, I started pre-med. After first semester grades came in, it was obvious that wasn’t going to happen.”
D3 time commitment is less than D1. But depending on the school and sport, it’s not substantially less. Bus rides can take just as long as plane trips.
Describes one of mine to a T. That was exactly her situation, which involved her not only taking a pass at several D1s, but also at several D3s that were either a bit higher on the academic pecking order or had better teams in her sport. She was the Goldilocks recruit looking for “just right” in terms of academic fit, athletic fit and school location.
