I had been looking forward to seeing the article “School vs. sports: Which really comes first for Duke athletes?”. Not only had I been interviewed for the article, but it was also written by a friend and talented writer with whom I’ve given multiple interviews and developed a relationship with over the past year.
When I read the title, I hesitated. To me, the implication from the title alone was that school should come first for Duke student-athletes, yet evidence suggested otherwise.
Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I read on, hoping this initial reaction was just that.
Unfortunately, it was not. As a Duke student-athlete who takes tremendous pride in both the “student” and the “athlete” part of my title and as a Global Cultural Studies major myself, I was deeply disappointed and frustrated by what came next. The entire article was predicated on the sentiment that students who do not choose quantitative majors do not care about their studies.
“New data…collected by The Chronicle raises further questions about how much athletes prioritize their studies.”
This “data” reflects the percentage of athletes who major in “quantitative subjects” at Duke in comparison to non-athletes. Seeing graph after graph representing this “data” relayed the message loud and clear: in the point of view of the author, quantitative subjects are inherently more difficult and time consuming. All non-quantitative subjects are collectively less time consuming and less rigorous. Therefore, the athletes choosing these majors are deliberately choosing an easier path.
In a recent letter to the editor, my fellow student-athlete highlights numerous flaws with the methodology the author uses to reach his conclusion. What I also found problematic was another underlying assumption to which this author refers: non-quantitative subjects are regarded as less difficult and time consuming, and therefore are less worthy of respect and value.
To be clear, I am not denying the original article’s assertion that there are athletes who prioritize athletics over academics. Of course there are. There certainly are athletes who make the choice to avoid supposedly “time consuming” majors in order to devote more time and energy to the sport they were recruited here to play. However, that does not reflect the experiences of many of the student athletes I know. Some are prevented from taking classes due to their athletic schedule. Others make the practical choice due to the time constraints of a full athletic and academic schedule. Ultimately, these choices result from the understanding that they are being asked to balance two full-time jobs—and must do so carefully.
I take issue with the implication that this decision-making process is unique to student-athletes. There is no data comparing the distribution of majors among students who work 40 hour/week jobs, which is exactly what we student-athletes do. We do not decide when our practice hours are and we are not able to “trade shifts” if a conflict arises or we are not feeling our best. Perhaps this would also help to explain the lack of student-athletes who can pursue majors in quantitative studies, which often require long hours in labs incompatible with most practice schedules—yet this factor is not considered. What seems clear is that at a minimum, more data needs to be gathered, alternative explanations considered or limitations acknowledged before reaching the implied conclusions of this article.
Most importantly, I resent the implication that choosing a non-quantitative major is any indication of the intelligence, priorities, or desire to succeed academically of any individual. I question the implicit assumption that non-quantitative majors require less work or are somehow of lesser merit. I can personally attest to the amount of time I have spent trying to decipher my lengthy assigned reading or trying to construct a coherent argument for a paper. Such endeavors are less easily quantified because these skills cannot necessarily be applied methodically and remain unique to each given task.
Nonetheless, time spent working does not equate with difficulty. A student’s capacity to exert hours of energy into a certain type of school work does not correlate with their intelligence, academic priorities or the value of their skill set.
Furthermore, the ability to produce thoughtful, valuable bodies of work is not unique to quantitative studies, nor to academic studies as a whole. To cite a former student-athlete, what I do in my sport requires “as much creative thinking and strategy as any laboratory on campus.”
As a non-quantitative major and a Duke student-athlete, I reject the implications made by the article. I reject the idea that my major selection is a reflection of my academic priorities with respect to athletics. I resist the notion that my inclination towards the liberal arts is driven by a desire to skirt effort or avoid intellectual challenges.
Rather, I insist the world needs just as much of the type of thinking and creating that happens in my classrooms as any classroom or lab on campus.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.