Collegiate Times

The NCAA has worked to boost the academic standards of its student athletes for decades, and while graduation rates have improved, some universities now face criticism for athlete clustering.

More than a quarter of the Virginia Tech men’s basketball team can be found in a single major, sociology, which attracts less than one percent of the total university population.

Some even say athletes are encouraged to “major in eligibility.”

Grouping male athletes disproportionately into particular majors is not a new phenomenon in the NCAA, or at Tech.

A study conducted by the USA Today in 2003 indicated that at Tech, 10 of 54 football players who were not listed as university studies students were majoring in Apparel, Housing and Resource Management.

While 18 percent of the football team was enrolled in this field of study in 2003, just 0.4 percent of the undergraduate student population majored in AHRM.

Seven years later, the trend has continued. According to the Virginia Tech Sports Information Department, 12 of 62 football players attached to a major other than university studies are studying AHRM. Just 1.3 percent of the undergraduate student population majors in AHRM.

On the men’s basketball team, four of the 11 non-university studies majors are enrolled in sociology, representing 36 percent of the team. University-wide, 0.8 percent of students are sociology majors.

On the men’s soccer team, eight of the 27 players on the roster outside of university studies are majoring in business, representing 29.6 percent of the team. Just 2.6 percent of all undergraduates attempt to receive a degree in business.

Colin Howlett, the associate director of advising for football, argues there is no concentrated effort to steer students in the direction of a major in AHRM, but did acknowledge the clear existence of a trend.

“It’s been self-perpetuating,” Howlett said. “We have guys who have gone into that major and seen the value in it and carried the banner for it.”

Howlett did offer one possible explanation for the influx of football players in AHRM: money.

“They want to make a lot of money,” Howlett said. “I think you can look to guest speakers that come in and talk and see people who are affluent and make a good living and say, ‘Geez, I’d like to make what that person makes.’ We’re talking about people who are presidents and vice presidents and corporate executive officers, but it’s a major that they talk about money a lot because there is a lot of money changing hands.”

LuAnn Gaskill, department head for AHRM, did not return calls from the Collegiate Times seeking comment.

This cycle of student athletes picking a particular major has also been seen in basketball with sociology, said Katie Ammons, adviser for men’s basketball.

“Who you hang out with and who you surround yourself with can lead students to one major or another,” Ammons said. “You see it in a lot of organizations. It’s changed over time too. We went through a period of business majors and then human development majors.”

Both Ammons and Howlett agreed that because of the hot-button issue that athlete clustering can be, it is imperative to provide student athletes with unbiased advice.

“They might have a conversation with me about different majors and what they involve and entail,” Ammons said. “But we send them out to meet with advisers who can give them a little more information.”

Howlett added that athlete advisors are more of an add-on than anything else.

“I tell them they should go to that department and talk to an undergraduate adviser,” Howlett said. “I will talk to them about different classes and the challenges they may face, whether it’s here in school or after school.”

But the perception that some athletes at Tech attempt to major in “eligibility” and not a real subject of academia may not be that far off.

Continue Reading: 12 Next » 

A version of this article appeared in the Feb 10 issue of the Collegiate Times.