The concept underlying a general studies degree or an independent study course looks great: Give students the flexibility to create an education tailored to their individual interests.
The reality can be far different - and when athletics intersects academics, it often is.
At the University of Michigan, general studies and independent studies are frequently used as tools to keep certain athletes academically eligible to compete. Even as university leaders set U-M apart for its academic excellence, student athletes are being guided into degrees and courses with far different - and sometimes negligible - standards.
And because no specific unit within the university is directly accountable for the general studies degree or independent studies in aggregate, there's little if any oversight of how these degrees and courses are used.
That makes them ripe for abuse.
Because while it's possible to assemble a truly diverse and challenging degree path through general studies, it's equally possible to string together a set of courses heavy on athlete-friendly professors.
The general studies degree was created in 1969 to allow students to craft a more interdisciplinary education, picking a wider variety of elective courses than other degrees allowed. It's fairly unique among U-M's peer institutions - most institutions we queried don't offer similar degrees.
Indeed, as other degree tracks at U-M began to widen the choice of electives, and as the university overall developed more interdisciplinary programs, student interest in general studies declined. But while athletes make up less than 3 percent of the overall undergraduate population, they account for an astounding 49 percent of students pursuing degrees in general studies.
That disparity is striking - and should raise a red flag to university officials who claim that academic standards are enforced for its student athletes. The disparity is even greater for certain sports: Within U-M's 2004 football team, for example, 78 percent of team members on scholarship eventually listed their major as general studies.
Also worth note is that the trend for athletes to pursue general studies followed the strengthening of upper-level coursework required for a sport management major - formerly the major of choice for many athletes.
The question isn't whether general studies is a worthy degree - no doubt students can use that major to design a rigorous education.
The question that university officials don't want to ask is how the general studies degree is being manipulated to create a safe harbor for athletes, a way to pick and choose less demanding courses or professors and ultimately graduate without ever receiving a quality education.
The same is true for independent studies courses. A seven-month project by The News revealed how a high percentage of athletes take courses from certain faculty members - courses with a reputation for an easy grade. Until university leaders demand stricter oversight and greater transparency, abuses will continue.
At minimum, both general studies degrees and independent studies courses should be rigorously audited. Without identifying individual students, those audits should be made public.
Are athletes clustering with certain professors largely out of proportion to their population in the student body? Is the grading curve inflated in those classes? Are those situations being used to construct an easier path through Michigan?
Transparency would quickly answer those questions.
Who'll take the lead in these reforms? Clearly not the athletic department, with its vested interest in manipulating the system to keep athletes eligible to play.
Faculty leaders could play a role, but it's unclear whether they have interest in doing so.
What is clear is that without reform of both these areas - coupled with broader reforms linked to how athletes are educated - student athletes have dim hope of receiving the kind of quality education the rest of Michigan's student population attains.