There seems to be an underlying assumption that engineering/science degree is harder than other studies and many comments are made about how much work outside the classroom that comes with these degrees.
Frankly, I disagree with this belief. I have BS and MS in engineering and MBA. I know what it takes to get these degrees. Also, I teach as a guest lecturer at one of our local universities' engineering college one day a week. I see how students work and see the quality of their work. Those who get it, gets it and they jump out at you. Similarly, those that don't get it also jumps out at you.
The challenge is how to get those in between into those that gets it and not into the struggling group. Most often it has to do with their learning style and how they learn than anything else. Unfortunately, vast majority of students don't know how they learn. They've done whatever the teacher required of them through high school.
If you take ANY subject and requirements to do work outside of classroom (e.g., reports, reading, HW or what have you), time is time. There is no difference what's occupying the student's time. It just takes time. So stop making STEM into something more than what it is.
There's a natural selection for any given subject. Those that succeed in STEM area have affinity to the subject and will understand the material just the way an accounting major student understands general ledger. To those that understand science, its no more difficult than those that understands accounting - its just different.
Our society has hinder STEM by hyping it and making everyone believe its hard. The complexity of understanding the subject to any given student depends on the suitability of the subject versus the understanding ability of that individual.
I read years ago that its lot easier to teach engineers, finances than teach CPA's physics. Perhaps but not necessarily is what I've found over the years. It depends on the person.
So for every example of athlete failing in "hard" or engineering subject, there is a success story for those athletes that have an affinity for those hard subjects. Perhaps the student was led to believe he/she wanted to be a chemist or engineer, when in fact his/her affinity should have led them to a liberal arts major.
Not the students fault for this. We should not have to declare major when applying for college. Its a stupid system. Just take a look at the percentage of major changes once enrolled.
Leave you with two thoughts:
I worked on the average 32 hrs/wk during my entire college days. Paid for school by working and did not take out student loan. Most athletes don't put in more than 32 hrs/wk unofficially (officially it has to be much less). There are many that work like I did and successfully completes engineering or science degree, not just athletes.
The other, my older kid reports to his preseason camp next week. He is an incoming freshman that's majoring in Physic and Economics minor. His favorite subject was physics in high school and it came natural to him. He understands it much like another student understands history or accounting. Having watched him how he understand subjects and how he learns, I have no concerns for him being college athlete and studies. Not to say its a piece of cake, but he'll get it done. Struggles will be there but nothing he can't handle.
So time demand is time demand, regardless of if 6 hrs of thermodynamic or 6hrs of literature analysis. Its how well the kid can manage the time. The only caveat is game travel. That's different. Not only is it time consuming to travel,but, missing classes hurt. Tutors are provided for athletes to shorten the struggle but there's no substitute for missing class lecture/time. Again, this is study subject independent issue.