2 weeks Ago
To the editor: The Times’ article regarding the abuse of the walk-on athletics system at USC ignores the accepted notion that these marginal academic students would be acceptable if they were actually accomplished athletes. (“ Beyond Varsity Blues: In pursuit of donations, USC admitted affluent kids as walk-on athletes ,” Oct. 22) In 2023, a U.
S. Supreme Court ruling outlawed affirmative action in higher education, yet no one challenges schools for accepting academically mediocre students who excel at any given sport. There seems to be no doubt that, as a contribution to society, we value athletes far more than we value educating minorities.
And the fact that many college athletes move from school to school looking for a better team (not a better education) or do not finish their education at all makes the notion of a “student” athlete laughable. Larry Harmell, Granada Hills ..
To the editor: Who cares about wealthy donors giving money to USC so their kids can get in as athletes? It’s a private university; the athletic teams will suffer if below-grade players are allowed onto a team, but the school can use the money. Perhaps USC can use some of that money to pay for students who are academically worthy but cannot afford the high tuition. Greg Sirbu, Redondo Beach .
. To the editor: When I was a student at UCLA in the early 1960s, I paid $76 per semester, no matter how many classes I took. At the same time, USC charged students several hundred dollars per semester.
In those days, when UCLA played football against USC, the UCLA rooting section would chant, “We don’t buy our diplomas.” Sixty years later, USC is apparently still selling diplomas. Yes, there has been much inflation since I was a student.
David E. Ross, Oak Park.
