To the editor: The Instances’ article relating to the abuse of the walk-on athletics system at USC ignores the accepted notion that these marginal educational college students could be acceptable in the event that they had been really completed athletes. (“Past Varsity Blues: In pursuit of donations, USC admitted prosperous youngsters as walk-on athletes,” Oct. 22)
In 2023, a U.S. Supreme Courtroom ruling outlawed affirmative motion in greater training, but nobody challenges colleges for accepting academically mediocre college students who excel at any given sport. There appears to be little question that, as a contribution to society, we worth athletes excess of we worth educating minorities.
And the truth that many school athletes transfer from faculty to high school on the lookout for a greater workforce (not a greater training) or don’t end their training in any respect makes the notion of a “scholar” athlete laughable.
Larry Harmell, Granada Hills
..
To the editor: Who cares about rich donors giving cash to USC so their youngsters can get in as athletes? It’s a non-public college; the athletic groups will endure if below-grade gamers are allowed onto a workforce, however the faculty can use the cash.
Maybe USC can use a few of that cash to pay for college students who’re academically worthy however can not afford the excessive tuition.
Greg Sirbu, Redondo Seaside
..
To the editor: Once I was a scholar at UCLA within the early Sixties, I paid $76 per semester, regardless of what number of courses I took. On the similar time, USC charged college students a number of hundred {dollars} per semester.
In these days, when UCLA performed soccer in opposition to USC, the UCLA rooting part would chant, “We don’t purchase our diplomas.” Sixty years later, USC is outwardly nonetheless promoting diplomas.
Sure, there was a lot inflation since I used to be a scholar.
David E. Ross, Oak Park
