<p>Aren’t there special perks to being a recruited athlete, benefits and advantages? Doesn’t that mean he is on the team and doesn’t have to go through the tryout process and stuff? So maybe the family wanted what came with the scholarship and also the honor of having the public know that the young man had earned this honor?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The whole reason, from the state’s point of view, for there to be state universities (with their implied “state resident scholarship” (discounted in-state tuition)) is the idea that a better educated population makes the state economy grow. Such economic growth produces tax revenue growth that theoretically should more than pay for the subsidized costs of the state universities. At the individual level, if the university graduate earns a higher rate of pay than s/he would otherwise, s/he will pay more taxes than if s/he did not graduate from the university.</p>
<p>Granted, there may be exceptions for in-state students who leave the state after graduation, but there is generally a significant local or regional bias toward taking employment near the university that one graduates from. Also, the opposite occurs in that non-resident students come (paying non-resident tuition) but later stay and contribute to the state economy after graduation.</p>
<p>Of course, if you want to make it more direct and individualized, you would probably like the [Fix</a> UC](<a href=“http://www.fixuc.org/]Fix”>http://www.fixuc.org/) proposal.</p>
<p>
This. Would there be an outcry if this kid were an academic powerhouse with super stats who was getting a merit scholarship from a college? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Ucbalumnus,
I understand the theory; too bad it is not working for the UCs. All the more reason for free-ride students to pick up the slack.</p>
<p>What an ordeal to be wealthy and athletically gifted. </p>
<p>For all its follies, this is one time the UC gets it … right. And, fwiw, if the kid finds happiness in Los Angeles, there are worst things for the UC to have a rich and famous family in its ranks, especially come the time of recruiting donors.</p>
<p>I also think that some might look at the OBLIGATIONS that come with earning an athletic scholarship in a very competitive sport.</p>
<p>Right you are Xiggi. People like to forget that at most big-time college football programs, an athlete can have his scholarship taken from him at the whim of the head coach and the coach doesn’t have to explain it any further than that. If young Mr. Coombs finds himself nailed to the bench after two years of meager on-field accomplishments, he won’t be surprised if the coach at UCLA recommends that he find another hobby at another institution of high learning. Sports scholarships come with obligations that, for better or worse, have relatively little to do with academics. Not a fully free ride.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that would be incorrect, at least in California. The egalitarians that run UC take an extremely dim view of merit. So yes, there would be plenty of faculty member screaming if a scion received a merit scholarship. (Heck, UC makes it clear that they don’t like merit scholarships period because they ‘advantage the advantaged’.)</p>
<p>It is extremely difficult to be a DI football player. Good for him.</p>
<p>I really don’t understand what the fuss is about. UCLA spends about $10.5 million annually on athletic scholarships (all sports), out of an athletic department budget of $66 million, of which probably 80% to 90% is supported by football revenue. Football itself runs a surplus (= profit) that is used to support dozens of non-revenue sports. None of those athletic scholarships are awarded on the basis of need or academic merit, nor have they ever been; it’s entirely on the basis of athletic merit, i.e., what can this athlete do for the university’s athletic program. </p>
<p>Is the suggestion that all UCLA athletic scholarships should be means-tested? Or only this particular one . . . and if the latter, why? Fine; means-test at UCLA; the kid would just have taken a scholarship at one of the other schools that offered, which included Illinois and Virginia—both pretty decent schools, too–and UCLA would have had to settle for someone it didn’t want as much at that position. </p>
<p>Is the suggestion that UCLA shouldn’t be awarding athletic scholarships at all? If so, it might as well close down its entire athletic department, but it won’t mean one dime more for academics. Without athletic scholarships, UCLA football is a no-go at the D-1 level, and without football revenue UCLA would be unable to support its non-revenue sports, so the whole thing shuts down and disappears—unless you expect the school to cough up $66 million from its general fund to pay for athletics, which is not going to happen. Unless perhaps the (often-delusional) people of California think UCLA could somehow bring in a comparable amount of revenue selling tickets to live math competitions and broadcast rights to essay contests?</p>
<p>As I said, I just don’t get it. No one complained when Calvin Hill’s son Grant got a basketball scholarship at Duke, or when Bill Walton’s son Luke got a basketball scholarship at Arizona. No one raised an eyebrow when Joe Montana’s son Nick got a football scholarship at the University of Washington; or when Barry Sanders’ son Barry J. Sanders accepted a football scholarship at Stanford; or when Tim Hardaway, Jr. took a basketball scholarship at Michigan; or when Phil Simms’ son Chris took a football scholarship at Texas; or when Archie Manning’s sons Peyton and Eli got football scholarships at Tennessee and Ole Miss, respectively. And I’ll bet you’d find more than a handful of sons of wealthy investment bankers on lacrosse scholarships at places like Duke and Johns Hopkins–investment banking and big-time college lacrosse are notorious bedfellows-- and no one thinks anything about it.</p>
<p>So what is it about P. Diddy’s son that makes his athletic scholarship so special, and so objectionable? Sure, the old man is fabulously wealthy (estimated 2012 net worth $550 million, according to Forbes), but so is Michael Jordan ($500 million); two of MJ’s sons played college basketball at Central Florida, I believe on athletic scholarships, and no one said a thing.</p>
<p>Or is it just a cultural bias thing: some people don’t like P. Diddy’s music or what they think it represents, so they want to take it out on the son? That seems rather unfair. The kid’s a good student and apparently a pretty good football player. Let him alone.</p>
<p>Fortunately I think Justin Combs will be welcomed on the campus of UCLA and welcomed by his fellow students. I’m glad his dad is thrilled to have him there and hopefully Justin will make the most of his time there and do well.</p>
<p>I say ‘Welcome Justin’.</p>
<p>The fact that Justin achieved so much athletically and academically when he didn’t <em>need</em> to says a lot about him in a very good way.</p>
<p>bc:</p>
<p>you missed the obvious and simple one: some/many people (on cc) just don’t like big time D1 sports. Same with some/many faculty members at UCLA and Cal. (Justin is just another excuse to vent about athletic schollies in their egalitarian system.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s not confuse facts with people’s opinions. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And, IMO, something about the people who raised him. It seems as though they did a good job of keeping him grounded. Which is part of the reason that I think that this money will be paid forward in some way, by either him or dad.</p>
<p>Well, sometimes Justin’s dad has made some awfully bad decisions, like the gun incident and trial in New York several years ago. But I’m not one to hold the sins of the father against the son. And apparently Sean Combs instructed the son in the “do as I say, not as I do” mantra. Looks like it worked out well.</p>
<p>just so people can see the numbers:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Which</a> Pac-10 school is most profitable? - UCLA : The Orange County Register](<a href=“http://ucla.ocregister.com/2011/06/21/which-pac-10-school-is-most-profitable/33445/]Which”>http://ucla.ocregister.com/2011/06/21/which-pac-10-school-is-most-profitable/33445/)</p>
<p>And that is before the new TV contracts even start. Their old contracts were bad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. UCLA could scrap athletic scholarships and become another Caltech, competing in D III where scholarships aren’t allowed. But based on the number of varsity teams Caltech fields, and the cost of coaches, facilities, equipment, and travel, coupled with the absence of any meaningful source of athletic department revenue, my guess is Caltech’s athletic programs are considerably more costly to the university’s general fund budget than are UCLA’s. So that approach is a net loser for the university.</p>
<p>Good for Justin! And I sincerely hope he never reads any of this kind of stuff…the class envy is disgusting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s nonsense - the notion that any family receiving a scholarship who could otherwise afford the school should just “accept the honor”. I have a friend whose daughter was choosing between USC with their big scholarship which is close to a full ride and another top school at full-pay. The family can easily afford full-pay. She chose the scholarship. Why should she have turned it down and just accepted the honor? The school wanted her and was willing to pay $X to get a student of her caliber. Now, this was academic as opposed to athletic - but it’s the same principle IMO. The school wants to offer this for its own reasons; the student wants that school and fairly earned the scholarship. </p>
<p>What <em>is</em> the income level at which someone is “obligated” to turn down scholarships? $2,000,000/year? $1,000,000? Does it matter if they have other children in college or other special circumstances? Who’s to decide? </p>
<p>I agree it would be excellent PR for P Diddy to donate $X or set up his own scholarship fund, but I don’t particularly care what P Diddy does with respect to anything.</p>
<p>I’m not a P Diddy fan but see no reason to deny his son an award he has earned on his own. When the kid graduates and gets a good paying job, should he also forfeit his salary so someone with more need can have it and work for free because his father can afford to support him forever?</p>
<p>I am utterly astounded that anyone would be complaining at all about this.</p>