I'd like John Stossel to do a piece on this:

[no_hypocrisy]

A son of P. Diddy Combs was offered and he accepted a full scholarship to play football at UCLA. Some kid with good grades, living in a homeless shelter could have used that scholarship. Justin Combs went to school in New Rochelle. Who deserves that scholarship more? If UCLA thinks that P. Diddy is going to make contributions or establish a scholarship b/c the school is giving his son a free education, it is likely to be disappointed.

I always was under the impression that a scholarship was based on the financial needs of the recipient. How do you explain this?


http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-trends-in-national/p-diddy-s-son-headed-to-ucla-on-scholarship

[lapfog_1]

1. Some are purely based on academic qualifications.

At most universities, scholarships derive from many non pooled funds, funds created by donations... and when you donate to a fund, you can specify the attributes of the fund you want to endow. Many scholarships are based on all kinds of restrictions for the recipients, some are for only financially challenged students and some are awarded purely on academic achievement. Some have strings attached such as the applicants background or area of study...

[vi5]

2. It's not always based on the needs of the recipient...

It can be, but sports scholarships are usually more based on the school's need for that particular person to go to their school, so that they are will to waive payment as an enticement for them to do so.

Why exactly do you think that giving him a free ride won't net them fairly large donations from the kids dad?

Personally I think all athletic scholarships are horrible and should be done away with, but I'm in the minority on that and realize that fighting that battle is just too gargantuan.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. How about the ethics of accepting a scholarship that could help another struggling student

when you can pay for the full tuition and fees without a problem? Just because you can accept a no-strings scholarship doesn't mean you should. I can't believe that Combs' acceptance to UCLA was predicated on him also taking the scholarship.

[msanthrope]

7. Explain how this football scholarship would help another student?

You realize it is not without strings--he's playing football for them?

[Bunny]

4. Scholarships are not always based on financial need.

Sean Comb's kid accepting the scholarship seems like a pretty class-less act, though.

[msanthrope]

5. So he gets a scholarship based on his talent and high grades, & that's something to be investigated?

Why should who his father is matter? Why is it your business?

He was offered football scholarships at several schools. He's really good, FYI--I've seen him play for Iona.

[Ian David]

6. Stossel would fuck it up. n/t

[Brickbat]

8. Many scholarships have nothing to do with need. He's earned something through his hard work and

dedication, and you think he should turn it down?

[Blue_Tires]

9. That's nothing new...Talented rich kids get athletic schollies all the time

Besides, if you don't offer him one, another school will

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. A successful Division I football team can bring in a lot of revenue for a college

[trumad]

11. Uhhh dude deserved the scholorship...

and will be playing football for a top school.

[Orangepeel]

12. If UCLA gives full scholarships to the football team, being Puffy's son seems irrelevant

There are arguments against a school giving athletic scholarships (which are talent based, not need based), but since UCLA and so many other schools do, why wouldn't they give one to him if he's going to be on the team?