<p>I see both sides of this...
the kid earned the merit aid....
and
the dad can afford everything...</p>
<p>Taxpayers</a> Want Diddy's Son to Fork Over His $54,000 UCLA Scholarship - Yahoo! Finance</p>
<p>I don’t see it both ways. It is a merit-based scholarship and by definition has nothing to do with need.</p>
<p>Perhaps the taxpayers should direct their anger at those who fail classes or never graduate while receiving need-based financial aid. There are many more of those than P.Diddy’s sons.</p>
<p>This scholarship is funded by private donations, not state funds. </p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>[Diddy’s</a> Son Justin Combs Gets Full Scholarship to UCLA as Many Students Struggle - Los Angeles News - The Informer](<a href=“http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/p_diddy_son_ucla_scholarship_justin_combs.php]Diddy’s”>http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/p_diddy_son_ucla_scholarship_justin_combs.php)</p>
<p>He absolutely should NOT be expected to give up his merit aid just because his dad can afford it. Now it would be nice if Dad showed appreciation by supporting the annual fund or scholarship drive - but they really are two separate transactions. The son earned this scholarship - he should be expected to keep it.</p>
<p>Diddy’s son earned his football scholarship the same way that every other UCLA football player earned their scholarhip. If UCLA stops giving out football scholarships or if every other player has to fork over their football scholarship, then Diddy’s son should have to give his back.</p>
<p>I guess the same question could be asked of every full pay family whose child received an academic/athletic merit $$, should they have to give it back (They can afford it and there are others who need it more)?</p>
<p>Do CA state funds support the athletic departments?
It is highly unlikely the university sports programs are self sustaining with ticket sales…</p>
<p>I don’t think the kid should give up what HE earned…</p>
<p>No, he shouldn’t have to give it back (unless UCLA plans on getting rid of all athletic scholarships). Surely there are other athletes whose parents can “afford” the tuition. </p>
<p>I seem to remember that Denzel Washington’s son got a football scholarship. He offered to pay the tuition and was told that the scholarship was being offered to his son and not to him and that he should not pay the tuition.</p>
<p>Ticket sales aren’t what pays for sports. TV coverage is what pays for college sports. I doubt CA taxpayers are paying for this kid’s athletic scholarship.</p>
<p>His sport is FOOTBALL and for UCLA…it’s not like he’s in a non-revenue sport. </p>
<p>At a big Div 1 football school, it’s the football programs that pay for themselves and often pay for all the other sports (including the women’s sports which rarely, if ever, aren’t money losers.)</p>
<p>But, it would be nice if his dad made a donation.</p>
<p>I agree that he should keep his scholarship. Where does one draw the line for merit awards? Once this starts, that is the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is for UCLA football. They are most assuredly more than self-sustaining.</p>
<p>He shouldn’t be treated any differently because he has a rich father. He should keep it. He earned his place.</p>
<p>I don’t see what the problem is. It’s merit. My bosses’ daughter got a Morehead at UNC. So what? This kid earns it.</p>
<p>many times schools don’t know what the financial status of parents when recruiting athletes. There have been children of NFL players who’ve been recruited.</p>
<p>I really don’t see this as an issue at all. Looks a lot more like a writer trying to stir up an issue. Kid worked his butt off for an athletic scholarship, he should get to keep it.</p>
<p>The issue is that it is a public school that has shortage of funds and a big chunk is going to someone who clearly does not need it. If this were not a celebrity, it would not have the impact. There are many, many students getting merit awards who do not qualify for financial aid, and who come from well to do families. In fact, I daresay that the bulk of pure merit awards go to those who don’t need the funds. To be consistent, if this young man is expected to give back the award, so should others who have well to do families, and some consistent guidelines will have to made as to what point merit award should not be given.</p>
<p>I really don’t understand the dust up over this. Lots of kids who can afford school (via family) get scholarships of various kinds. It was earned by this kid.</p>
<p>Right, and the second you stay looking at economic factors, it’s no longer pure MERIT aid.</p>
<p>A few years ago there was a BC player who gave up his scholarship so the program could bring in another scholarship player. The player’s family was rich and did not “need” the scholarship so the player <em>voluntarily</em> gave up his scholarship.</p>
<p>I think this is hilarious. I do think Diddy should contribute the value of his son’s scholarship so that UCLA can obtain another scholarship student but heck it is too funny. In principle I don’t think there should be merit money at all…only financial need. The whole aspect of buying students with tuition discounting feels creepy to me on some level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As defined by who? By college financial aid office? Certainly not by families. Often full-pay (based on need) families have to compromise the college choice, to get that merit aid.</p>
<p>Quite frankly, the need is a relative term. Does a family need a flat screen TV or cable? If people are upset about well-to-do families accepting merit scholarships, would they be upset about family accepting section 8 vouchers (to pay for housing) having a flat screen TV or cable? After all, why should tax-payers (indirectly) subsidize these family’s entertainment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we are talking about merit awards, then the guidelines are already developed. They are based on merit. If we are talking about need-based aid, then it has nothing to do with pure merit based awards. </p>
<p>None of us are getting paid at our work based on our need. Our pay is based on market conditions and our skill set and experience (our merits). I don’t see anyone arguing for redefining how people are getting paid. Similarly, why would anyone advocate for redefining merit scholarships?</p>