<p>"Controversy was raised among the UCLA community Tuesday after a football scholarship was granted to the son of music mogul Sean P. Diddy Combs, who is reportedly worth half a billion dollars.</p>
<p>Justin Combs, a cornerback, has scored a free ride to UCLA on a football scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars. ...</p>
<p>... But with the cost of tuition tripling at the coveted U.C. school over the past ten years, some students are asking whether the son of someone worth so much, who got a six-figure car for his sixteenth birthday, should get a $54,000 scholarship. ...</p>
<p>... UCLA declined an on-camera interview, but stressed their robust financial aid program, noting that UCLA enrolls more low-income grant recipients than the entire Ivy League combined. They went on to say that their 285 athletic scholarships are separate, like other Division 1 schools.</p>
<p>'Unlike need-based scholarships, athletic scholarships are awarded to students strictly on the basis of their athletic and academic ability, and not on a students financial need. Athletic scholarships, such as those awarded to football or basketball players, do not rely on state funds,' said UCLA spokesperson Ricardo Vazquez in a statement." ...</p>
<p>Oh No! A person earned a scholarship! Should we disband all merit-based scholarships just because the students receiving them might be able to afford the education? I see these athletic scholarships in the same light that I see merit-based need independent scholarships, just the skill required to earn the scholarship is athletic and not academic.</p>
<p>Another thing to note is that receiving a scholarship is an honor beyond just getting the money. I remember a few years back a child of a rich NFL player or actor was awarded an athletic scholarship, and the parent said the student would not decline it because it was earned by the student. IIRC, the parent made a sizable contribution to the general scholarship fund of the school that was at least as much as the scholarship his son received in.</p>
<p>This happened like 5 months ago. Why is this news now? Why is it not news when, say, Stanford gives a full scholarship to Barry Sanders Jr., whose father is obviously fairly wealthy himself? Or when the University of Washington gives a scholarship to Joe Montana’s son?</p>
<p>Justin Combs is a good kid. He worked hard to earn a high GPA and athletic skill. He deserves the prestige of his D1 athletic scholarship. Congrats to Justin for not being another spoiled brat and working hard!</p>
<p>^Correction, congrats to Justin for being a spoiled child AND working hard. There’s nothing wrong with being spoiled when you keep your responsibilities in line and do things correctly. It’s pretty hard to argue someone who received a $300,000 car from his dad as a first car gift isn’t spoiled, no matter how smart or good at sports he is.</p>
<p>So what? Where do you want to draw the line where a student coming from a family not eligilble for financial aid should not take a merit scholarship, including athletic awards? Or should it be celebrity status that makes that determination?</p>
<p>This is really where it should have ended. I do agree with other posters that UCLA might simply be trying to solicit some donations from Sean Combs. His donation in millions would obviously outweigh any full scholarship the school gives his son.</p>
<p>I don’t understand what this student was trying to say. The problem was in her comprehension. I would hope that most UCLA students would understand that athletic scholarships are a completely different breed than academic scholarships or need-based grants. </p>
<p>Diddy doesn’t have to do anything for UCLA; his son earned an athletic scholarship to the U. There already has been a benefit by Justin Combs recruiting for the football team. UCLA got a top-tier quarterback from NJ because the younger Combs was on him, recruiting him to UCLA.</p>
<p>I disagree with Stephen A. Smith that there’s even a slight inkling that this could be Diddy’s fault. A scholarship athlete is treated differently on university campuses than someone who has “walked on.” The first receive top-grade equipment and meals, and those who aren’t on scholarship receive the leftovers, literally and figuratively.</p>
<p>Can someone explain how this even started? The idea that this should be an issue is just absurd. I haven’t even seen much evidence that this is an issue for more than one person.</p>
<p>^^I believe that CNN might have started the whole thing. They caught wind of Diddy’s son receiving a full-ride scholarship to the U, and without thinking, someone there blogged that a hip-hop artist’s son (more entrepreneur’s son) with worth $0.5 B got a full ride. The blogger obviously didn’t realize the difference between an athletic scholarship and a need-based or academically merit(ed) one. This started a chain reaction, with various publications taking up the 99% cause: upper .0000001% mogul not paying a cent towards son’s college education, No one really understanding the basis behind athletic scholarships.</p>
<p>Most of the campus has student accessible wifi, but Boelter and MS don’t because so much of the building is basically a Faraday cage. So most departments set up their own wifi, but students don’t have access.</p>
<p>You must use the word “most” very laxly, ThisCouldBeHeavn. LaKretz, South Campus Student Center, as well as more south campus places I could name (I can’t name any north campus places because I never really go there) have very spotty wifi. It’s very hit or miss, almost a lottery, not knowing whether you’ll strike it or not that day. For example, I have sat in the SAME EXACT seat most of the quarter (only switching seats to actually test the wifi) in my LS lecture in LaKretz and my success rate for relatively stable internet is about 50% (no matter where I am sitting). I don’t really understand why it’s so spotty.</p>
<p>Most in the sense that it’s sometimes possible to get wifi in South Campus (often not eduroam, but uclawlan works in a lot of places) and it’s always possible to get wifi in North Campus.</p>
<p>*certain places in the upper levels of YRL (4th/5th) have very spotty wifi</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the law school has very spotty wifi</p></li>
<li><p>Dodd has very spotty wifi (some of the rooms have it, others don’t.)</p></li>
<li><p>Even in LuValle, the inside of it has wifi, where the outer court lacks it.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>North Campus’ wifi may not be as bad as south campus, but it’s far from perfect.</p>
<p>I remember watching all the UCLA commencement, 2011 in installments, particularly the students walking into Drake Stadium and the Peace Corps Mr. Williams’ keynote speech – excellent btw, and very watchable. Great man. </p>
<p>White tassels, BA; Gold, BS. They seat the BS’s closer to the south side of the seating, and they enter the stadium on a counter clockwise walk around the track, I believe.</p>
<p>I remembered that I thought I saw a student watching herself on an iPad, as I guess the ceremonies were shown live. I thought … great, UCLA has Wi-Fi throughout campus instead of building specific, so the students can connect to the Internet sitting on the grassy areas under trees, etc. Hint to the administration: there are an ever-growing list of cities that have free Wi-Fi. </p>