And an apparent lack of institutional controls.
While everyone has heard of Rick Singer and college admissions (most of which involved USC), that’s just one of many.
Of course, this is just an opinion so . . . I think a lot of it stems from USC wanting to move (and successfully, by the way) really quickly up the national rankings. USC has a ton of money, a ton of ambition and really motivated and extremely wealthy alumni obsessed with status. None of that is bad or unique, but if it isn’t managed carefully, that can lead to cutting corners, bad hires, sloppy practices, ethical shortcuts, etc. USC is a great school, and has strategically navigated its way into the elite ranks. But usually when you have that kind of sudden transformation, you also have to keep a close eye on the culture. You see it at times with an athletic program (SMU) or companies with amazing growth (Enron). Not to that degree, but I think the culture of trying to get to the top overnight (relatively speaking) has played a huge role. Still–I’d be pretty happy if my kids went there.
I thought the “anything goes” era started under Steven Sample, and continued under his protege Max Nikias. They were both obsessed with raising money, raising USC’s position in the rankings, and looked the other way at anything unethical if it benefited the university.
You always hire people who view the world the way you do, so they kept hiring people with similar attitudes. The “anything goes” culture eventually permeated USC.
I suspect it will only change when most of the management that was installed under Sample and Nikias are gone. I will admit that I was both thrilled (and shocked) to see USC’s rapid rise in the ratings, while at the same time being embarrassed at the way the school went about it.
Probably big time athletics can corrupt too.
As a contrast, Vanderbilt and UChicago also had dramatic rises in the polls with no attendant scandals.
Mike Garrett, the USC athletic directory who exemplifies as well as anyone how USC administrators looked the other way on ethics violations, was hired by Sample. Then Garrett hired people such as Pete Carroll and a series of basketball coaches who also adopted a “winning first, ethics second” attitude. I haven’t checked, but I’d guess that most of the athletic department coaches and administrators who got caught up in the scandals were hired under Garrett and had the same views on ethics that he did. I’d say USC athletics was corrupted, rather than the corrupter.
I agree that big athletics, and also big size, have something to do with it. I live near OSU, another big enrollment, big sports school, and we have more than our share of scandals too. With high profile athletes, big donors, big money, there is more potential/reward for breaking the rules.