Dear UCLA Fund, UCLA is Academics AND Athletics (and a whole lot more)

On the academic front, only a few Ivy League schools are ahead of us. Some academics feel if only we emphisized academics more and were less known for our athletics, people would take our academics more seriously and we would be rated above the Ivys. I disagree. The East Coast bias does not only exist in sports…

Additionally, when we are clicking, our athletics are near the top, with only a few “factories” ahead of us in terms of performance.

But when you couple BOTH the academics and athletics, UCLA is second to no one. It is that blend of both that led me to my selection of the university and I am sure many more on this site and elsewhere as well.

It would be nice if the long running feud between the two areas (dating back to the Morgan era) would end and they would realize they both need each other and that either outstanding academics OR athletics would be nice. But without both, it wouldn’t be UCLA.

I think her comment is influence by emotion and her energy is misdirected toward tazmiami. This should be when she tells us that it pains her that the mismanagement of our beautiful athletic program is now affecting our students, and that she will focus all her energy on having UCLA administrators realize that Academics and Athletics are intertwined. That is, the two have a dynamic relationship, one influencing the other. So, Sirinya, aka UCLA2009MAgrad, please use your insider status, love for students, love for public education, Bruin Nation, and get back to us with your plan of action and progress.

Sincerely,

Alumni and Bruin Fans everywhere

is that if any one of the other areas mentioned were mediocre the same way our athletics is mediocre (at best) right now, at least in the revenue sports, would it have prompted the reaction in question to withhold the check and send back the memorabilia? Doubtful. If our football team were 12-0 and our hospitals and Murphy Hall were suffering from mismanagement? Likely not. And what that suggests is that athletics is more important in the minds of those who agree with that decision than any other aspect that Sirinya mentioned.

The post by gbruin here makes the case that athletics is all-encompassing and unifying. I agree in that regard—it’s also an extremely visible aspect of our university, and part of why we have an international reputation.

But then, intellectual consistency is required here. If athletic mediocrity is worth withholding funds for but any other type of mediocrity isn’t, then the underlying claim is that athletics trumps the rest of it. That’s a legitimate position to take, but it also needs to be owned up to, as it were.

I strongly believe that athletics explain why UCLA has such a cohesive community. In my experience, people from successful athletic schools tend to feel a greater sense of community. It explains why people I’ve never met yell “Go Bruins!” when I wear my UCLA gear on the East Coast, but why most of my friends from other top academic schools don’t have the same experience. I understand perfectly. My friends and I spent many days at the Rose Bowl and in Pauley, and many nights camped out in front of Pauley. What experience can bring together a group of strangers like athletics?

On the other hand, the people I know who went to successful athletic schools are generally not as proud of their schools as UCLA alumni. It makes perfect sense. Not many schools are doing research that has a legitimate chance of curing AIDS.

Attending UCLA is a unique opportunity to experience a university that is successful both academically and athletically. It understandably creates unique graduates and fosters a proud community. Don’t settle for athletic mediocrity. I would hate to see UCLA lose the very thing that makes its community so strong.

I’ll write more about it some other time, but to me, college is far more than just academics. It’s an environment to find yourself, to develop those interests that you didn’t have a chance to before and now are thrust into a world with countless possibilities.

Athletics are very much a part of it – from being able to hang out with people who will be some of your best friends for the rest of your life, to building a relationship with the school and the fan base, to maintaining a connection with your alma mater for the rest of your life.

Ask yourself this: how often (for those not in academia) who live in LA, still go onto campus regularly if there were no activities such as arts or sports events? Probably not often in all likelihood. But that’s exactly it – alumni want to build and keep that connection with UCLA, but that connection has to start somewhere, and simply graduating isn’t enough – it’s the whole entirety of the experience that sets UCLA apart from almost every other UC.

I hate to use the SC example, but if they’ve done something right, it’s that they’ve been able to keep their alumni base interested in their school beyond just academics (to a fault, it seems) – but it’s just more proof that having a great athletics program ties in with alumni who are interested in investing in their alma mater and, in the long run, keeping sustained academic success.

This may be a good life lesson for Sirinya. As much as she and, perhaps, the Chancellor would want to separate the academic and athletic part of UCLA, for many of we alums, there is no separation, all is part of the big and complete picture of our university. As much as the Chancellor has a duty to make sure the academic side is “spiffy” and world class, he has an obligation to have a strong athletic department that highlights and brings the UCLA name in a proud and meaningful manner to the alums, who do give $$ from time to time.

If Sirinya believes the students are hurt by a lack of donations, imagine how much UCLA has shamed itself, IMO, for all those athletes who have been recruited and come to be embarrassed over and over again on the field during the prime of their athletic lives. The university has not fulfilled its obligation to provide a “highlight reel” of their lives as well as a world class education.

1. A few years ago, a friend of mine who is a Princeton alum was telling me about their “reunion” weekends which are absolutely huge and she was shocked that we have nothing like that. I explained to her that we have 6 Saturdays every Fall that serve as our unofficial reunions. Athletics are a vital part of our university identity and community.

2. I was driving on the 5 Freeway the other day and saw a billboard for the USC Keck School of Medicine proclaiming it to be “The New Name in World Class Care” or something like that. On the bottom corner of the billboard it said in USC red “Fight On”. USC’s football brand is so strong it is being used to enhance the universities Academic programs.

Without a doubt, the UCLA experience involves a plethora of activities, from academics, campus culture, and athletics. As far as academics go, things will slow down a bit until SAC solves the financial woes and the university gets used to funding its lifeblood in a more independent manner. It seems like the days of an excellent and cheap public education are going out the window. I’m doing a JD/MBA, and my JD tuition jumped from $15,000 to $40,000 in the last 10-15 years.

As far as athletics, I think RN was a turning point. UCLA used to get away with paying less attention to football, but now, hopefully, the entire administration realizes that the almighty dollar controls the sport. It brings the most revenue in to the school, and should be treated accordingly. I don’t know why it took them almost 8 years to figure this out, but on the other hand, the past makes some sense. KD was a bad hire — this happens quite often all across the country. I think everyone will agree that RN was the right hire, at the time. The issue — low paid alumni don’t cut it in the big leagues anymore. As BN says, the Donahue (sp?) era is over.

The question is – can we get a big time coach to come here? I mean, if we really offer Chris Petersen over $3.5 million a year, plus facility upgrades, ect., is he going to come? Or are we going to be forced to go with a fifth or sixth option. I really don’t know the answer to that question, and I don’t know if I trust DG with the process. I’m holding on to my money until the administration illustrates that they care. Letting UCLA football die on National TV hurts UCLA’s reputation, no matter how great the academics are.

When a business is run the CEO dosent consider only parts of the whole business. If an essential part of the business is not managed correctly heads roll and hopefully competent people are put in place to manage them. If not the CEO’s head rolls and a new one is put in place. All of our athletic problems can be fixed, as long as the problems are addressed corrected and then implemented.