Donations and UCLA Admissions

* Re “Donations and Admissions--Is There a Tie at UCLA?” May 6:

Having attended the University of California, Berkeley, years ago and now preparing to send my eldest son to UC Santa Barbara, I am thoroughly convinced that the UC system offers one of the finest educational opportunities available in this country. Apparently many donors to UCLA, capable of furnishing Ivy League educations for their friends and relatives, agree with me. One might say that the University of California provides one of the best educations that money can buy.

I admit that I am hopelessly out of touch with the new, creative means of gaining admittance to UC campuses. Until now, I thought that admission depended solely on hard work and high SATs. For this reason I have read the articles concerning UCLA’s quid pro quo, strike that, policy of creative fund-raising, with great interest. However, I am perplexed by one point concerning the $25,000 donation offered to then-Vice Chancellor Alan F. Charles. Was the offer rejected because it smacked of bribery, or because it was too small?

DON BATCHELOR

Brea

* The article’s general tenor amazes me. If a six-figure donation is offered, any elite school in the Ivy League would accept the student--public or private should make no difference. How many instances of this sort could there be in one year? I assure you it would not constitute 1% of the student body. Ideally, I wish it happened often enough to make up for the lack of tax money currently available for maintaining a ranking university.

For every donor’s applicant who enrolled, this money could well make it possible for a multitude of needy youths to attend. If athletes of lesser academic skills, but great athletic prowess, are acceptable, why not students of lesser academic skills with great monetary prowess? After all, it all ends the same, money in the university’s coffers.

LOUIS J. KING

La Verne

* Early in the discussion about preferential admissions, it was pointed out that 80% of UCLA’s support comes from private, rather than public, sources of funding.

It should be pointed out that once a great public institution is “privatized,” one can hardly be surprised when it adopts policies that favor those who are donating large sums of money--affirmative action for the affluent.

If the public refuses to support its institutions of higher learning, they will be “sold” to those special interests that can afford them and the interests of the public at large will be sacrificed.

MICHAEL J. WENZL

San Luis Obispo