The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, November 25, 1974, Image 10

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

GAMECOCK *It is a newspaper's duty to print the news and raise hell.' WILBUR F. STORIY The Chicago Times BILL GRANT, Editor BILL OUTLAW. ART FRANK. Editorial Page Editor Advertising Manager November 25, 1974 TICKETS... USC has the best ticket method in the country for ticket distribution. A remark attributed to USC ticket manager Ray Faircloth, February, 1974. According to the athletic department, it now appears that USC's method of ticket distribution has serious flaws that need to be corrected. All for the benefit of the student, of course. A little more than a week ago the athletic department announced it was, surprise, going to change USC's much-discussed and much-defended digit-control system of doling out tickets to the school's 13. ,regular season basketball games. The athletic department is now saying what we need is. the first-come first-serve system at USC. Under their proposal, students, no matter what their ID number, could enter the Coliseum at any time on distribution day and pick-up tickets as long as they last. Officials argue that the confusion inherent in the distribution method created many unnecessary "hassles" -for the student. It invited students to cut classes, they said, and the way the system itself was organized forced much confusion as to rules regarding procedures and regulations. The problem of just how to distribute 5,600 tickets to a potential audience of 20,000 students is a headache of ficials in both the athletic department and student government, which had jurisdiction over ticket distribution, have been grappling with ever since the debacle following the Notre Dame game last spring. There is, of course, an economic motive involved here. The athletic department has to pay all those smiling people who hand out tickets. If the "first-come, first serve," system were initiated, there is an excellent chance the 5,600 student tickets would disappear with a matter of hours, especially considering how highly regarded the USC basketball team is this year. Rather than have to pay God-knows-how-many people to hand out tickets all day, under the proposed system these people could be dismissed within a short time, all at a considerable savings to the athletic department. Another disturbing aspect of the whole ticket con fusion was the Athletic department's blatant by-pass of established University procedure in the.way they went about presenting the proposed change. Any modifications in the way tickets are distributed must be first approved by the Student Senate Athletic Com mittee and then by the full senate. The athletic department either tried to ignore the senate or had them figured as a rubber stamp, because not only did they release the "scoop" to unsuspecting Gamecock sports writers but they had USC basketball schedule printed up with the new ticket procedures on the back. The uproar surrounding last year's Notre Dame game pointed out the injustices in the digit-control system. The system is unfair, in the sense that any ticket system is unfair. But to implement a "first-come first-serve" system would create more problems then it would solve. The athletic department, as well as student govern ment, would do well to leave things as they are until a better, not a more convenient, system can be found. WCG LETTER. Advisement procedures frustrate P.E. major TO THE EDITOR: I am a very frustrated physical education major. After three years in the program, I am just now beginning to understand why people have always had the im pression that P.E. was such a "crip" major. The administration of the P.E. department is at the least, partly the blame for this impression. When the department is unable to prevent chaos in its advisement duties, changes should be made. The P.E. department, similar to other departments,' sets up an appointment schedule for ad visement. A few days ago I signed up for an appointment with my advisor for Thursday, Nov. 21, at 1 p.m. Arriving at his office a few minutes before my scheduled appointment, the secretary told me to grab a-seat and wait. I waited for about 45 minutes before my advisor finally arrived. As I walked toward his office, I noticed a line of about ten students waiting outside.his door. They had either apparently forgotten to sign up for advisement or they themselves had been waiting for the prodigal advisor to make a showing for their own appointments. I was not about to wait in this line, so I left in disgust. Since only a few days remain for advisement, it looks like I won't have a chance to be advised. My "advisor's" schedule is tilled and I don't think it is proper for me to barge into his office and infringe upon other people's rights. My advisor could be the proverbial bad apple in the bunch or this sort of thing could be running rampant throughout the department. If so, changes should be made. Later the same afternoon I returned to see if the line had dissipated, which it had. I walked into his office and began to present my case. After a brief shouting match, he made his point clear that he was being overworked, having both advisement and pre registration duties. If this man feels that he is being unjustly overworked, he should complain to the department heads and not to the student! If his claims are justified, the department should hire additional personnel, and if not, they should hire another person who is better capable of doing the job. RICHARD KREJCI Student criticizes GPR editorial TO THE EDITOR: In response to your editorial "USC needs change In grading system" of Nov. 14, 1974, I would like, to say that I was shocked, surprised and deeply hurt that this editorial was signed by Bill Outlaw. The entire article smacks of middle class elitist bullshit, rather than a sincere concern for the welfare of either the average Carolina student or this University Throughout the article such tell tale phrases as, "GPR should be an accurate index of how his grades compare with other students," "Counting NC's as F's in com puting an applicant's "real GPR", "Many students are given C's here that might have been given D's under a different grading system," "USC's reputation eems t eon 5..Advisement.. Campus the line," "Buying a suit it K-Mart or J.B. Whites," "Not many people want to admit they bought that suit at K-Mart," "A student flunking out," "His GPR should reflect his grade standing," "Raising the GPR on the student who is making bad grades," etc, etc, Ad Nauseum. Not one word was mentioned about improving the Quality of Education on this campus or in attempting to develop a curriculum that is relevant to a student's Major, and the latter part of the 20th Century. Not one word was mentioned about the inequities of a system that forces students to neglect learning in order to compete in memorizing contests with their fellow educationally deprived students. Not one word about the failure 6f this University to roperly prepare a student to go out into the world and lead a professional life. Not one word was mentioned about the "Demi God's" of Academia, the little tin Gods who sit in their high and mighty chairs of professorship and terrorize incoming freshmen with the threat of Academic failure, rather than trying to help prepare that person as fully as possible to lead a useful professional life. As far as buying suits at K-Mart or J.B. Whites, students aren't a suit of clothes, and while J.B. White's may be a "Biggie" locally--95 per cent of the people outside of S.C. never heard of it and couldn't care less where you buy yot4r coveralls. I thought that the idea of "Penalizing" or "Punishing a student for "Bad Grades" went ou; with the dinosaurs, that the new thought was to lessen the extreme tension of unfair competition in order to prevent cognitive narrowing and allow as full an Intellectual development of the individual as possible. This fixation on the terms "Flunking out" "Bad Grades", ''D's and F's" "Held against him", etc, show a definite inability of the author to gear his cognitive abilities to lateral thought processes, instead of the Archaic Tunnel Vision of the Ancient Past. As I understand it, 90 per cent or the problems with the NC system are Graduate Student problems, so why should the great majority of the undergraduate student body have to pay the price for mistakes of the Administrator and Faculty of four years ago! If the system has functional problems, let's work to improve the system, to make it more ac ceptable, but let's not turn off the Electric Lights of Education because the power plant is polluting the stream, let's repair the power plant--this University has come much too far to return to the intellectually stifling era of 1801. HI. FRANK SHERAL.V .grading system oSYS opinion Basketball funding used for football? TO THE EDITOR: Something has been -following me around all day. Perhaps it is the trace of that memorandum I saw on our departmental bulletin board. Words there were to the effect that: "The Dean wishes to advise graduate students who are on assistantship that if they wish to obtain basketball tickets they will be required to pay the customary student fees." The "customary student fees" incidentally, are $52.50. (They include other things such as the infirmary, but let's say you don't plan to get sick and you do plan to go to basketball games.) I don't plan to defend this semester's practice of giving students on assistantship one ticket -on its face it appears indefensible. For instance, work study un dergraduates could argue for a similar priviledge. What is im portant is the sheer economic insanity of this whole thing. Let us say that a student is on assistantship and he receives, per month, $200 for his work. Next semester, he will have the privilege of watching nine basketball games for the remarkably low price of a student fee - $52.50. Try some quick arith metic. Let's face it, folks, that's almost $6 a game. People don't have that kind of discretionary income today. No one has it, especially students! The very same argument can be,made for many undergraduates. Another point is that this "privilege" is to be levied upon us at registration. Return again to poor Joe who makes $200.and carries home $175. He enters the coliseum (on the Green Street side, no doubt) and ends up at the throne of the financial wizard. The wizard takes $30 for tuition, $52.50 for fees, later $60 for books. Add it up. Joe pays $142.50. He is handed $32.50 in change from his check and told to "have a good year." Joe leaves wondering how he is going to pay his rent or food bills for January. Well, now isn't this all madness. You will see hundreds of students deserting the program they love best in sports (basketball) out of economic necessity. Those who remain will be the ones who have really suffered to buy tickets or an educationally and economically elitest group that this university appears, by some recent statements, anxious to serve. The great mass of us appear to have little choice. Basketball shouldn't cost a lot. Coach McGuire has a minimum number of players and coaches. Somewhere under the surface, I get the feeling that you and I are paying for Uncle Paul's Big Red Machine. I wonder how long we're willing to take it? Maybe by next year we will be able to see the Big Red Machine play Appalachian State for a meager price of $11.00. Who is this whole thing designed to serve? I believe I know and I belfie you do, too. WILLIAM P. RICEsa