The University of Washington is taking issue with the fact that a successful sports program is good for the school = more money comes in to the coffers via donations from alumni or otherise.
In 2000, UW went 11-1 in football. Next year, giving was up. See?
In 2004, UW went 1-10 in football. Giving was even higher.
Trying to buy their way out of the hole maybe?
Or does having a top ranked well-performing football team or basketball team for that matter, really not make a difference?
Should a school be known for his sports program or the a
chievements of, say, its physics department.
A UW professor received top honors for his life's work, research into white blood cells. It changed the way scientists look at the human immune system.
Another physics prof "conducted an experimental investigation into tiny particles known as terrestrial electron antineutrinos and won a national award."
Quick, what's their names?
The article I read about this didn't even say.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Comment Preview