I am embarrassed to an extent over the issue which finally compels me to voice an opinion here at Penn State, but I can't let March 28th's "Oscars will go to predictable picks" go by without my having a say.

Yes, it is a shame that Hollywood is biased in such a manner, but it is up to the artists' peers, the Motion Picture Academy, to tell us who is worthy of the prestigious Oscars and who isn't, not an arrogant undergraduate.

I respect the opinions of others, whether they contradict my own or not, but the blatant ignorance displayed by the writer and poor judgment reflected in his editors' decision to run the story can't be excused.

I was literally shocked by the tone of voice the writer took as he systematically panned Hollywood's finest artists.

To be told that Sir Alec Guiness is "old" and deserves the "sympathy award," that Sigourney Weaver "has no recognizable talents" and that "Mississippi Burning," my personal favorite of the past year "is simply not an outstanding movie," were more than enough reasons to question the writer's credibility.

And taking a film by Francis Ford Coppola, one of the greatest filmmakers of our time, that he hasn't even seen, and saying it looks "incredibly boring . . . (Coppola) hasn't exactly been turning out American classics lately," is nothing less than irresponsible journalism.

Woe to us that this lowly staff writer doesn't "feel inspired to say many good things," or that certain performances didn't make him "stand up and cheer"!

Being the same age as nominee River Pheonix, a "boy barely past puberty," the entire freshman class as well as myself should be grateful to the writer for having been told what we can and cannot do because of our age. I just hope that one day my work can be beaten out in the Oscar race by such worthy competitors.

Yes, by the time this is read, "Rain Man," an outstanding film but certainly not the year's best, will most likely have been named Best Picture.

But that is Oscar's perogative, and should not be taken with a grain of salt, as the nonsense written by such an unworthy critic as Michael W. Gates should.