Sharon Kim Kim is a second-year biology
student. Send your rhyme or reason to skim@media.ucla.edu. Click Here
for more articles by Sharon Kim
So the Academic Senate cut four courses from the Letters &
Science General Education requirements.
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
This change in the GE requisites is not going to have a major
impact on anything. As dramatic as The Bruin’s Editorial
Board wants to make it sound, this modification is not going to
degrade academic quality at UCLA. Neither will this solve the
problem of Tidal Wave II– an expected influx of 4,000 students
into the UCLA undergraduate population over the next 10 years.
It’s pretty obvious how little influence the reduction of
four GE classes is going to make on the number of graduating
seniors. Students don’t attend extra years because they still
have four little GEs to take. At most, they may be forced to stay
for another quarter or two because of a couple of GEs that are not
satisfied.
Rather, students staying for over four years probably have
major-related courses and research to finish up. This means that
despite the reductions in GE classes, the number of fifth- and
sixth-year students circulating the campus will remain relatively
fixed.
Exactly how reducing the number of GEs is supposed to alleviate
Tidal Wave II is beyond my comprehension. Isn’t it clear that
in order to solve the problem of overcrowding there should be
something done about the source of this overcrowding? The only
logical solution is an enrollment cap. Is UCLA going to knowingly
admit thousands of more students than it can handle and then worry
that there won’t be enough room for all its students?
Don’t enroll so many in the first place! What a concept.
Just as the GE reductions will be ineffective toward the
overcrowding situation, they won’t be detrimental to the
quality of education at UCLA, either.
Yes, it is very important that students receive a broad
education, so that science students won’t come out of college
as inarticulate, stammering researchers and humanities students as
mathematically handicapped historians. Sure, it’s essential
for students to be exposed to different fields so that their
education will be a more well-rounded one.
However, even with the reduction of GE classes, this is still
possible. After all, it’s not as if this is eliminating a
whole chunk of a one field of GEs; they’re spread out so
science and humanities requirements are equally downsized. Students
will still be exposed to the same non-major-related courses in each
field as before.
Moreover, for the sake of comparison, Berkeley has fewer
required GE classes. I don’t think anyone would argue the
quality of education is lower there compared to UCLA.
And this is college, remember? Students should be able to decide
for themselves if they want to take classes not related to their
major coursework. If they have to be led by the hand and forced to
take certain classes, it’s doubtful they’ll learn
anything in the first place.
If students really feel the burning need to take those
philosophy courses, they’ll take them. In fact, rather than
wasting their time taking GE classes they’ll never develop an
interest in to save their lives, students will have more leisure to
take non-major related classes they actually want to take. What is
taking a couple of mediocre 300-student lectures going to do for
your education?
When it comes to hurting the academic value at UCLA, there are
more crucial things to worry about than some reductions in GE
classes, like eliminating SAT I scores as a factor in
admissions.
The GE reductions will be harmless. There’s no need to cry
for UCLA’s academic excellence. The changes are just not
extreme enough to cause any damage.
The eliminated GEs will not be missed.