Education for the masses, for better or for worse, is being
threatened by a backlash from those who are benefiting the
most.
As current UCLA students, it’s easy to forget everything
it took to get here. But, most of us would probably admit that had
the mailman not come with the big envelope on that fateful day, all
those long hours spent on forced community service and SAT
memorization would have been for naught.
In the discussion of possible solutions for the current economic
bind and its impact on the degradation of higher education at the
University of California, curtailing admissions should be seen as
the last and most drastic alternative.
The fundamental goal of the public university program should be
to provide a minimum level of education and be available to the
whole of the public it serves. As the UC’s mission plan
states, “Undergraduate programs are available to all eligible
California high-school graduates “¦ who wish to attend the
University of California.”
An enrollment cap, much like affirmative action, only goes to
limit qualified applicants. The UC shouldn’t let everyone in,
but it must also be sensible. If an applicant has the grades and
overall credentials, denying admission because of current budget
restraints goes against the spirit of the public university
system.
This year, 4,930 students were admitted from an applicant pool
of 45,000. I am willing to bet that too many of those denied
admission had far better test scores, grades and extracurriculars
than many of us lounging as undergraduates today. In the near
future, for every one of us already admitted there will be ten
others with credentials just as impressive denied because of an
increasingly tight admissions policy.
The fact is that students are continually getting better and the
applicant pool is becoming more competitive. Keeping in mind a
steadily growing population, you can see that even holding
admissions at a constant number is to deny more and more capable
applicants every year.
Even in the grimmest scenarios, however, cuts to admissions are
uncalled for. The only relief this action will bring is temporary
easement of undergraduate introductory lecture sizes from 350 to
300 students.
The stadium seating in most lecture halls is a common sight for
incoming undergraduates, but let’s not get dramatic.
Nobody’s higher education is being ruined because the
professor doesn’t know your name.
Is this temporary fix worth denying access to those who deserve
to be here as much as anyone else on campus? Let’s face it:
cutting out a percent or two from admissions will do nothing but
leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those promised a shot at
higher education by the state of California.
When the four percent plan suddenly turns into the
two-and-a-half-percent plan, are we to turn away those coming from
a more competitive environment?
Looking at the small picture, it’s easy to miss the
billions who would do anything to be in our shoes.
Enrollment caps are something that will not affect us.
We’re not the ones stressing over the big envelope. I suppose
every organization tends to become elitist and close-minded over
time. There is nothing like the security of acceptance to embolden
people to close access ports to others.
Keep in mind, however, that the solution to overcrowding is
being addressed. The ungodly amount of construction going on all
over campus represents more than a general level of student
annoyance. It is a sign of progressive tides of change sweeping the
campus. UCLA will get mercilessly larger to meet the growing
demand.
The entire American collegiate system may be turning into the
next echelon of mandatory schooling, but that is an entirely
different problem. The job of the UC today is to provide education
for all Californians who want it. If anything, admissions should be
increased to accommodate the growing qualified applicant pool
because, as everyone here at UCLA will gladly attest to, we deserve
to be here.
Moon is a first-year business economics student. E-mail him your
comments at jmoon@media.ucla.edu.