With the recent implementation of the minimum progress
requirement, we may soon find that UCLA has more in common with
California Pizza Kitchen than USC.
What could our fine educational institution possibly have in
common with the purveyor of Italian delectables, you ask?
Turnover.
Just as restaurants invest a great deal in high customer
turnover, which ensures greater profits, the Academic Senate now
plays the role of the hasty waiter in pressuring us to leave the
university as quickly as possible. Considering how hard we’ve
all worked for the privilege to attend UCLA, being rushed out is a
bit of a slap in the face.
For those who have no idea what I’m talking about, the
minimum progress requirement passed in the Academic Senate with
overwhelming faculty backing in June 2001, while many of us were
still in high school. The measure took effect for UCLA students in
the class of 2005 and requires that students enroll in 13 units per
quarter. In addition, students are required to increase their unit
loads every two quarters in order to meet new “cumulative
degree expectations,” which essentially mandate a minimum of
180 units by the end of four years. Failure to keep pace could
result in academic probation or a hold to be placed on future
registration.
After all the hard work we put into securing those coveted
acceptance letters, the university has reduced us to mere, faceless
statistics. Like the imprisoned minds of the Matrix, we are now
part of an educational machine churning out undergraduate degrees
like some sort of supped-up Polish sausage maker.
Higher education has always stood tall as a pillar of personal
growth and intellectual exploration, but now the bureaucratic
pursuit of funding threatens to undermine these values on campus.
As the state only funds UCLA for students who take a minimum of 45
units per year, it certainly makes economic sense for the Academic
Senate to impose these progress requirements. However, this
isn’t fair to students.
People don’t just come here for a degree. They also come
here to learn more about themselves and others. With the minimum
progress requirement we are told that these personal dimensions of
our college education are irrelevant. The emphasis is suddenly upon
making more room for someone else that will be a monetary benefit
to the university.
While I understand the university must also address problems
like Tidal Wave II (the nickname for the expected influx of 60,000
students into the UC system over the next 10 years), it must not
fall into the trap of quantity over quality. As one 2001 Daily
Bruin editorial stated, “The university has a standard of
excellence to live up to, and if we want to maintain the quality of
the UC, we should at least salvage its two most prestigious
flagship campuses ““ UC Berkeley and UCLA ““ by capping
enrollment.”
Indeed, wouldn’t this alternative better serve the
students? Instead of punishing the ones who are already enrolled,
why not control the floodgates a little more tightly? This means
that many qualified students will be turned away, but the sheer
volume of applicants necessitates that the bar be raised, just as
at the Ivy schools.
As a whole, California has an obligation to provide easy public
access to higher learning, but does this necessarily mean here at
UCLA? Our school carries a fairly prestigious name, which will
dwindle markedly as we squeeze more and more students in.
Consequently, we will receive less research money if we don’t
maintain our reputation for excellence.
To our new USAC representatives: continue the fight against the
minimum progress requirement; reserve what it means to be a UCLA
student.
Let this school be less like the corporate restaurant chain
promptly feeding you before bringing in a new set of customers, and
more like that coffee house allowing you study over a hot latte
““ all day long.
Dang is a third-year political science student. Email him your
comments at ndang@media.ucla.edu.