Submission: UCLA should address class overcrowding

It’s a problem many college students, especially incoming Bruins, are familiar with: impacted courses.

This problem is so universal and visible that the cynicism quickly spreads to new students.

The causes are self-evident. First and foremost is the burgeoning number of students accepted and enrolled that UCLA proudly announces every year. Simultaneously, the construction of several new deluxe residence halls over the past few years has increased our campus’ maximum population. The unfortunate truth is that our student population is visibly outgrowing our facilities’ capacity.

Admittedly, Engineering VI and the Evelyn and Mo Ostin Music Center in Schoenberg Hall are being built at this very moment, but their capacity may not meet the needs of the hundreds more students living in the new residence halls.

Some may argue that this problem is inevitable, unavoidable, not worth prioritizing. However, impacted and over-capacity classes must be addressed immediately for two reasons.

First, an undergraduate degree is more valuable and necessary than ever for many careers. In June 2010, three researchers from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce published a report titled “Help Wanted,” that 63 percent of American jobs will require a college education by 2018. Impacted courses only stand in the way of Bruins who will be filling those job positions.

Next, higher education accessibility is still limited and every reasonable effort to expand it should be pursued. Impacted classes create unneeded stress for students attempting to earn a degree in four years. The current inability of some students to enroll in classes in the right quarters is a clear obstacle to graduating in four years, and creates an unnecessarily large financial burden for those who are unable to do so. Together, the results of the status quo are unacceptable.

So how can students and our administration fix this problem?

Here are three possible solutions: reducing the number of admitted freshmen, building more lecture halls or reducing the number of required classes for some majors. Each solution comes with its own problems and merits.

Reducing the number of admitted freshmen is the most obvious solution, but it would reduce accessibility to high-quality education during a time of economic hardship. Nevertheless, the simplest way to allow students to receive the classes they pay for is to ensure that there aren’t too many students in the first place.

UCLA students are already accustomed to grand construction projects on campus, so more lecture halls are acceptable in a social sense. However, lecture halls also require millions to construct. California taxpayers and UCLA studentshave already suffered through enough fee hikes and tax increases. Even perennial donor contributions may have their limits.

The $152 million Meyer and Renee Luskin Conference and Guest Center and estimated $70 million (including millions from donors) Engineering VI project both exemplify the growing density of on-campus buildings. Whether students could accept sacrificing dwindling green space or another parking structure for more classrooms is an open question.

The best alternative here is to reduce the number of students who need to take currently impacted classes. The first step requires the various major departments to reassess the utility and purpose of taking certain classes. Speaking as a civil engineering student, I am very curious how learning quantum mechanics (Chemistry 20A), special relativity (Physics 1C) and electromagnetism (Physics 1B and Physics 1C) enhance my ability to safely design a building. Other classes like engineering ethics and calculus, on the other hand, are inherently necessary.

The next step requires the major departments and schools in general to eliminate redundancies in course requirements. Part of this can be accomplished by revisiting which requirements can be met by high Advanced Placement scores. Personally, my upper-division engineering statistics class mirrors my AP statistics class material almost perfectly (in 10 weeks rather than a school year). Eliminating course requirements like this is the best way to prevent overflowing classes.

There are, regrettably, some limitations to streamlining course requirements. Graduate schools’ expectations for us are beyond our control, and some majors may not provide students with enough credits to meet the minimum number needed after such a change.

Overall, this is an incomplete and imperfect set of ways to address overcrowded courses. No matter what we as a student body pursue, it will require us to present a unified and well-discussed plan to our student government and University of California administration. This is part of the foundation for any recognition of student needs and demands. After all, UCLA has a duty to provide us with the best education possible, but we must always fight for it.

Donovan is a third-year civil engineering student.