Letters
UCLA advocates need reality check
I am writing this letter in response to Scott Meselson’s article
"Crying Over UCLA Obscures Real Issues" (Viewpoint, March 10),
written in response to Jake Pieroni’s letter "Honeymoon’s Over For
Those Familiar with UCLA’s Hassles" (Viewpoint, March 5), who
commented on Stephanie Pfeffer’s column "Falling in Love with UCLA
Not Hard to Do" (Viewpoint, March 1). Well, now that is out of the
way I will get to my point.
While I usually enjoy Stephanie Pfeffer’s writing, I found her
article about her love for UCLA pointless.
She basically spent the entire article praising her love for
UCLA because we have "pretty" buildings and landscape. Gee, that is
great and all, but what about the fact that a number of Olympic
winners have attended school here?
We have professors who have won numerous prestigious awards,
including Nobel Prizes. We also have a number of prestigious alumni
in the entertainment business, political world, etc. The list could
go on. Aside from the small list I just mentioned there are
countless other important people who have contributed to UCLA’s
history. Instead, Pfeffer focuses on UCLA’s aesthetic beauty.
While UCLA can indeed be beautiful, I would not know since every
corner of this school is covered under construction projects.
Whether it is occurring at the Medical Plaza, Dykstra Hall,
Bruin Walk (I personally have forgotten what it looks like) or
North Campus, there seems to be construction everywhere.
Despite Pfeffer’s column, I am more concerned with the responses
that followed. Meselson’s response to Pieroni’s article, which was
an obvious stab at sarcastic pessimism, was pointless and arrogant.
Meselson needs to get a sense of humor.
Pieroni wrote that he has received "roughly 832" parking tickets
since attending UCLA. Meselson responds by saying he "assumes the
number is exaggerated" and actually calculated it to see how many a
week that would be. Haven’t you ever heard of a hyperbole?
Apparently, you have not. If you honestly thought Pieroni was
trying to be serious, then you have issues.
Furthermore, to defend Pfeffer’s article (which Meselson claims
"was a breath of fresh air") for the sake of rebutting Pieroni’s
article is ludicrous. He then knocks Pieroni for being truthful by
saying that he is coming to college to earn more money later in
life. He asks where Pieroni’s "lust for college life" is. Well it
has obviously been hindered by his bad experiences at UCLA. Despite
all of Pieroni’s complaints, I found his article amusing and
enticing to the cynic in me.
My advice to Pieroni is enjoy the rest of your years here by
kicking back a couple of Natty Lights now and again.
As for Meselson – maybe with all the money Pieroni will earn
once he graduates he can buy Meselson a sense of humor.
Renee Saldana
Third-year
Psychology
rsaldana@ha.ucla.edu