Phoebe Chang Chang is a third-year
history student. Tell her what you think and e-mail her at feebs@ucla.edu. Click
Here for more articles by Phoebe Chang
Students who feel academic requirements get in the way of their
education welcome the General Education Governance
Committee’s new proposal to lower the number of required GEs.
At first glance, the new idea proposes a win-win situation. We can
still receive a good education with less work while the
administrators ensure we graduate on time. But looking at the
larger picture, we need to ask if the current proposal truly
benefits the students.
With the current proposal, science and math students feel
slighted while North Campus students feel relieved. But I’m
disappointed. I’m a history student, yet I don’t think
streamlining GE requirements and eliminating half of the required
science classes would meet the proposed goals of the
university.
Reading a science textbook, to people like me, is pretty high on
our list of “Top Ten Worst Things to Do on a Saturday
Night.” But like going to the dentist, I know it’s good
for me. So, strangely, I am disappointed in the proposal to lower
science requirements so drastically.
The university is supposed to give students a strong but wide
intellectual base for the rest of their life. UCLA stresses a broad
education. That’s why we don’t have undergraduate
programs in physical therapy, journalism or marketing ““ all
our departments, with the possible exception of those in
engineering, are general.
 Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin A complaint
students have had in the past is that UCLA doesn’t offer
anything “practical.” We don’t learn skills that
will help us in the workforce. But UCLA is not geared for that.
Enabling students to find a job is a secondary goal since the
overarching goal is to force us to think deeply and
analytically.
Thus, UCLA emphasizes a more holistic approach in our majors and
strives to provide us with a broader intellectual base. It’s
a shame to come to this intellectually dynamic environment and not
tap into the wellsprings of new ideas and concepts formally unknown
to you.
The current proposal will cut out only one unit each from the
humanities and social science requirements, but nine units from the
physical and life sciences. Overall, this proposal is a bad idea
for three major reasons.
First, reducing the number of GEs will make it even harder for
some people to decide on a major because they will be unable to
take as many GE courses and sample different disciplines. Second,
combined with the proposal to raise units per class, reducing the
number of required GEs will also make it harder for somebody to
switch majors after a few quarters at UCLA. There will be less of
an opportunity to use potential major classes to fulfill GE
requirements.
Finally, specifically for many North Campus students, reducing
science requirements will result in fewer well-rounded students who
will be knowledgeable about a variety of subjects outside of their
liberal arts majors.
Students need to realize the benefits of the current GE
requirements. Some of my GE courses were the most inspiring classes
at UCLA. A class on biotechnology served a practical purpose of
teaching me the basic terminology to better understand current
issues relating to science. I now read articles on genes and
cloning and I understand exactly what they’re talking about.
If a student cannot understand basic scientific processes covered
in newspapers just because he is an English student, the
$4,000-plus dollars he’s paying every year isn’t worth
it.
GEs also make us more well-rounded because of the variety of
knowledge we’re exposed to. Lowering the science requirements
so drastically will be detrimental to our education.
In addition, just because I don’t have a knack for
statistics doesn’t mean that it won’t be useful for me
later on. Being familiar with the subject has already helped me
analyze ideas in my history books. With the committee’s
proposal, we will still take science classes, but they will be
unjustly dwarfed by the humanities and social science
requirements.
It’s understandable that UCLA wants to lower the
requirements so people will graduate earlier. UCLA has the most GE
requirements of all the UCs. Because of the impending influx of
students from Tidal Wave II, administrators are working to revamp
the current system of unit and GE distribution to make current
students graduate faster. But the proposals the administration are
discussing do not improve our education. They hurt it.
UCLA also wants to raise the number of units for classes so
it’ll be easier for students to fulfill the proposed 13 units
per quarter requirement. They definitely need to change the unit
system because I don’t see any logic in the present one at
all.
When a three- to four-hour lab is two units and a film class
that lasts for three hours is six units, there’s something
terribly wrong with the system. But they’re not fixing those
kinds of discrepancies. The English department looked at student
surveys and the amounts of reading assigned to their students and
made their four unit classes into five units. Student surveys are
certainly going to be inaccurate and it’s shaky to base unit
changes on them, but it’ll help English students get out of
school faster.
Classics Professor Bernard Frischer says that we must make sure
this isn’t just a “numbers game designed to give UCLA
more money for less work, but genuinely reflects an improvement in
undergraduate education commensurate with the proposed increase in
units” (“L&S
asks departments to evaluate class units,” Daily Bruin,
News, May 9). Administrators must evaluate the goal of a UCLA
education and decision-makers must focus on the quality of
UCLA’s education.
When my right to a broad education is compromised so
administrators can herd me out of UCLA faster to make room for
incoming students, I feel cheated of a complete university
education.
They can lower GE requirements, but they should not focus on
just the science classes. They can raise the number of units for my
classes, but not at the expense of compromising my education. The
university needs to consider how they can give students the best
education possible.