Since 1919
Donovan Wilkes was eating lunch in his office when two of his colleagues told him Miss Mary, an older homeless woman he had been checking on, wasn’t responsive.
It was 11 a.m., two hours after Miss Mary usually woke up, packed her belongings and walked to Peet’s Coffee for her first cup of coffee of the day.
“My heart dropped,” Wilkes said. “The only thing I was thinking was, ‘Go to her.’”
There are many days where I leave my dorm at 8 a.m. to return 12 hours later.
Though I spent those hours focusing on class and studying, with little breaks to eat, I almost always return feeling unproductive. Oftentimes, I look in my floor’s lounge and notice a flood of people deep in their studies, and I immediately feel the pressure to study again. This sensation raises the question: If I’m not studying all the time, am I actually able to compete with my peers?
I’m not the only person asking myself this question. In fact, Psychology Today has even given a name to this preoccupation with being constantly occupied: the culture of busyness.
For many in a college environment, the constant sense of pressure and stress is a familiar feeling. While the high-stakes environment seems to come with the territory of attending a prestigious university or working a strenuous job, it is without a doubt the unhealthy result of busy culture.
Busy culture is an informal term describing the pressure to continually develop one’s career. While it might feel like it will get easier after college, studies showing Americans work longer hours than people in Europe and Japan prove busy culture has a stronghold over the United States.
It’s possible labor laws here in the U.S play a part in the perpetual busyness of the average American. The U.S. doesn’t require employees to take vacation days – according to a study done by Project: Time Off, Americans left 658 million vacation days unused. Instead of vacationing, Americans are working.
Additionally, Americans only have, on average, 10 paid vacation days compared to the 20 plus days many European employees in countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany have.
Technology has also changed the way the average American works. Work is not confined to the office and can now easily be carried home via laptops and cellphones. Americans are connected internationally and can work around the clock. Social media can force businesses and individuals to stay “relevant,” which means posting often and having a substantial internet presence. People can feel forced to work because work is ever-present in their pocket, but also if they do not, it offers the opportunity for someone else to get ahead.
The largest driver of busy culture, however, is money. In the 1970s, John Maynard Keynes predicted that as the standard of living increased, Americans would have to work less. While the standard of living has increased since then, the growing wealth gap has made many Americans too poor to decrease their work hours.
According to the Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve System in 2016, upper-income families’ median net worth is over $810,800, which is over 75 times more than the median lower-income families’ net worth, which averages around $10,800.
In 2017, the top 1 percent owned 40 percent of the country’s wealth with the top 20 percent owning 90 percent of wealth in the United States. This means Americans simply have to work more and cannot afford to take time off. As result, busyness has become the new norm.
It’s not just a problem for people in the workforce either – as college students we would know. Ellen Mei is a resident assistant, a member of many clubs and constantly applying for internships, and said she’s felt the burden of busy culture.
“There isn’t a moment where I don’t feel the burden of work,” said the third-year linguistics and computer science student.
As UCLA students, we wear our hard work as a badge of honor – but it’s often to the detriment of our health. Some effects of busy culture come as a result of large amounts of stress, which can cause a range of symptoms from lack of sleep and headaches to more intense symptoms like anxiety, depression or excessive substance use.
For many, the stress comes from external forces. Mei said she constantly feels pressure to work because others are also working nonstop: applying to internships, developing relationships with professors, touring labs, studying and attending office hours to advance their career.
Some of the external forces are so pervasive that some students struggle with anxiety as a result, said Tina Li, a third-year biochemistry student.
For example, imposter syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which a person feels inadequate even though there is evidence that supports they are excelling.
Anyone can experience imposter syndrome and it is often accompanied by the anxiety that the person will be discovered as a fraud.
“A lot of my stress comes from imposter syndrome and competitiveness of UCLA,” said Li. “I would get so stressed that I became anxious. I couldn’t do work during the day, so I would lose sleep at night studying.”
A large stressor for students is the lack of sleep and the college culture that perpetuates the lack of sleep as grit. Li said she finds this aspect of busy culture especially detrimental to her mental health.
In fact, sleep deprivation is so common among college students that in 2016, Huffington Post began Sleep Revolution College Tour, which aimed to discuss healthy sleeping habits and the benefit of sleep.
“There is no resiliency in pulling an all-nighter,” said Li. “For me, starting assignments early and regulating my sleep has kept my stress levels down.”
For me, both the internal and external forces resulted in enough stress to land me in the hospital – and that’s when I realized I needed to manage my stress better. Many students who feel the pressures of busy culture have had similar revelations that pushed them to find ways to deal with busy culture and the stress that comes with it.
Though almost everyone can relate to the effects of busy culture, we are also the ones perpetuating it. Busy culture is a part life and the stressors may never go away, but with a little research and experience, people can find a healthy way of managing stress that results in a healthier and happier life.
Affirmative action’s days may be numbered due to an academic’s (pur)suit for the numbers.
When UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander filed his lawsuit against University of California two weeks ago, it was not to ban affirmative action. That – specifically, race-conscious admissions, the practice most often associated with affirmative action as a general directive – has been illegal in California public institutions for over two decades.
But in one of the most hostile environments for affirmative action since the passage of Proposition 209 – the 1996 ballot initiative that banned race consideration in admission processes – Sander’s legal action, nominally initiated for the sake of data transparency, may transform college admissions nationwide by triggering further scrutiny of university admittance practices.
Unlike other recent lawsuits against universities, such as the Harvard University trial that has attracted national attention, this one is not challenging UC admissions practices. Instead, it is an effort to crack open the massive black box of data that will allow Sander – and presumably others – to look at data that may allow for further legal challenges against universities. They suggest the UC is hiding something, as indicated by Sander and George Shen’s – a Chinese-American Republican activist – decision to concurrently release a recently obtained 2014 supplemental report by UCLA sociology professor Robert Mare that critics believe indicates Asian-Americans are disadvantaged in the UC admissions process.
Sander’s lawsuit complicates an already confusing debate on race and college admissions. While the lawsuit concerns the public’s right to view sensitive public institutional data, it arrives amid a reignited pair of debates that have long been forcibly merged together: whether or not race-conscious admissions runs afoul of constitutionally guaranteed equal protection rights and if Asian-Americans are “penalized” by the college admissions process in general.
The public deserves to see more data, but Sander’s motivations require contextualization in a larger, generally incendiary admissions conversation that has long been rife with misunderstanding.
The UC has denied it has broken the law in admissions, denying Sander a request made under the California Public Records Act and citing a recent decision by a state appeals court to throw out a very similar CPRA request he made for state bar admissions data. Sander claims he is being stonewalled by the UC – a feeling reporters everywhere know all too well. The UC has argued it is far too laborious to make applicants’ names and personal details anonymous in order to safely release admissions data to the public.
Even if the UC’s reluctance to release the admissions data – which would be of great interest to social scientists across the country – is suspect, it is entirely understandable. The UC doesn’t consider race, but race works its way into many aspects of life, and some of those things are considered in a holistic review of admissions. Considering factors like the applicant’s high school resources, area of residence, first-generation student status and “disadvantaged social or educational environment” help a portion of the applicant pool that is much more likely to include underrepresented minorities. Those who want to believe the UC is wrongfully considering race could easily ignore this and hastily conclude that race is the overriding or even sole determinant of admission.
It bears mentioning that Sander is not simply a free-speech advocate, but a determined researcher who wants information to support his faulty arguments on the impact of affirmative action. Sander is notorious for his mismatch theory, which argues that beneficiaries of race-conscious admissions fare worse academically at selective law schools than those who are not. Good data won’t fix mismatch theory’s untenable assumptions, such as the notion that black and Latino students – or any affirmative action beneficiary – do not and cannot improve academically. It also ignores the vast differences between law school and undergraduate admissions that make comparisons or extrapolations difficult and disingenuous.
A bevy of social scientists have repeatedly found mismatch theory to be an idea founded on analyses that are shoddy at best and deceptive at worst. In fact, research has instead found that underrepresented minorities do particularly well at selective schools. Despite this, mismatch theory remains a popular idea among affirmative action opponents.
Sander isn’t just wrong about mismatch theory. He has pointed to the purported success of the post-Prop 209 UC – not because of diversity, but because the millions spent on outreach programs have reduced mismatching – while calling it a natural experiment in race-neutral admissions. But precipitous minority enrollment declines that followed Prop 209’s passage have been mitigated by continued demographic changes in California that have greatly changed the applicant pool, and by admissions policy changes like the Eligibility in the Local Context program, introduced in 2001, that have benefited students in underserved communities.
Is the UC hiding something? Who knows. Do I wish the UC would reintroduce public statistical databases like StatFinder? Definitely. But filing a request for data under CPRA and subsequently suing for it is an unusual way for a researcher to ask for information. That’s because this isn’t a research data request, but a strategically timed, well-publicized effort to embarrass the UC and implicate it in what casual observers may construe to be a national, not just Harvard-based, effort to hurt applicants’ chances at admission, regardless of the credibility of the claimsmakers.
It is tempting to believe that having more public data will help us obtain “just the facts” about complex topics like admissions. Unfortunately, the facts are never just, and data exists to be interpreted and misinterpreted. Letting anyone tell the story of the data, as may happen if this suit succeeds, is dangerous and harmful for an already fraught affirmative action discourse in which misunderstandings prevail decisively.
And at a time when the public sorely lacks a precise understanding of admissions, we need more than good guesses from bad analysts.
We choose what we want to remember, from the stories we share to our most precious moments and experiences. These are stories of survival, change and identity that define our experiences. This is PRIME, Daily Bruin’s quarterly arts, culture and lifestyle magazine.
Colorful boards scattered in Bruin Plaza prompted students to answer questions about self-love, such as “What are you grateful for?” or “Flaunt it! What makes you amazing?” on Tuesday.
The positivity wall event was hosted by the Society of Women Engineers for Mental Health Awareness Week. Organizers of the event also gave participants information on mental health awareness. SWE, a not-for-profit educational organization that empowers women to succeed in engineering, is hosting a series of events this week, including an open mic night at Kerckhoff Coffee House on Wednesday, to promote mental health awareness on campus.
Mounika Narayanan, a fourth-year statistics and mathematics of computation student and SWE’s director of the Advocacy Committee, said the purpose of these events is to create a conversation about mental health on campus through self-love and reflection.
“The purpose of the positivity wall is to get people to reflect on their lives and think about what they are grateful for and what makes them happy. A lot of times as students, you are very busy,” Narayanan said. “You don’t get time to sit back and take a breather.”
While the event is open to all students, it aims to support the mental health of female engineering students in particular, said Maddie Taylor, a first-year electrical engineering student and SWE member.
“Female engineers are an underrepresented group in STEM,” Narayanan said. “A lot of the time, there are a lot of mental health issues that come with being a female engineer such as self-doubt and anxiety.”
High competition over grades and internships within the engineering community contributes to unhealthy anxiety levels, Taylor said.
“It’s definitely hard,” Taylor said. “It’s a competitive environment at UCLA in the classes and clubs and the pressure can be really stressful when in such a competitive environment all the time, especially for a female engineer dealing with high expectations.”
Chloe Jiang, an SWE member and Mental Health Awareness Week director, said that one of the biggest mental health issues affecting female engineers is imposter syndrome. Jiang said imposter syndrome is the feeling that one does not deserve or is not good enough to have accomplished certain achievements.
“You don’t feel qualified even though you may be, especially with minorities in engineering,” Jiang said. “Not just women but other ethnicities that are underrepresented in STEM, they don’t feel like they belong.”
Sana Shrikant, a second-year computer science and engineering student, said she has experienced imposter syndrome firsthand.
“I’ve never had a female professor for any of my STEM classes,” Shrikant said. “It’s small things like this that make you feel like you don’t belong.”
SWE aims to break down the mental barriers that keep female engineers from reaching their highest potential, said Manas Kumar, a fourth-year computer science student and former Daily Bruin staffer and treasurer of SWE. Kumar said the main purpose of the club is to provide a safe space for female engineers and combat the lack of female representation in the STEM field.
“There’s a lot of unfair problems female engineers have to go through besides all the normal stresses of being an engineer. This can be a very lonely experience, feeling you just don’t belong in that working environment and there aren’t that many people you can connect to,” Kumar said. “It’s about solving that problem.”
One of the ways SWE is combating that issue is through lobbying, Narayanan said. Representatives from SWE went to Sacramento this past year to lobby for an education bill that would allow industry professionals who don’t have a Ph.D. to receive teacher training and teach at colleges.
“The professors we usually see are old and white. This bill will allow more diverse professors to come on campus and teach so people can see themselves in their professors,” Narayanan said. “If you don’t see role models who look like you, you might feel that it’s not a thing you can go into.”
Ashley Kim, a first-year biology student, said she enjoyed putting her words on the positivity wall and found it relaxing.
“It felt really cool,” Kim said. “It’s nice to put your voice on to something.”
Kumar said that while practicing mental health can be both an emotional and physical struggle, he hopes the positivity board will remind people that they are not alone no matter how lonely they may feel.
“For me, to see a big wall of people, even if they don’t know you, cheering you on and telling you it gets better, it makes you feel less alone,” Kumar said.
UCLA experts said Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, may spend more on higher education, allowing for an increase in state funding to public universities.
Newsom was elected governor of California during the midterm elections in November and will replace Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, on Jan. 7. Brown has been California governor for 16 years in total, with his most recent tenure beginning in 2011.
As lieutenant governor, Newsom has focused on ensuring affordable, accessible and high-quality public higher education, as well as preventing tuition increases, according to a statement on the lieutenant governor’s official website.
The governor-elect voted against every tuition increase during his time as lieutenant governor. He also pledged to focus on a cradle-to-career plan, which would increase support for education across the board, as he campaigned for governor.
Jim Newton, a public policy and communication lecturer, said he thinks Newsom will likely come to the governorship with a desire to ease students’ financial burden and to possibly spend more on the University of California system.
Newton added he thinks Newsom is not significantly different from his predecessor, as both are progressive Democrats. However, he said Newsom is more of a traditional progressive Democrat than Brown, which could influence his spending priorities.
“Brown is famously and correctly perceived as very conservative on fiscal issues,” Newton said. “He’s cheap, … a real budget balancer. I think Newsom (is) probably less so.”
Newsom may face increased pressure from his left-leaning supporters to spend more money than Brown did, Newton said.
“I think it will be hard for him to resist that,” Newton said. “I think it will be a challenge for him, not an insurmountable challenge, but a challenge in a way that he’s different than Brown.”
Zev Yaroslavsky, director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, said he thinks Brown has developed an ability to make fiscally responsible decisions due to his extensive experience.
“Brown has a very simple philosophy when it comes to budgeting,” Yaroslavsky said. “Don’t undertake expenditures in the good years that you can’t sustain in the lean years.”
Yaroslavsky added that elected officials are often tempted to spend money under the assumption that good economic conditions will continue indefinitely. However, given that they do not, it is necessary to prepare for the periodic financial downturns that are likely to affect the economy.
Newton said Newsom will likely face an economic downturn during his time as governor, which could impact spending.
“(Economic downturns) just happen periodically,” Newton said. “The nature of history is such that it’s rare to go more than five or six years without a downturn, and we’ve gone on eight, so the likelihood that there will be a downturn is very high for the next governor.”
These downturns are especially concerning for higher education because the state is known to cut funding from universities first when budgeting, Yaroslavsky said.
“The UC is always the battering ram for budget cuts,” Yaroslavsky said. “One of the first things to get hit, even in the good years, has been the University of California.”
Legislators should care more about the UC, Yaroslavsky said, because it is the economic engine of California. He added the UC provides the necessary training for young adults entering the labor force.
Edward Greg Huang, student adviser to the Board of Regents, said he thinks higher education is particularly underappreciated in the U.S.
“I think that higher education is something that people (politicians) are willing to ignore or neglect in times of trouble and I would like to see a shift in perspective there,” Huang said.
Huang added he hopes Newsom can make improvements in this area by being more vocal about support for higher education and its importance to California’s economy, social mobility and people.
Student Regent Devon Graves said he thinks Newsom has already shown his commitment to advocating for higher education during his time as lieutenant governor, adding he has attended numerous Regents meetings and has opposed tuition raises.
“He’s someone that understands the student experience and I think will be a strong advocate for the University,” Graves said.
He also said he hopes the governor’s budget proposal in January will include more financial support for education, from pre-K to higher education. Graves added he believes this would send a strong message to the state and the University that education is going to be a priority for Newsom.
Huang said increased state funding could finance additional housing projects, prevent tuition increases and finance food pantries and food insecurity support for students. He added it could also provide increased mental health services to students, increase the number of faculty and help maintain facilities.
“Increased state support helps alleviate pressure from all parts of the University, and its effects are very wide reaching and I think its importance cannot be understated,” he said.
The University currently faces concerns over food and housing insecurity, deferred maintenance and the increase of the student-to-faculty ratio resulting from decreased funding per student.
If Newsom demonstrates strong support for the Regents’ proposed budget, conversations between the UC and Newsom could focus less on tuition and more on advocacy in other areas, Graves said.
Huang said he thinks Newsom is aware of other issues facing students in the UC, such as food and housing insecurity, and that he understands that student issues do not solely revolve around tuition. He added that he hopes this will be reflected in the state budget.
Other than getting some relief from tuition costs, Newton said he does not expect students’ experiences in higher education to change drastically, but also warned about the future state of the economy.
“People should also be mindful that at some point the downturn is inevitable and at that point he may have to ask more from students,” Newton said.
An upcoming change in federal health care policy could cause hundreds of thousands of Californians to lose health insurance in the next five years, according to a recent study from UCLA researchers.
The new federal policy, which will be enacted in January, will remove the individual mandate penalty portion of the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate levies a fee on Americans who do not purchase health insurance.
Without the individual mandate penalty, some Americans would wait until they were sick to buy health insurance, which would increase average premiums and make insurance unaffordable for some people.
Researchers from UCLA and UC Berkeley project that if California does not counteract this measure with new state policies, up to 4.4 million Californians under 65 could be uninsured by 2023. In 2016, there were 3.55 million uninsured Californians in this age group.
The researchers concluded this policy change will affect mostly individual buyers of health insurance. In addition, the study concludes certain groups of Californians, such as undocumented residents, are likely to stay uninsured and have difficulty paying for health insurance due to the increase in premiums that would result from the repeal of the individual mandate.
To combat this projected increase in uninsured Californians, the study proposes enacting a statewide individual mandate penalty in place of the federal one. The study also recommends increasing enrollment efforts in the state and expanding Medi-Cal to all low-income Californians, regardless of their immigration status.
