Michael Weiner Weiner is a fourth-year
history and political science student. His column analyzing issues
of interest to the UCLA community runs on Mondays. Send e-mail
messages to [email protected].
A specter is haunting UCLA ““ the specter of Tidal Wave
II.
The inevitable influx of 60,000 new students into the University
of California over the next 10 years has officials scrambling to
accommodate these children of the baby boom generation, who
threaten to overburden the resources of the university faster than
you can say “De Neve Plaza is still not finished.”
The problem is especially compounded at UCLA, which has the
largest student enrollment and the smallest physical size of all
the full-service UC schools. Our campus is almost entirely built
out, and significant expansion into Westwood Village is not
feasible in the foreseeable future.
So UCLA policymakers must come up with creative solutions in
order to make room for the largest barrage of new students since
that poignantly influential generation we call the “baby
boom” took the UC by storm in the ’60s and
’70s.
Most of the creativity is centered around finding ways to make
students graduate in less time. Currently, the average UCLA
undergraduate takes four years and one quarter to get through
college. Officials hope to reduce that number by encouraging
students to speed up their academic programs.
One good idea being implemented for the first time this year is
an attempt to motivate students to attend summer sessions by
slashing the exorbitant prices that such classes have cost in the
past.
But as we know, efforts at creative solutions for difficult
problems often spawn ideas that aren’t so good. This is the
case with the proposed changes in unit requirements which are being
considered by a committee of faculty members in the College of
Letters and Science.
The proposal would increase the required number of units that
full-time undergraduates must take from 12 to 13 units per quarter.
It would also reduce the total number of allowable units that
students can take before being forced to graduate. This change has
the explicit purpose of dissuading students from adopting more than
one major.
The proposal must be approved by the Academic Senate’s
Undergraduate Council and then the full senate. If it is enacted,
the changes will come into force in the fall, though for the most
part, they will not affect current UCLA students.
The problem with the proposed changes is that in trying to
reduce the amount of time students spend on campus, thus opening up
space for the influx of Tidal Wave II, officials are actually
undermining the educational mission of the university.
In an Op-Ed piece published in The Bruin’s 2000
Registration Issue, Chancellor Albert Carnesale noted the
importance of an interdisciplinary pathway to research.
“Many of today’s complex research problems demand an
interdisciplinary, collaborative approach, and universities must be
organized to facilitate scholarship that crosses the boundaries of
the disciplines and professions,” Carnesale wrote
(“UCLA ready to meet challenges of future,” Viewpoint,
Sept. 25-28, 2000).
And indeed, UCLA has many ongoing research projects that
integrate scholarship from disparate academic departments. Yet UCLA
has fallen short in comparison with many other large universities
in its failure to extend such interdisciplinary programs to
undergraduate education.
Unlike schools such as UC Berkeley, UCLA has few
interdisciplinary major opportunities for undergraduates. So, many
students who are interested in a course of study that integrates
more than one academic area are forced to choose more than one
major.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but if the
university is going to make it more difficult for students to have
more than one major ““ as the Letters and Science proposal
attempts to do ““ it should also be sure that the
interdisciplinary scholarship that Carnesale is so keen on is not
restricted to UCLA’s internal ivory tower, but is made
available to the undergraduates who come here to learn.
Clearly, the proposal illustrates the primary danger that Tidal
Wave II poses. It’s not just overcrowding; UCLA is already
pretty crowded as it is.
In the holy trinity that is UCLA’s mission of teaching,
research and public service, the effective instruction of
undergraduates is already too low a priority. The real hazard is
that in trying to alleviate the negative effects that such a huge
of influx of students produces, officials will do greater damage to
the already-shaky undergraduate education.
As the specter of Tidal Wave II continues to haunt UCLA, the
solution may turn out to be far worse than the original problem.
Faculty members should think about that before approving the
misguided proposal.