GE changes will hurt quality of education

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

General education courses should be revamped, not reduced. The
Academic Senate was wrong to approve the proposal to lower the
number of GE units required from the College of Letters and Science
from 21 to 17. While the Senate is admirably looking to reduce the
overcrowding UCLA is facing now and in the future, by lowering the
number of required courses for students, they are missing the
bigger picture ““ the effect this will have on the quality of
education.

Tidal Wave II, the increase of 4,000 students expected in the
next 10 years, has already started affecting UCLA. The growing
concern in quality of life issues, such as lack of housing and
parking, speak for themselves. Given UCLA’s current
infrastructure, there is no way university officials can
realistically accommodate many more students and still provide them
with a quality education and good living conditions. And if it
tries to, it will not only make the quality of life worse, it will
also allow overcrowded classrooms to drag down academic
quality.

Given these grim circumstances, it’s understandable why
the Academic Senate reduced GEs: they want to get students through
UCLA as quickly as possible. But then they must realize reducing
the number of required GEs or increasing class unit values so
students take fewer classes will hurt students and the university
in the long run.

GEs are important because they offer students an opportunity to
broaden their education. These courses give students a basic
understanding of other subjects and help them think differently
than the way they are taught in their major-related courses. Those
who are math and biology majors for example, can take a literature
class allowing them not only to become well-rounded students but
also to acquire a wider range of learning ability.

The Academic Senate’s reducing GEs resembles their trying
to salvage a sinking boat: they’re trying to scoop the water
out of the boat as fast as they can, rather than plugging the hole
from where the water is entering in the first place. Reducing the
number of required GEs while not controlling for the level of
students accepted only works to move people out of the university
faster ““ this doesn’t mean there will be less people to
overcrowd the university, it just means the same number of students
will have to put up with extraordinarily high-priced housing and
gargantuan lectures for a shorter period. But this logic should
work the other way around; the university should be concerned with
providing better housing and a better education to a manageable
number of students.

Capping enrollment is the only effective option available. UCLA
has too many students, too little resources and too many state
budget cuts to handle its spiraling population in any other way. If
the state government will not pay UCLA the necessary funding to
accommodate more students, it is not entitled to oppose enrollment
caps.

GE reform at UCLA should take place not by cutting them, but by
changing our approach to their purpose . Often GEs are dismissed by
students as frivolous ““ they can be taken pass/no-pass, and
the information is sometimes so basic it is unnecessary to attend
class. It’s no wonder uninspired students complain about
having to take so many GE courses. The Academic Senate should
change this: they can keep the same number of requirements, but
give students more choices by allowing more classes to satisfy
those requirements. This will change students’ attitudes
toward the curricula and, by this virtue, make it more
enriching.

UCLA should not bite off more than it can swallow, or else it
will choke on mediocrity. Tidal Wave II’s water is rising
““ plug the hole.