Sandoval is a fourth-year political science and history student
and serves as chairperson of the Campus Retention Committee.
By Antonio Sandoval
Since the Academic Senate passed the unfair Minimum Progress
Requirement last year, the Campus Retention Committee has been
working to protect students.
Since Tidal Wave II was predicted in 1999, administrators have
correctly looked for ways of addressing the problem to accommodate
more students. But Vice Provost Judith Smith put concerns about
Tidal Wave II in perspective when she told the Daily Bruin in late
February that the actual impact on students would be less than
previously expected, making it clear that Tidal Wave II was not the
impetus for academic reforms ““ it was money. UCLA receives 8
percent less funding from the state due to current enrollment
patterns, and the lost money created a need to search for ways to
increase enrollment numbers. But instead of waiting to complete the
“re-uniting” process, expected decreases in G.E.
requirements, and the impending Academic Senate vote to move UCLA
to the semester system, the administration decided to go ahead with
MPR changes when academic reforms may have eliminated the need for
the enactment of the policy.
It has become obvious that the measure was not sufficiently
considered before it was passed last year. Many students are
angered at the passage of a policy that penalizes students by
placing them on minimum progress probation, but has no clear plan
for implementation a year later. In fact, implementation procedures
are still being written.
During the drafting of the new plan, administrators forgot to
consider several student needs, including academic difficulty
students and science majors, issues surrounding diversity, and the
quality of student life.
Over the past decade, Student Retention Center projects have
consistently worked to ensure that students who fall under academic
difficulty ““ academic probation, subject-to-dismissal, and
dismissal status ““ have support services to help them through
their hard times. The new requirement places undue burdens on those
who struggle to improve their academic status. The university is
obligated to ensure that these students are given proper
support.
Significant burdens will also be placed on science majors, who
already have enough burdens on them to have to deal with another
requirement. The push to get these students out of UCLA in four
years may not indicate the competitive nature of their
undergraduate experience. Many academic difficulty students come
from the sciences or are self-supporting. Staying beyond four
years, or taking things slowly may be necessary for these students
and they should have an option.
The issue of diversity is also important. Diversity includes
student commuters, re-entry students, single parents, student with
disabilities, student workers or students from historically
underrepresented populations, who are brought to UCLA at
embarrassingly low numbers ““ and who, unfortunately, tend to
have low retention rates.
Lastly, but equally important, would be the impact of the policy
on a student’s extracurricular experience. When the measure
was passed last year, even Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student
& Campus Life Robert J. Naples cautioned that moving students
through UCLA should not be done at the expense of their
extracurricular efforts. Students often feel that their college
experience is enriched by what happens outside of the classroom. It
would be unfortunate to de-emphasize this important aspect of
student life for the simple purpose of getting students out
faster.
Many first-year students have asked the Student Retention Center
to actively oppose the new MPR. They feel the policy is unfair and
has created a negative environment for them. We understand that
older students may not feel they are affected by this matter, but
is it fair to say nothing when we know that this new requirement is
wrong?
Students should join us in demanding that Chancellor Carnesale,
Provost Brian Copenhaver and Vice Provost Judith Smith set aside
the policy and look at its possible ramifications.