I graduated from UCLA with a bachelor’s degree in
political science last June.
In many ways, this bureaucratic institution did not offer me
what I intended to achieve because of its main focus ““ rules
and regulations.
I am not saying regulations are unimportant. However, the main
focus should be the evolution of minds.
In other words, higher education should give students the
ability to identify problems within society through critical
thinking. It should lead to solving those problems through creative
and innovative thinking.
Although I am a proud Bruin alumnus, I must confess that
critical and creative thinking seemed to be the least important
focus at UCLA.
In his book, “Killing the Spirit,” Page Smith
investigates the isolation of university faculty from students and
points to the absence of community within the university.
I believe a major part of this problem is that students
don’t have enough access to their professors.
Many professors are more concerned with their research than
their students.
Although research is important, students must be the
priority.
Students are supposed to learn from teachers, and feedback is
part of this learning process.
This disconnect between students and professors becomes apparent
when papers are graded by teaching assistants, who are full-time
students themselves and worry about their own academic
endeavors.
Many times, these assistants do not have a firm understanding of
what is taught in the classroom.
So on the one hand, there are professors whose primary goal is
research, and on the other hand, there are TAs whose primary goal
is graduating with a professional degree.
Carelessness and disconnection are not the only problems. Some
teaching methods are also obstacles to creativity and critical
thinking.
For instance, it is important to realize that memorization does
not lead to critical thinking and creativity.
For example, when giving a writing assignment, most teachers
basically ask students to rewrite the facts that were given in
lectures and readings.
By just learning facts, students are not going to be trained to
solve the problems that exist in the present social, economic, and
political systems.
This problem is also visible in art classes. An art class should
lead to greater creativity, but most art teachers want their
students to create what the teachers already have in mind.
Today, the goal of many of the administrators and teachers at
UCLA is to produce knowledge. Regrettably, most of the material
students are being taught is memorizable fact that doesn’t
lead to practical conclusions.
Although the administrators and teachers create the rules at
UCLA, students are the ones who can and must demand change.
I believe that much of the current problem is a result of the
lack of demand by students at UCLA.
If students don’t demand change and instead become
passive, then the bureaucracy will not reform itself.
Now that I look back, I am disappointed that I did not take any
action against this culture of disconnection.
As someone who regrets his passiveness, I urge UCLA students to
learn from my experience and protest against the undernourishment
of their creative minds.
Modarres is a UCLA alumnus of the class of 2006.