Metzidis is a second-year economics and mathematics student.
By John Metzidis
Jennifer Shane’s Viewpoint submission “UCLA
must reconsider requirements,” (Daily Bruin, Jan. 9)
seems to reflect the growing hostility that too many students have
toward gaining a true and thorough education.
Shane argues that the university should decrease the general
education requirements so as to require only four courses from a
broad “science” category and another four from an even
broader north campus counterpart. I believe that a policy such as
the one she proposes would be harmful, as there are many problems
with the reasoning she gives in favor of such a policy.
Shane’s primary contention is that the general education
courses she has taken have in no way proven to be of any value
toward her political science degree. First, I find this hard to
believe. It has been my experience that the mere process of
learning and critical thinking that I gain from one class helps me
become a better student in my other classes. That is why I, as an
economics and mathematics major, took a few courses in the
philosophy department.
Second, and more importantly, Shane’s statement that her
general education courses are of no value to her political science
degree alludes to her faulty premise: that general education
courses are supposed to complement one’s major.
The fact is, having general education requirements is not for
the purpose of complementing one’s major but rather for
contributing to a broad, liberal arts education. Part of what makes
a UCLA diploma valuable, in addition to showing specialized
knowledge, is that it says its bearer is a well-versed and
sophisticated individual. Almost anyone can obtain a specialized
degree without having to go through the alleged hassles of general
education requirements; a UCLA diploma is supposed to be more than
that.
In fact, some of the even better undergraduate institutions,
such as Princeton, Harvard and the University of Chicago, do not
even refer to their specializations as “majors,” but
call them mere “concentrations” and urge their students
to have a strong balance between courses for their concentration
and electives.
Shane goes on to say that she does not mind taking certain
general education courses, so long as they interest her. Again, I
find problems with this argument. First of all, what kind of
student cannot find an interesting course among the 72 physical
science, 52 life science, 106 social science, and 230 humanities
courses currently offered, according to the registrar of
classes?
Granted, a student must find more than one class among these
four groups in order to fulfill the requirement, but I think its
clear that our university offers a generous variety of courses from
which to choose.
Second, and again more importantly, Shane seems to be implying
that a course has educational value only if it is
“interesting.” I would probably describe most of the
mathematics courses I have taken as uninteresting, but it would be
patently false if I were to say that they were without value.
What really broke the camel’s back, however, was her
allegation that “(GEs) are responsible for lower GPAs.”
This view of Shane’s seems to be representative of too many
students these days. Far too many of us have a tendency to blame
others for our own shortcomings when we should be trying to improve
ourselves.
Other comments Shane made are equally unfounded. The first is
Shane’s cursory implication that all south campus sciences
are the same, and that it does not “make a difference whether
(she) take(s) biology or physics.”
The fact is, there is a world of difference between biology and
physics, and faculty members have divided the south campus
departments into two divisions that share a common theme: the life
sciences division (which is more than biology but also physiology,
genetics and even some parts of psychology and anthropology) and
the physical sciences division (which is certainly more than
physics but also mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.).
I wonder if Shane would have the same opinion if a south campus
student were to say that it really doesn’t matter whether one
studies philosophy, economics, linguistics or art history.
They’re all pretty much the same thing, right?
Another criticism of hers involves the use of teaching
assistants. Shane “hate(s) that (she’s) paying
thousands of dollars to have more than half (her) education given
to (her) by students who, only a couple of years before, were
sitting in the same class (she is) now.”
First of all, that more than half of her education is given to
her by teaching assistants is an egregious overstatement.
Discussion sections, though strongly recommended, are generally
supplementary to the course.
Secondly, the material presented in discussion section is
generally nothing that the professor has not covered in lecture, so
it is not as if the teaching assistant is the only source for the
material being presented. Finally, since teaching assistants
supplement the instructor (rather than replacing him or her), I
find that they can hardly ever be detrimental to my understanding
of the course material.
Shane contends that “we’re paying for our
education,” so we should have a say in it. But we are not the
only ones paying for our education. Shane is forgetting the 30
million California residents whose state taxes subsidize our
tuition. Without their compulsory support, we at UCLA would be
paying the same price that students at Harvard and Princeton pay.
It is a privilege to come to UCLA and Shane seems to be one of many
ungrateful benefactors.