| As we begin a new century, university
education is being subjected to novel demands and pressures that
will most definitely change the material and method of learning.
With a string of hard-hitting UCLA budget
cuts and the specter of proposition 54 fresh in the minds of Californians,
curriculum has been exposed to a new series of tests that will determine
the future of education in the Southland. This article will try
to inform students about two of the most pressing issues at UCLA—the
diversity requirement and the debate over semesters versus quarters.
Both of these ideas have roots dating to late last century, but
only now have they received serious attention from the Academic
Senate. Replacing the relatively static method of teaching that
was characteristic of the twentieth century, we now face a series
of debates aimed at shaping what material is taught and the schedule
of the learning environment. As students, we need to realize the
effects of implementation either of these policies will have on
the subject matter and courses offered at UCLA.
Although we often hear about the necessity of
courses that students must take for their general electives, the
addition of a diversity requirement would change the classes that
are mandatory. As a product of culture wars,
the diversity requirement springs from the debates over ethnic studies
that began after the advent of affirmative action in the late sixties
and early seventies. At that time, there was significant demand
from minorities for curriculum that addressed their communities’
marginalized position in the larger society. With the establishment
of African-American, Latino, and Asian-American studies, UCLA had
finally addressed student activism aimed
at creating these courses.
The main idea behind such departments is that
the growing diversity on campus must be accompanied by curriculum
directed at studying these groups. In an article
written by UCLA Academic Senate chair Cliff Brunk, the diversity
issue is explicitly acknowledged:
The faculty, staff and particularly the students at UCLA are among
the most diverse group to be found on any university campus. In
a very real sense being an active member of the UCLA community is
itself an education in diversity. In a more formal sense there has
been pressure for some time to have a diversity requirement as part
of the undergraduate curriculum. UCLA, among the UC campuses, is
the only one without such a requirement. Not withstanding the inherent
diversity present at UCLA in both the individuals and in course
offerings, not having a diversity requirement is awkward.
Brunk’s aim is to resolve the conflict
between having a large minority population in a public university
and no formal means of addressing their existence. On a surface
level, this proposal might not look like anything more than pandering
to political correctness; however, there is
a much more substantial target with such a scheme. A university
committed to diversity and academic freedom
must have a public presentation of such resolve. The trick is to
be able to do so at a time when university
funding is being cut and the addition of classes is not likely.
The Academic
Senate has skirted the problem of new classes by defining diversity
and reevaluating existing lower division courses. This has allowed
them to assign diversity labels to classes that students would be
taking anyway, but also distinguishing which classes do not fit
the requirement:
We have the opportunity—without increasing
ours or our students’ workload, without requiring faculty
to develop new courses or departments to be penalized for not
developing ‘diversity’ courses—to make it clear
to everyone that we not only teach diversity, but also teach it
within an academically sound framework, within what may well be
the most diverse diversity curriculum anywhere.
E ssentially, creation of the requirement would
work within the existing constraints of budget cuts and allow the
university to show responsibility to diversity and the Los Angeles
community in a customary manner. Although the Senate acknowledges
that students would not necessarily be affected immediately by taking
the extra diversity class, theories of effective
learning show that diverse classes are essential to job placement
after graduation. Nevertheless, not all opinions on the diversity
requirement are ringing endorsements.
Along with the push by many of the faculty members
and students at UCLA, there is a vocal opposition to the diversity
requirement from the more conservative groups on campus. Student
activism spearheaded by the Bruin Republicans against G.E. changes
show a multiplicity of student attitudes.
In his Daily Bruin article “Enforced
'diversity' GE courses have no place at UCLA,” Daniel
B. Rego argues that diversity classes actually do not add to learning;
rather, they stereotype other races or groups and ignore the individual.
Furthermore, he points out how racial difference does not equate
to an inherent difference between people. From a purely logistical
standpoint, Rego claims the addition of an extra G.E. would come
at the expense of other classes, or add another course to the requirement.
It is clear however, that Rego’s research of the subject is
inadequate to make a persuasive argument against the proposed requisite.
There essentially is no way to contend that the university is not
trying to provide classes in almost every field that would fulfill
the diversity G.E. A more effective criticism is one aimed at defining
the importance of diversity more generally, which is a major battleground
in curricular debates today.
A diversity requirement is only one issue that
has become of increasing importance at UCLA in the past several
years. The argument to shift from the quarter system to semesters
is one that has been debated since UCLA originally shifted over
to quarters in 1966. From a curricular standpoint, there is well
defensible evidence for both schedules, making it much more balanced
than the issue of diversity in the UCLA education.
The main concern associated with discussing
which system to use is that all opinions are heard. In the report
on the impact of shifting to a semester system, The Joint
Academic Senate/Administration Committee Repost to Study the UCLA
Academic Calendar summarizes views presented by students, faculty,
and the administration. Their
considerations yielded benefits to implementing both systems. For
example, the quarter schedule is likely to allow flexibility where
students can take many diverse classes, professors, and the content
is more prioritized. Popular classes are more available, and professors
are able to teach more classes in their fields of study. The semester
offers more time to learn and prepare in courses. This can increase
the coherence of material and allow for more in depth focus on major
papers and projects. Additionally, professors have more time to
interact with students, increasing knowledge of the other in both
parties. Such a multitude of benefits in both systems make is difficult
to say that one is inherently better than the other. In fact, professors
Daniel Soloranzo, and Elizabeth and Robert Bjork were unable to
definitively show that there was any significant advantage to either.
This has raised the issue that a shift might be more costly than
it is beneficial, especially in light of proposed levels of university
funding.
The gains to curriculum learning aside, the
logistical implications of a change would create time and spacing
problems that would undoubtedly affect the material that is presented
in classrooms. This is the contention of Mark A. Peterson, chair
of Policy Studies at UCLA. In his “Report
of the Department of Policy Studies,” Peterson argues
that the ultimate benefits of a switch would be of little gain compared
to the financial and systemic alterations that would need to take
place. Professors would be required to reassess the entire curriculum,
taking away from teaching and research. There would also be the
fiscal cost of updating all existing software related to courses.
Furthermore, moving to the semester system would limit the number
of classes that would be available by at least one-third per every
quarter. Coming at a time of increased demand, core class sizes
would have to either be increased to handle the new conditions,
or more of those classes would need to be offered each semester,
neither of which is a feasible proposition from the student’s
or professors’ standpoints. Most people on campus already
find introductory classes impersonal under the quarter system, and
it is an unwritten rule that most professors would rather not teach
these lower divisions. It may well be that the most serious consideration
of a switch to the semester system by the Academic Senate has coincided
poorly with the present economic conditions of the university.
Both the diversity requirement and the schedule
of classes are major questions that have
yet to be answered by those in power at UCLA. The problem with these
subjects is that the definitions themselves are unclear, and the
propositions do not necessarily focus on the most essential problems
with curriculum and its teaching. The idea for a diversity requirement
is ultimately a noble one. As a major university that is well respected,
situated in a heterogeneous, urban setting, and publicly funded,
UCLA should require that students take one lower division class
on diversity, especially if it is culled from existing G.E. courses.
The reality is most students who get in to UCLA are lacking in some
sort of diversity awareness. They are not necessarily bad people
for doing so, but are deficient in at least one subject of life
or school experience. The diversity requirement does not claim to
make up for this shortage, but it does allow the opportunity to
learn about something new. What the Joint Committee Report does
implicitly touch on is that diversity can be defined in many ways.
Racial and ethnic diversity are the most common, but many students
also know little about music, film, and other diverse curriculum
that is overlooked during high school and often community college.
So the problem is not with a diversity requirement, but the notion
that it will be a totally unreasonable request of students who are
supposedly becoming learned individuals.
Ultimately, it does not matter if our curriculum
is taught in semesters or quarters. Under a quarter system, many
students have succeeded over the years, and many more will continue
to do so. The problem is that the material taught, and professors’
commitments to teaching undergraduates often both lack the proper
motivating forces. With the [tenure] track system the main form
of job security, professors have no incentive to be effective teachers,
but rather prolific publishers. The irony is that the people most
impelled to be good educators are lecturers beholden to student
evaluations, and therefore are pressured to be less critical
with grades. This reality is not solved with a switch to a semester
system, and is certainly not being accounted for in the quarter
scheme currently in use. It would seem that UCLA’s problems
with curricular issues go beyond the surface, and may raise more
questions than they answer.
Related Links
“A Brief History of UC’s and UCLA’s Academic Calendar:
1966 to 2001” UCLA Senate 2/13/02 http://www.senate.ucla.edu/Calendar/binder_history_a1.pdf
“Large Classroom Capacity Under a Semester
Calendar” Office of Analysis and Information Management http://www.senate.ucla.edu/Calendar/ClassroomUtilizationReport.doc
Lebo, Harlan “Semester vs. quarter?”
UCLA Today web magazine http://www.today.ucla.edu/2002/021119semester.html
Hume, Wyatt R. Re: Chancellor’s Advisory
Group on Diversity memo 6/12/02 http://diversity.ucla.edu/doc/Advisory_Group_on_Diversity_2002.doc
Ileto, Rochelle and Yen, Brenda “Education
should encourage diversity” Daily Bruin online 11/30/99
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/issues/99/11.30/view.ileto.html
|