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.