Editor:

I share similar sentiments with Jessica Lingel’s features piece “”Wait, I thought we were all in college to learn?”” (April 7, 2003). I am surrounded by students who are here for two reasons, either to obtain monetary prosperity (using education as a venue to getting rich) or to attain GPA superiority (education as a means to getting the A).

I seldom hear students striving to learn knowledge for knowledge sake, or even for the advancement of knowledge. I also rarely hear students wanting to share or discuss the wealth of knowledge, rather discussing what monetary wealth their future job will get them or that they need an A in the class to get into medical or a graduate school. Has the value of education been reduced to two numbers, the amount of money on a paycheck, and GPA? I sure hope not.

However, I must disagree with you on students using college as a medium for becoming “”better acquainted with themselves.”” The whole reason I came to a university of this magnitude was because of the choices of disciplines. Some of us know exactly what we want to do with our lives, yet others of us do not. We are expected to pick one major, develop and acquire skills and knowledge for that major, and make a career out of that particular major. It is frowned upon if we do not utilize the degree of which we obtained.

I for one do not believe in restricting myself to one major nor one area of study. Higher education offers individuals the flexibility, tools and the venue to evaluate and think critically, regardless of discipline. It is up to the person to take that opportunity.

Viewing college primarily as a means for “”developing interests you already have”” is just as shallow as using college as a venue for monetary or GPA gain. It is like saying, “”I only like Thai cuisine, so I cannot eat anything else.”” Why not sample other foods? Why not peek into other disciplines? To be trite, college opens a multitude of doors. Why not develop interests you do not already have? You never know, it may turn into a keen interest.

— Jonathan Mariano

UCSD student

Endorsements, coverage of Hsus were lacking

Editor:

I’m writing this letter as a concerned UCSD student in regards to the recent coverage given to the A.S. elections process. I believe the Guardian to be a greatly respected and circulated newspaper among the students and staff of the UCSD campus and was thus all the more disappointed to read the content of your election coverage to this point.

In regards to your endorsements, I completely respect your choices, as everyone has their individual preferences, but I do not agree with the way in which the candidates were described. Your presidential endorsement was one with which I had a disagreement, even as I understand that it is your choice as the staff members of the newspaper to choose whom you see fit. However, in describing the other candidates, there was a lack of thorough clarification which disturbed me. The work and extensive experience of Kevin Shawn Hsu was dismissed as though it was insignificant to the position for which he was running. You have chosen to withhold endorsements from those candidates without enough experience, and yet you choose to write off the know-how of a truly qualified candidate as inconsequential. If your readers base their votes solely on the candidate statements and your reporting, they will find little-to-no differential between Kevin Shawn Hsu and Kevin Hsu; yet only the most minimal amount of coverage has been allocated to expose these most pressing and crucial differences.

In addition, the entire episode involving the independently running Kevin Hsu has not been clearly exposed to your readers. Kevin Hsu, a candidate whose supporters have admitted that his supposed positions were created all in one night, is wholly unqualified for any position in Associated Students, much less the office of president. However, your coverage of the elections makes him appear as a potential equal to Kevin Shawn Hsu. Absolutely nothing Kevin Hsu has done during the campaign has been admirable or amusing, and I believe something of more consequence than what has been covered should be written for the benefit of informing the readers of your newspaper before they vote in the elections. To state that “”his [Kevin Hsu’s] candidacy is not to be taken seriously”” is absolutely ludicrous as the confusion his place on the ballot will create will undoubtedly mislead some supporters of the Kevin Shawn Hsu to vote incorrectly. Kevin Hsu is being played as a puppet whose sole purpose is to create confusion amongst the supporters of Kevin Shawn Hsu.

Politics is certainly expected to involve some ugly aspects, but the attempts of some individuals to split the votes of Kevin Shawn Hsu by finding a pawn with the same name to run against him are atrocious. The gross manipulation of the election bylaws by the supporters of Kevin Hsu should be exposed as just that — a manipulation of the students of UCSD.

— Caroline Song

Thurgood Marshall College junior