Music and beer at the Hump each Friday. Ample on-campus parking. Longer operating hours at Wendy’s. Shuttle service to Mira Mesa, Clairemont, University City and Pacific Beach. Four years of guaranteed housing for all students and more affordable off-campus housing. Fantastic “hang-out” spots on campus. Professors who take pride in teaching and in attending various student events. A bit of tolerance when it comes to experimentation with drugs and alcohol. The ability to mingle long into the night with no fear of RSOs.
Sound like the wet dream of a lonely physics major? Well, yes, but it’s also the gist of a report issued by the Undergraduate Student Experience and Satisfaction Committee, available online at http://studentresearch.ucsd.edu/satisfaction. Apparently UCSD’s administration, at some point, had an epiphany that not all is well in the life of UCSD undergraduates, and a committee spent much of last year poring over student surveys, interviewing groups of students, faculty and other main players on the UCSD stage, as well as analyzing UCSD’s physical spaces. The committee, appointed in January 2005 by former Acting Senior Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs David R. Miller and Vice Chancellors Joseph W. Watson (student affairs) and James M. Langley (external relations), was composed of one graduate student, one undergrad from each of the six colleges, the Sixth College provost, the associate vice chancellor of undergraduate education, one faculty member, two staff and two alumni.
Their just-released report — all 59 pages, not counting the appendices — is cathartic to read and rather damning, because students don’t seem to be happy about anything at UCSD. Fifty percent of the document is a juicy laundry list of what’s wrong with UCSD, and the other 50 percent is a pile of equally juicy recommendations based on the committee’s findings. These recommendations are broken up into three categories: “Important: major impact but needs further development,” “simple, straightforward,” and “Important: significant or major impact and immediately feasible.” Or, in other words: “Too expensive to implement right now,” “Cheap and easy,” and “Sure to be instantly rejected by Vice Chancellor Watson.”
The committee’s recommendations are brave, ambitious, well-intentioned and spot-on, but only some are realistic, at least at this point in time. Take the committee’s call for housing for all transfer students, a guarantee of four-year on-campus housing for all students who wish it, and the “improvement of the design of residential buildings.” Of course it should happen; but is it possible given the present reality of second-year students not necessarily being offered on-campus housing? The cost and logistics of such a plan are intimidating, especially in the midst of Chancellor Marye Anne Fox’s complaints about UCSD reaching its debt capacity.
No aspect of UCSD student life seems to have escaped the committee. When it comes to sports, the committee concluded that an eventual move to Division I athletics is a must, although it acknowledged that such a move could have an immediate dampening effect on school spirit because sports teams suddenly become less competitive upon a move to Division I. And in one of the more surreal recommendations, the committee called for the creation of a rivalry with another school, noting that rivalries do much to unite students and spark school spirit.
With regard to parking and shuttle service, the committee emerged with out-of-the-box recommendations from other UC campuses. They call for making UCSD and La Jolla bike-friendly; instituting regular shuttles to downtown San Diego, downtown La Jolla, Pacific and Ocean Beach, Mira Mesa, Clairemont and University City; expanding the San Diego Trolley to UCSD and (a no-brainer) building additional parking structures. Of course, if the call to build enough on-campus residences to accommodate students for four years is heeded, much of the demand for parking spaces would be diminished, especially if the areas around UCSD were served by UCSD shuttles. In addition, much of the parking woes on campus would be immediately alleviated if weekends at UCSD were made more attractive; based on student comments that are included and summarized in the report, it’s clear that many freshmen feel compelled to bring a car to campus and drive away on weekends because spending the time with their parents or friends is simply more fun and relaxing than UCSD’s current dismal offerings.
Sadly, the committee’s most vital recommendations seem the least likely to ever be implemented given the current campus climate. And therein lies the rub: For the campus climate to be changed for the better, certain (seemingly immutable) features of the current, lacking campus climate must be forever shattered.
For example, a recurring theme in the recommendations is the necessity of encouraging (or at least allowing) large gatherings of students on campus, which are currently stymied by oppressive rules in the residence halls, paper-thin walls that don’t muffle noise, lack of spaces that can accommodate large numbers of students, nosey RSOs and oppressive punishments. The committee suggests allowing rooms at Price Center to be used on weekends for personal gatherings with no noise restrictions, the extending of Price Center and shuttle hours to make the campus an attractive evening destination, the serving of alcohol to those over 21 at more campus events and the return of “Thank God It’s Friday” concerts at the Hump behind the Student Center, which had alcohol for those of drinking age and were an extremely popular weekly tradition before they were foolishly discontinued.
All of these measures are means to an end: greater campus cohesion, the creation of campus traditions and a more social campus culture, and the transformation of UCSD into a lively hang-out spot on evenings and weekends.
Few UCSD administrators would deny the worth of these goals, but might waver in approving the steps needed to make them happen: namely, the easing of campus alcohol policies and abolishing the “legalistic,” “restrictive” culture of UCSD (which would necessitate a major attitude adjutstment of most or all of UCSD’s RSOs).
The committee was extremely perceptive when listening to students and gracefully accomplished the difficult task of translating the litany of complaints into a concrete set of actions. Now the ball is in administrators’ court, and all we can ask is that they give the recommendations a try. Writing off any of the recommendations as too risky, ambitious, expensive or logistically difficult will be tempting, but is exactly the wrong reaction. Many of the recommendations are drastic, but that’s exactly the point: UCSD is not at the proper level, and much needs to be done.
