ACADEMICS ­— For over two years, the faculty of Earl Warren
College has considered adjusting the college’s general education requirements
as a means of adding strength and depth to its undergraduate curriculum. Now,
after months of holding faculty discussions, coordinating meetings and
approving the proposals to revamp their undergraduate requirements, Warren administrators have finally decided to make
their intentions clear to students. Unfortunately, if those students disagree
with the adjustments being implemented, their opinions and concerns will have
hardly any impact on the matter — that is, if those opinions are even taken
into account in the first place.

Among the adjustments are additional requirements for
transfer students in their non-contiguous areas of study; an extra quarter of
the ethics and society course; the integration of the formal skills requirement
for humanities majors in the natural science, math and engineering programs of
concentration; and restrictions and revisions to the area of studies
requirement for entering freshmen.

Much to the disgruntlement of Warren College Student Council
members and concerned undergraduates, the viewpoints of students who actually
have to take Warren GE requirements, and their personal judgments of how
effective those courses are, have had absolutely no bearing on the
decision-making process of curriculum adjustment. Student input should be
significant, if not the most important of factors to be considered when it
comes to making adjustments to the status quo of current Warren requirements.

It is a discredit to Warren College to neglect the vital
opinions of its current students when gauging the effectiveness of educational
strategies — student opinion can be some of the most telling and indicative of
how future students will be affected by change.

Surprisingly, not only were current undergraduates not given
the option of voicing their opinions about how GE requirements could be
improved before the decision-making process was well underway, but the majority
of them were never even informed about the proposed changes until after the
decision to adopt them had been approved by the Committee of Educational Policy
last month.

Long Pham, the A.S. associate vice president of academic
affairs, was the lone dissenting vote against the proposal to approve the
additions and adjustments for GE requirements. It’s no coincidence that he is
currently the only undergraduate student representative who sits on the
committee. Though Pham voiced his concern that students should be entitled to
their input, the faculty on the committee easily overwhelmed his single vote of
opposition.

Until the proposal of changing the curriculum had been
brought to the CEP to be voted on, Pham had no prior knowledge of the intent to
adjust Warren GE requirements. Once Pham learned of the proposed changes, he
brought them to the attention of WCSC, but by that point, garnering the input
of the student body was a lost cause. Regardless of what the students had to
say, the CEP had already made its decision.

According to Pham, when he mentioned the curriculum change
to WCSC, many students expressed dissent to the proposed alterations.
Furthermore, though a few of the students had heard talk about changing
requirements in the future, none of them had seen the specific language of the proposal
or knew the extent of what the changes entailed.

It is a shame that students were not consulted earlier in
the process. Many undergraduates have very strong opinions about the current GE
requirements’ strengths and weaknesses. For instance, when assessing their
experiences with their past courses, some members of the student council
expressed negative opinions regarding the ethics and society and Warren Writing
courses, explaining that the classes are not achieving their respective
purposes. Some students said that modifying the courses would be a much more
effective way of improving general education than forcing students to take more
classes that may be falling short of their objectives.

Other groups of students were not as pessimistic regarding
the current requirements but did not see a need for change and sought further
justification for the unsuspected proposal.

No matter how varied the students’ opinions were, the fact
of the matter is that many students had valuable information and experiences
they hoped to contribute to the discussion, and in the end, their opinions will
likely be slighted without reason.

There is a sliver of a chance that the change to Warren
College’s curriculum will not be passed. Because the decision to change curriculum
requirements affects university bylaws, the proposal must still jump one final
hurdle and be approved by the Academic Senate before it is finalized, but Pham
and many of his colleagues do not feel that their arguments against the changes
will make any difference this late in the process. Warren faculty and the CEP
have already supported the changes overwhelmingly, and after years of
consideration, there is a very good chance that the proposal will be
accepted.

Hopefully UCSD will realize the error in snubbing students
and amend this problem by giving them the attention that they deserve in future
decision-making processes. The importance of student input in decisions that
directly affect students is undeniable.

Moreover, informing students about such decisions only after
their input is inconsequential. WCSC and UCSD students in general play a
crucial role in shaping student life and providing valuable information about
student opinions, which often help to improve campus life and move educational and
social experiences forward.

By neglecting to give students adequate information and time
to have their voices heard on issues directly affecting their peers, UCSD is
performing a great disservice. Though it may be too late in the process for
students to do anything about this recent upset, UCSD should make an effort to
keep students informed and give them opportunities to be heard. Refusing to do
so does more than upset students, it can also hurt UCSD as a whole by causing
it to miss out on a crucial perspective when making decisions. Besides, there
are no better subjects capable of assessing student experience and education
than the students themselves — and the best way to make sure their needs are
met is to attend to them, not to ignore them.