ACADEMICS — UCSD is primarily reputable for its stellar
track record in science, which has grown tremendously since its founding less
than 50 years ago. But there is evidence to suggest that the science
departments have developed without commensurate growth in the arts,
overshadowing them.

There are 147 theater majors at UCSD, comprising less than 1
percent of the total undergraduate population of 22,048. Many of these students
feel neglected by a department that grants most of its major performance
opportunities to graduate students.

Once per quarter, the theater department faculty stages a
production solely for undergraduate students. These shows provide a favorable
environment and exposure strikingly close to real-world experience. Students
audition, make the cast and perform under the direction of experienced
instructors, unfettered by financial limitations. In these shows, they receive
attention that would otherwise only be given to them in a major production. The
problem: chances are limited.

“A majority of undergrad students I have encountered in
theater feel somewhat neglected in the sense of having the chance to interact
with faculty on a main stage production,” said Daniel Rubiano, a John Muir
College junior and theater major who has auditioned for the Winter and Fall
Quarter undergraduate productions.

Rubiano added that most theater undergrads ultimately want
“more opportunities to thrive under highly educated individuals.”

These individuals host two or three major shows per quarter
almost entirely with graduate students; if an undergrad gains a role, it is
minimal at best. This is logical from the perspective of the department, which
wants to put on the best show possible, but it is not so logical from the
viewpoint of students.

Last quarter, the undergraduate production was changed to a
theater movement piece, a dance-based production, thereby robbing actors of
another precious chance. Put the facts together, and you get a very unappealing
department for undergrads.

In stark contrast, UCSD’s biology department has an
incredible amount of appeal due to its high rankings — second in the nation in
neuroscience and biotech — and links to the prominent local biotech sector.
Although the department’s worldwide recognition has little bearing on the lives
of new students, the distinction greatly increases its appeal. Add that to
pressure from peers, who have a 22-percent chance of being biology majors
themselves, and already the average student feels a significant draw toward the
sciences.

Possibilities are the cornerstones of a college education,
and students should dictate their learning environment, not vice versa. The
undergraduate population deserves more options. Each student pays the same
tuition (or more if out-of-state), and while individual educations are not
usually comparable in content, they must be comparable in terms of available
opportunities.

This disparity is apparent not just in the theater
department; biology, chemistry and physics have 74, 58 and 53 tenured
professors, respectively, while theater and dance, visual arts and literature
have 18, 19 and 37, respectively.

“We get nothing,” said Nancy Mah, a visual arts department
management service officer. “Being a research institution, a lot of money goes
to science. We might get a bigger share of state funds, but we have no external
funding source, such as grants.”

Grants constitute 37 percent of the school’s operating
revenue, more than tuition and state funds combined.

According to UCSD’s 2007 Annual Financial Report, the campus
received $507.7 million in the form of grants that directly contributed to
either the health sciences ($389.3 million) or Scripps Institution of
Oceanography ($118.3 million). This constitutes about 70 percent of the
school’s total grant revenue. The rest was reserved for the benefit of the
“general campus.” Chemistry Department Financial Manager Shanley Miller said
that although there is no direct correlation between grant money and
undergraduate education, there is certainly an indirect benefit, which is magnified
given the sheer amount of money involved.

Evidently, the funds that go specifically to the sciences,
the faculty that the money attracts and the arts’ reliance on state funds
results in lopsided growth between the departments. UCSD’s prominence in
biology and other scientific fields should not go unmentioned, but the
university, as well as its undergraduates, should be mindful of the fields of
study that generous grants seldom cover, which are consequently funded much
less liberally.

The discrepancy can be represented in many ways, and the
reasons for it are innumerable, including inherent factors like the school’s
location, reputation and the circumstances of its founding. But the situation
is alterable.

As Rubiano suggested, “I hope that the students could find
an arrangement, in the form of petition perhaps, that we could present to the
department.” Steps like this can be taken by undergraduates, and their
collective voices can directly benefit arts majors as well as give all students
more variety in what they can achieve as undergraduates.