If campus administrators want to take a giant step away from accessibility and diversity, its new transfer admissions policy of raising the minimum GPA from 3.0 to 3.5 does the job.

The new policy — implemented under the Transfer Admission Guarantee program — is a direct response to ever-worsening state budget cuts and ever-growing applicant pools. The logic is that if it’s harder to get into UCSD, fewer people will apply, and issues of overenrollment would solve themselves.

But the new practice is contradictory in light of UCSD’s recent switch to holistic admissions to increase diversity. Increasing the ethnic diversity of the freshman class only to compromise that of third-year transfers represents a step back to square one.

What’s more, many incoming freshmen may not even get in with a 3.5 GPA. There’s little justifiable reason for transfer students to be held to a more rigorous standards than their peers are.

The raised requirement is also the highest of all undergraduate UC campuses who use TAG. It decreases accessibility — one of the UC system’s founding goals — by violating the goals of TAG. The program guarantees admission to California students who fulfill certain course requirements at a community college and have a certain GPA, which at most campuses is 3.0 According to admissions director Mae Brown, the five-year-old program has seen applications grow from 443 in its first year to 8,715 for fall admissions this year.

The new policy also goes against the diversity efforts of UCSD, who boasted higher numbers of underrepresented minorities after reaching out to transfer students. By imposing a higher GPA requirement for students from a community college — where there is often a more ethnically diverse student population — the university is discouraging participation in the program.

It’s obvious that we don’t have the capacity to maintain current enrollment levels; according to Brown, our limited resources can only accommodate about 2,300. And it’s true that the change could potentially help solve the problem of over-enrollment; according to Brown, under the new guidelines, the applicant pool will be reduced by a whooping 50 percent. Currently, however, the mean GPA of admitted transfer students is already 3.55, so the evidence that enrollment will shrink is far from conclusive. That’s why it’d be pointless to create a new policy when the university probably accepts exceptional and deserving people with low GPAs — as probable under the new holistic admissions process.

But the new requirement directly cuts from some of the least privileged students on campus. It goes against the efforts of administrators who are reaching out to community colleges, where student population are more racially diverse — and will reconstruct barriers for students who come from underrepresented ethnic backgrounds.

Individuals have varying extenuating circumstances that may surprisingly make them a good fit for UCSD.

While half the Arab world faces violence daily, from the way people here whine, you’d think one of the world’s most heinous crimes is paying $4.30 at the pump.

About 4,000 children die every day because they don’t have clean water, but people here have the nerve to rant about gas prices as if it were the greatest injustice on Earth. And while I’m sure we’re all a little guilty when it comes to complaining about an extra $10 at the pump, the worst part is people who don’t do anything about it.

Exhibit A: Some genius on Facebook (surprise) thought the solution to lowering our gas prices was for everyone to boycott gas stations on March 14, and only March 14. Of course, a boycott for a day isn’t effective since everyone ends up buying gas the next day or the day after that.  Nevertheless, 600,000 angry people joined thinking it was a good idea, and hoping others would do the actual boycotting.

But even if it had succeeded, the biggest harm would be to local gas station owners who have seen a great loss in sales, not the oil companies. Thank God people were too lazy to even boycott, or their actions could have harmed business owners while oil companies stored the oil for another day.

Exhibit B: Politicians calling for offshore drilling take second place in this stupidity battle. It’s been only nine months since BP’s little accident devastated the Southern states, yet politicians still have the gall to demand more oil. Obviously, the environment must be subservient to the goals of the almighty SUV. According to the Energy Information administration, more drilling would cause gas prices to go down by a few cents, but the relief would come in 2027, not tomorrow. But even this relief comes at the cost of environmental catastrophe. Not to mention that we’d be postponing the inevitable shift from gas to renewable energy.

Exhibit C: Tea Party governors are blocking funding for high-speed rail, which consequently keeps gas prices high. The Wisconsin and Ohio governors refused federal funds to build high-speed rail between their major cities. These governors seem to have missed the point that high-speed rail would discourage the use of cars and lower gas prices due to lesser demand. In fact, Europe, Japan and China have all been enjoying the effects of 120 mph trains at half fares while our asses are stuck on Amtraks that go 60 mph on a good day. There’s a budget deficit, but realistically, there’s no way to lower gas prices without receiving some form of assistance. Oil companies aren’t going to learn empathy and lower costs. BP, with $66 million in daily profits, already had a tough time being persuaded to adequately compensate victims of the spill.

So, what to do about gas prices? First, consider yourself lucky for living where cars are practically a birthright and gas is, relatively, dirt cheap. Don’t forget to use public transportation — with free MTS bus stickers, there’s no reason not to.

[caption id="attachment_21853" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Jane Rho/Guardian"][/caption]

Thanks to low college graduation rates, the Department of Education is dangling the prospect of additional funding in front of money-hungry campuses. It’s a smart move for the Obama administration, but not one we’re likely to cash in on, as the proposal has institutions directly competing to increase grad rates, which means struggling public schools are up against Ivy League cash cows.

Ideally, the initiative should make some adjustments to even the playing field for struggling schools — typically, public schools like those in the UC system. This can be done through tiered competitions, pitting schools from the same states and in similar financial situations against each other.

This program is a welcome change considering where the U.S. stands. Compared to other developed nations, the U.S. lags in our percentage of college graduates. According to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, 42 percent of the U.S. population aged 25-34 has finished college. This puts us in ninth place (South Korea comes in at first with 58 percent).

The Department of Education is offering three separate grants. A $20-million “Comprehensive Grant Program” rewards universities that improve graduation rates, while a $50 million “College Completion Incentive Grants” rewards states. Finally, the $23-million “First in the World Initiative” rewards states that keep tuition rates from increasing while increasing completion rates. The plan, announced by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, seeks to increase college graduates in the United States by eight million by 2020.

While its intentions are good, the Comprehensive Grant Program disadvantages the UC system. Only individual colleges can apply for this grant, which means universities with huge budget deficits won’t likely be able to appropriate enough money to create a program to improve graduation rates as easily as more affluent colleges. In addition, it’s the most economically challenged schools are the public universities who are facing cuts, so private schools or for-profit colleges would tend to benefit from this grant.

Ironically, another reason the UC system may not be the strongest contender for these grants is because we’re doing well. The nine understand UC campuses already have a high graduation rate. As of 2010, 82.2 percent of UC students systemwide received their degree within six years; UCSD’s six-year graduation rate is 85 percent as of 2010. After crossing a certain threshold, it becomes increasingly difficult to raise graduation rates; because the UC system has less room for improvement than some other institutions, it’s less likely to gain from these grants. The reward system should instead take into account the varying tiers of improvement. Universities should not only compete against each other based on levels of debt, but on their rates of completion as well.

Also, it’s unclear if institutions that earn grants will be required to spend the money on increasing the graduation rates. If this is the case, although the UC system is strapped for cash, winning the grant may not be as helpful as it seems. The UC system needs to be free to use available funds to help alleviate course, faculty and enrollment cuts, not necessarily to produce more graduates.

Nonetheless, the White House is rightly concerned with educating the populace and creating a “College Completion Tool Kit” of sorts for schools and governors to increase graduation rates — helping adults with college experience but no degree, making transferring college credits easier and keeping college tuition raises minimal to nonexistent.

Biomedical careers and IT jobs generally require a college education, and to remain globally competitive, American citizens must have the education to succeed. But as the grants are designed now, public schools could well be hung out to dry.

Additional Reporting by Margaret Yau.

Readers can contact Saad Asad at [email protected]

In third grade, I made the mistake of telling my mother I thought my swim coach was “cute.” From there on out, she made comments about how “cute” he was — even when he was standing next to me.

Topic Too Narrow for All Students

A recent SAT essay question on pop culture has parents and test takers protesting its fairness. The prompt asked students to evaluate the authenticity of reality television shows given the level of input and manipulation by television producers and editors.

Getting a big sister in your sorority is a little different from getting a biological one. The process doesn’t quite take nine months, and you also get a little more say in the matter.

Growing up, there were so many rules. Rules from home: “Pick up your toys after you play with them,” or “Don’t put gum in your brother’s hair.” Rules from school: “Don’t run with
scissors” and “Markers are for paper — not classmates’ faces.” And then there’s the Golden Rule: “Don’t lie; honesty is the best policy.”

As a kid, I never figured out the difference between honesty and rudeness. Telling my mother that her jeans accentuated her muffin top? Just me being honest. Luckily, because I was so young, these comments were only met with raised eyebrows and disapproving looks
— nothing too serious. But a decade later, I’ve come to the conclusion that informing people that their outfit makes them look like a walrus and will only prevent them from getting laid will result in developing a reputation as a judgmental bitch, something that’s far worse than a glare or my mom’s raised eyebrows.

And while I might think it’s socially acceptable to tell my friends the intimate details from last night, apparently they don’t share the same sentiment. I know my kinderhearted friends love me, but I also know that some of my less-than-PC comments are putting a strain on our relationship.
As I researched how to break bad habits, I came across a website on how to train dogs: Every time they do something wrong, you let them know they did “bad” by smacking them on the nose or spraying water in their face. In my case, I figured that just asking someone to tell me when I say things that are out of line would suffice. No nose harm, no foul.

While one of my friends was more than eager to try the “smacking Cheryl on the nose” tactic, another suggested that I put a quarter into an “STFU” jar every time I did something off-putting — whether that was saying “that girl needs a P in the V” or sending a picture text of my bird’s huge excrement. (It’s funny, OK?)

The first day, as my friend and I waited at a stop light on our way to breakfast, I commented on how it would do a particular “ghetto-fab” pedestrian well to lay off the lip liner and Baby Phat. (Goodbye, 25 cents.)

By the end of the hour, I found myself $3.75 poorer. So, to avoid losing more money, I started to hold my tongue. Despite the fact that my boyfriend’s new jeans made his butt
look bigger than Kim Kardashian’s, I said nothing. Dinner was filled with half-voiced thoughts. “So, today I saw a — oh, never mind.”

The money I lost means I’ve started to think twice about commenting on how our waiter’s hair makes him look like Tom Hanks in “Castaway.” But that pile of change also made me realize how much that indecent commentary is a part of who I am — for better, for worse.

And it’s a part of me I’m not willing to give up, even if it means mildly offending those that have yet to get to know the real me.

[caption id="attachment_21577" align="alignright" width="270" caption="Rebekah Hwang/UCSD Guardian"][/caption]

Starting next year, Eleanor Roosevelt College’s Making of the Modern World core series will be shortened to five, instead of six, quarters for incoming freshmen and two, instead of three, for transfer students. The college announced in an e-mail on March 2 budget cuts have forced the change to the general-education requirement. Current students who have yet to finish the program only need to complete five courses in the sequence to graduate.

MMW Program Director Matthew Herbst said that budget cuts , not any problems with the curriculum, are the main reason for the change. Herbst added that the change was necessary despite dedication to MMW among ERC faculty and staff.

“We really feel deeply about the program and it’s been a big hit,” Herbst said. “It’s been the life force of ERC. It gives students a global mindedness but we had to reconsider [it] to keep the program vital.”

The program changes the requirement from MMW courses numbered 1-6 to MMW 11-15 for freshmen. The first two courses —of which MMW 1 is non-writing intensive — in the sequence will be merged to comprise MMW11, though the rest of the program is expected to remain intact.  Unlike MMW2, MMW11 will not be a writing-intensive class, but students will still complete two writing intensive courses, MMW12 and MMW13.

For transfers, MMW21 and MMW22 will required. MMW21 is the same as the current course MMW4T. Transfers may petition to replace MMW22 with MMW 14 or 15, which allows them to participate in the global seminar summer classes. The updated sequence will be offered starting in Fall Quarter 2011.  MMW4 will be offered for the final time in the fall while MMW 1-3 will be offered for the final time this summer.

“The budget was [the] impetus that led to this point,” Herbst said. “But we had to make sure we offered high qualify general education.”

Herbst said the changes have been development for some time. Individual colleges were notified of budget cuts last summer, so faculty has been planning for the past year.

“We knew we would have to make changes when the budget cuts were announced,” Herbst said.

All changes had to be approved by the program staff, college leadership and advisory faculty. Afterward, the College Executive and Policy Committee and Committee on Educational Policy gave its sign-off. Academic Senate then voted to approve the changes on March 1 after a presentation by Roosevelt College Provost Alan Houston.

“We had to adhere [to and] respect the protocol,” Herbst said. “It was a very difficult process of revising the program, but we preserved the vitality of MMW.”

Herbst said he’s not discouraged by the cuts.

“I’m very optimistic for the future, despite the entire UC budget issues,” Herbst said. “This program can withstand the test of time. It’s incredibly important to protect undergrad education and general education. We needed to make sure the new program preserved the previous program.”

A faculty committee chaired by anthropology emeritus professor David Jordan will design the new syllabus, specifically for MMW11. The course will be the largest departure for the program since its inception in 1988.

Don’t Forget, the French Don’t Care

Last week, a photo of Beyoncé wearing dark face paint was published in the French fashion magazine L’Officiel Paris. Naturally, when the picture hit the web on Feb. 23, it immediately caused a firestorm in the United States. But regardless of how much heat the singer fields from bloggers nationwide, one thing’s important to remember: We aren’t the magazine’s target audience.

The French, for whom the magazine was intended, pride themselves in their notion of republicanism — an idea that stresses that the French people are comprised of all citizens, regardless of ethnic background. For that reason, the French consider themselves a truly colorblind society; so colorblind, in fact, that it is illegal in France to collect data on the ethnicity and race of its citizens.

While many stateside point to the photo shoot as an offensive revival of blackface, the French — without the context of Americas’s offensive 19th-century minstrel shows — see nothing more than a darkened face. There’s no doubt that a stunt like this would never have flown in America, a place stunted by taboo images and racial slurs. But the photo shoot was done in France, not here. And while many may fairly see Beyoncé’s decision to sport the darkened face makeup as a step too far, we must realize that, outside the context of American history, the image represents little more than an eye-catching magazine cover.

— Arik Burakovsky

Staff Writer

Art: It’s Racism in Light of Itself

Earlier this month, Beyoncé was accused of looking “too white” for dyeing her hair blonde. Now, she’s being criticized for the opposite. The look — a nod to Fela Kuti, the Nigerian musician and human rights activist — not only skirts the racially charged history of minstrel-show blackface; it’s an expression of fashion at its controversial, boundary-pushing best.

True blackface first surfaced during 19th-century minstrel shows, which involved white actors blackening their faces with shoe paint or burnt cork and painting exaggerated red lips around their mouths so as to resemble circus clowns. Dressed in gaudy tailcoats, striped trousers and oversized hats, these actors portrayed offensive black caricatures for the entertainment of a white audience.

Though this type of blackface is clearly offensive, it is not a point of reference for this photo shoot. The “Single Ladies” singer poses regally as an African queen wearing theatrical make-up and a vibrant animal-print dress that her mother designed.

L’Officiel Paris is a high fashion magazine known for its envelope-pushing style. And in this case, Beyoncé was merely facilitating the expression of art by acting as a blank canvas. Her unique look was inspired by African rituals — not the cultural mockery of minstrel shows — and reflects, if anything, the African influence permeating current trends. It’s art, it’s high-fashion and in the end, it isn’t racist — plus, in the moribund world of print media, if a fashion editor can present a look that gets the web this atwitter, then all the more power to her.

— Hilary Lee

Contributing Writer

Massive protests swept Wisconsin this month after state Congress introduced a bill that would wipe out public-sector unions to overcome a $137 billion shortfall.

As usual, legislators nationwide are quick to vilify unions for budget deficits. But the real villains are rising health care costs and dwindling pensions, which have taken a hit during the recession.

Granted, union leaders in states like California have already accepted cuts and furloughs to meet budget shortfalls. But public employees in Wisconsin already earn 4.8 percent less per hour than comparable employees in the private sector, according to the Economic Policy Institute. What’s more, Wisconsin unions are willing to accept the pension cost increase that would result in a 7-percent wage decrease. They just won’t stand for Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s attempt to weaken public unions’ bargaining power.

Walker’s bill would only let unions bargain regarding pay increases subject to inflation, and even those are subject to referendum. If the voters object to those efforts, public workers like teachers and nurses will suffer wage decreases even as inflation rises. And while some of us may harbor grudges against annoying high school teachers, none of them, I assure you, deserve this.

Similar bills in Ohio and Indiana have galvanized public protest against this unabashed attempt at stripping public employees of their rights: Students and workers packed the capitol building’s rotunda on Feb. 19 to protest passage of the bill .

The Tea Party, in its insatiable desire to fan the flames of controversy, has come out in favor of Walker’s cost-cutting proposal. But budget shortfalls should not be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable members of the public sector.

Deficits should be addressed with uniform spending cuts and tax increases that are fair to as many as possible. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois raised his state’s income tax from 3 percent to 5 percent to alleviate budget woes. And even Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget — no object of praise itself, especially for its proposed $500 million cut to the UC system — includes minimal tax increases and spending cuts across the board.

Still, many are quick to blame public employees for paying less into their pensions than private sector workers. Unfortunately, those in the private industry used to enjoy similar benefits, but with the demise of private sector unions, these benefits have, for the most part, eroded.

Arguing that public employees should increasingly bear the deficits only creates a race to the bottom for workers in terms of salary and benefits. And with drastic, across-the-board cuts already all but inevitable in Wisconsin, there’s no reason that teachers and sanitation workers should be blamed for the state’s fiscal irresponsibility.

Can’t Take This New Bill to the Bank

In an attempt to avoid hyperinflation caused by the Federal Reserve, South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright proposed a bill on Feb. 3 that would allow his state to adopt an alternative currency based on a gold or silver standard.
Even setting aside the huge constitutional issues, this is a move that would negatively affect the state’s economy. Gold, like any other commodity, has a highly volatile price: The discovery of a large gold mine would inflate the general price of money; conversely, if gold prices didn’t keep up with the growth of the general market, deflation would occur. The entire market, under Bright’s proposal, would lie in the hands of a single commodity instead of in a Federal Reserve that can tighten or loosen money as necessary.
Moreover, regardless of what type of currency South Carolina would use, the very existence of an alternative to the dollar would stifle free trade. The average American firm would have to trade in American dollars to buy something only produced in South Carolina, wasting precious time and incentivizing them to purchase from another state. Foreigners, too, would rather buy using the more trusted dollar than risk using an unstable new currency. As less money flows in to the state, there will be fewer jobs and even less tax revenue to support its citizens.
Considering the U.S. is closer to deflation than hyperinflation, an alternative currency is unnecessary, at best. At worst, a move like this would jeopardize and wreak havoc on the state’s economy.

— Saad Asad
Senior Staff Writer

All the Cool States are Doing It

While at first it seems comical to imagine stopping at the border of South Carolina to trade in $20 bills for equivalent South Carolina currency, the fine print’s worth reading: Such a currency would only take over if the U.S. currency ever collapses.
South Carolina is hardly the first state where this idea has surfaced.  Georgia and Virginia have already floated similar ideas, including authorizing the state to print additional money for in-state transactions. None of those ideas came to pass, and Senator Bright’s plan won’t likely make it past a committee. But alternative currencies — to an admittedly slight extent — do have a bit of history on their side. In fact, during the Great Depression, West Virginia produced made coins backed by the state government that could be used at certain markets within the state.

Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear about what the Fed can do and what the states can do, and Senator Bright’s proposal almost certainly won’t make it past the first appeal — but at least, for now, someone in power’s looking at a worst-case backup plan.

— Bridgett Rangel-Rexford
Staff Writer

Book the room a week in advance (more, if heel-bruising stumbles back to the cheap end of the strip aren’t for you.) Flaunt your entitlement issues at the hotel reception in the passive voice: “Is there really no available upgrade? There’s nothing at all to be done?”
Learn that the receptionist can swing a suite for you and your friends at no extra cost. Wait a beat — soak in the gravity of what this will mean for dance parties — and thank the receptionist for her efforts. You’re so, so very grateful — yes, just a king should likely suffice for the night, and yes, you’ll tell her personally if it doesn’t.
Ascend the 15 floors to your room, passing dead-eyed slot-machine settlers and bored strippers on the way to the elevator. Notice the dated ad for Crazy Girls: Las Vegas’ No. 1 Topless Revue next to the elevator door, wherein a line of blondes pose from

behind in matching underwear and heels. Asses sure looked different in the ’80s, didn’t they?
Slide the room key in the door and stand in wonder: floral-print everything, enough floor space for your 30 closest associates to crash come daybreak, a full bar. You were expecting a dorm-sized box with a musty bible and a view of the next building over. How great to be so wrong.
Marvel at the arrivals of old friends, contraband Four Loko and foot-long disco sticks — not just the stuff of Lady Gaga’s carnal imagination, after all — with increasing wonder, and take all of them with you out into the night. Stop at a 7-11 and ask the cashier if he could please unscrew the disco stick battery compartment. It’s not what it looks like, creep. Buy the wrong batteries and the right doughnut.
Watch the sun rise over the local Ross and all the surrounding desolation. Joke about the possibility of Crossdressing for Less, and promptly fall asleep in the last corner of bed available. Spend the day in awe of the beautiful fakeness of it all: the half-scale Eiffel Tower, the casino waitresses, all of the lights. Wait half an hour for a foot-long margarita at the mall until you learn there’s no more Sex on the Beach. You just wanted Sex on the Beach. Where’s all the Sex on the Beach?
See a stranger convinced he’s about to die. Ask whether Miley Cyrus really took salvia last year, or whether it was all the spin of a quick-thinking publicist who knew it was legal.
Hear the slam of a hand against the hotel door and a decisive shout: “SECURITY!” Laugh at your friend’s sense of humor on the way to the peephole, and realize that there are, actually, three unarmed guards. Oh.
Call out for everyone to hide, and open the door. While the officer does realize that this is Las Vegas, there are other guests, and they are trying to sleep. This is your warning — and if the officer has to come back again, you face banishment from the Riviera Las Vegas. Which means you can’t come back again. Not ever. Tell the officer you’re sorry, you’ll be quiet, and feel pride in knowing, on your caffeine/adrenaline high, that you have done Vegas right.