'Dismal state' of undergraduate education deserves further examination

Dear Editor:

I believe that it is time to revisit the perceived "dismal state" of undergraduate education at UC Davis, as noted by Professor Quirino Paris (Dateline, May 17, 2002). He argued that, if UC Davis were to institute an exit examination, no more than 50 percent in any major would pass. Professor Carlos Quiros (Dateline, May 31, 2002) agreed in principle, but predicted a 30 percent failure rate. I am experiencing the same kind of dismal state of affairs.

I primarily teach juniors and seniors in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. What I am seeing is a general lack of motivation -- to attend class, come to class on time, and to learn -- in from 25 to 40 percent of my students. Some would say that, because the students have paid their fees, they can do as they please. We should just direct our efforts to the serious students. I have always rejected this approach on philosophical grounds.

Now, I read in the Sacramento Bee (Feb. 27) that the Office of the Legislative Analyst has determined that the state subsidy for a UC student is $14,300 per year. So, to my way of thinking, we at UC Davis are wasting a lot of taxpayer money on some students who are not motivated to succeed. This comes at a time when, for the first time in history, eligible freshmen will be turned away from UC. I think we could make room for our share of these eligible freshmen if some of our underachieving undergraduates were given an early exit, rather than an exit exam.

We must be careful not to blame the students, for they will respond to the standards that faculty set for them. Although the admissions process should not be overlooked, I think a major part of the problem is the merit/promotion system for faculty. There is too much pressure on faculty to be popular, to have a popular course (i.e., high enrollment), and to have contented students who will give good evaluations.

I suspect that there are other opinions to be heard, so I encourage colleagues to join in the debate. This problem cannot be ignored any longer.

-- Les Ehler, professor, entomology

Elimination of smaller Coke containers comes at a bad time

Dear Editor:

In the face of a true epidemic of obesity among the U.S. population, about a month ago the Coke machines in many campus buildings (e.g., Bainer Hall and Academic Surge) were changed: the 12-ounce cans were replaced by 20-ounce bottles, and the prices went up from 75 cents to $1.25. It is now impossible to buy a "normal" can of soda.

Obviously this spells more profits for the suppliers, but what about the consumers?

-- Mont Hubbard, professor, mechanical and aeronautical engineering