Letters

Thursday, October 29, 1998

Letters

UCLA Extension article misleading

Katie Sierra’s Oct. 23news story about online courses at UCLA
("Online courses now more accessible, acceptable") contains
seriously misleading errors about the nature of UCLA Extension’s
successful offerings and of Extension’s business relationship with
OnlineLearning.net.

First, the statement that "all online classes offered through
UCLA Extension are designed by OnlineLearning.net" is untrue and
upside down.

These are UCLA Extension classes. Only our instructors and
Continuing Education Specialists are responsible for the curricular
design, content development and instruction of online courses
­ just as for live classroom courses.

This means, therefore, that Extension’s online courses conform
to the same campus academic review and approval procedures that
apply for all of our offerings.

OnlineLearning.net (OLN) is Extension’s partner for the
marketing and distribution of online courses.

But it has no authority over matters involving curriculum or
course design ­ or the particular expression of the
curriculum, which belongs to the instructors, in keeping with UC
policy.

A correct statement would have been: "All online classes offered
and designed by UCLA Extension are made available through OLN."

Second, it is equally misleading to state that our online
students, including school teachers, are enrolled anywhere but in
UCLA Extension.

All UCLA Extension online students pay their fees to the Regents
to enroll with us in the same manner as those studying with us in
classrooms.

UCLA Extension instructors evaluate and grade their work;
student records reside exclusively with Extension.

OnlineLearning.net provides a very effective and attentive
service and technological infrastructure that complements our own
and helps make our classes "user-friendly."

But it has no academic or academic administrative relationship
to Extension’s online students.

Finally, juxtaposing the discussion about UCLA Extension’s
online classes with the insightful comments attributed to Provost
(Brian) Copenhaver about Web-based learning and the College is
perhaps also confusing.

The College’s highly innovative use of the Web and the UCLA
intranet for matriculated students has no interface with UCLA
Extension’s distance learning efforts.

In this light, it would have been more illuminating to point out
how well our instructors are already fulfilling the divergent
(linear and non-linear) expectations of the adult learners taking
Extension’s online courses.

These classes range in subjects as varied as "Introduction to
Nonfiction Writing," "JavaScript for Educators," "Teaching English
as a Second Language," "Introduction to Visual Basic," to
"Principles of Accounting" or "Human Resources Development."

I regret that your reporter did not contact anyone at Extension
for this story.

Had she done so, we would have gladly helped your readers with
an accurate understanding of UCLA’s real achievements, with respect
to UCLA Extension’s leadership among divisions of continuing higher
education ­ on the ground and online.

Robert Lapiner

Dean

Continuing Education and UCLA Extension

Fight for diversity has not died

It is obvious that Marc Olson in his Oct. 26 viewpoint article
("Measure ensures the best get educated") completely missed the
point of the walkout for Proposition 209, which occurred last
Wednesday and Thursday.

Apparently, Olson has not seen the astonishing statistics, which
report a devastating drop in the number of minorities enrolled at
UCLA, or he would have never referred to the proposition as being
"dead."

First of all, professors walked out, not to harm students by
putting off teaching for two days, but they did it to shed light on
a problem that is far from being "dead,"as Olson calls it.

It does not matter if 20 or 200 professors walk out, as long as
even one shows his or her concern, Proposition 209 lives.

How dare anyone say that we should all accept Proposition 209
and be happy, especially when the mind-blowing effects of the
proposition can be seen from walking on campus any given day.

If we lived in a perfect world without any racism, where
everyone had the opportunity to attend a nationally recognized high
school, Olson would be right.

Proposition 209 would be a dead issue.

Unfortunately, our world is far from being perfect and, thus, we
must make it as fair as possible for everyone.

It is absurd that Olson questions whether everyone has a right
to higher education; of course everyone has the right to go to
college. I understand and agree that it is not fair for bad
students to be accepted to college.

Keep in mind that affirmative action did not help these
undeserving students, but rather, it helped underprivileged
students who worked just as hard as you and I did in high
school.

Here’s something to think about: will Olson’s point of view
change, once the number of whites being admitted to UCLA decreases
because more Asian Americans have been let in?

Will Proposition 209 be considered Å’dead’ then? I seriously
doubt it.

Lakesha Breeding

Third-year

English

Behavior toward women scientific

I am writing in response to Maryam Baqi’s column on the
objectification of women in a purely sexual sense, "Society,
culture must stop objectifying women’s roles" (Viewpoint, Oct.
23).

Baqi has some good points in her column, but I think she misses
the root of the underlying problem (as she perceives it).

The idea that women are thought of as only sexual is correct in
many senses.

There is a reason for that.

No matter how much we as humans try to transcend our situations
and become a truly enlightened species, we are still compelled to
reproduce, in order to survive.

To ensure our reproductive tendencies, we are given the instinct
to mate.

This is not something we have much choice about.

While this idea may seem counter-intuitive with the world
population boom and all of the problems it entails looming on the
horizon, it is necessary to recognize that we are animals in the
animal kingdom.

Every other successful species in this kingdom exhibits the
inherent characteristic of motivation to reproduce.

If Maryam Baqi is looking for an answer to the question she
grapples with in her column, then she should look no further than
the primordial forces that be.

Rob Grant

Editor in Chief

The Channels

The Santa Barbara

City College newspaper

[email protected]

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]