Letters

Midterms useful to assess progress

Sony Barari attempts to generalize based on very limited
experience (“Midterms
useless; one test is enough,” Daily Bruin, Feb. 15). My
experience ““ 55 years of teaching and more than 20,000
students ““ has led me to conclude that, properly designed,
midterms can provide the following four valuable learning
experiences to students:

1. Preparing for the exam.

2. Taking the exam.

3. Going over the results after the exam.

4. Planning to avoid repetition of the mistakes made on the
exam.

My “mid-terms” are quite difficult, but I expect
students to learn from the mistakes they make on the exam. A major
goal of my courses is advancement of students’ analytical
skills. The students need frequent evaluation of the progress they
are making toward this goal. While I give the students
opportunities each week to make such self-evaluations, I believe
that both the midterm and the exam at the end of the quarter help
in such evaluations.

In the world of work, evaluations of progress ordinarily should
not be limited to once every ten weeks. And neither should it be in
the field of academics.

Theodore A. Andersen Professor of finance

Riordan is intolerant of G.O.P.

It’s ironic that Jason De Son chides conservatives for
being “intolerant,” while the politicians he supports
have shown it is they who are intolerant (“Support
new Republican revolution,” Viewpoint, Feb. 14).

Riordan has bashed and attacked conservatives repeatedly. He has
called people who are anti-abortion both anti-woman and anti-child.
Does this sound like tolerance? Conservatives are threatening to
not support Riordan if he wins the nomination, yet he does nothing
to build a coalition of moderates and conservatives. He repeatedly
has bashed the conservatives for political gain.

Why should conservatives support someone who not only opposes
many conservative positions, but the conservatives themselves? This
is one of the reasons why well-known conservatives and party
leaders like former Gov. George Deukmejian have outright refused to
support Riordan in his campaign.

The claim that moderation is a strength while conservatism is a
weakness is contrary to reality. It is the conservative base that
is made up of activists who register voters, get out the vote on
election day and otherwise build the party. These activists are in
politics because they care about the issues. By ignoring or
spurning them, you have lost your base, even though you may have
gained a few people on the left.

You cannot win without your base ““ this is why the
Democrats are successful in California. They embrace the left wing
of their party by changing the law to maintain their support, while
ensuring there are no major reactions from the electorate. Riordan
does not want to follow this strategy, choosing instead to leap to
the left of the Democrats.

Is there any wonder why the conservatives, who are in this
because of what they believe, have a problem with Riordan? It is a
matter of principles over politics: they would rather sit home or
work on the campaigns of candidates for other offices than lift a
finger for Riordan. A Riordan victory would be a Pyrrhic victory
for the Republicans. This is why I will be voting for another GOP
candidate during the primary.

Daniel B. Rego Alumnus Class of 2000