Editorial: Quality of life can’t be captured in statistics

Aside from midterms, hangovers and the odd job, most UCLA
students probably believe they have a high quality of life ““
and by many standards, they do. But there is no single measure of
quality of life, nor is there agreement about the values and
standards that should be used to study the subject. Personal
reflections can prove as valuable as statistical analyses.

Quality of life in the United States as a whole ranks eighth
according to the UN Development Program, but the United States
doesn’t even make The Economist magazine’s top-10
list.

Most quality of life studies, including the two mentioned above,
focus on statistics such as life expectancy, adult literacy, gross
domestic product and other easily measured factors. Some, including
The Economist study, also try to rate more subjective issues like
personal freedom, family life and gender equality.

But in some regards, all of these studies are limited and even
ridiculous.

They do little to take into account cultural and religious
differences that dramatically influence ethnical standards and
values. They are not culturally relative. And they don’t take
into account that even within cultures, every individual has
different goals, fears, desires and values.

Despite these limitations, one thing these studies can do is
inspire thought and introspection. In this fast-paced world, it is
important to slow down and think about what we value, and why.

Students at UCLA often feel like they are caught in diploma
mill: many students are very goal-oriented, focus intently on job
or classes required for graduate school, join clubs which
“look good” ““ and graduate without having really
explored the rich experiences offered by UCLA, Los Angeles and the
people around them.

Of course, not everyone feels this way, but there are
undoubtably a lot of students who would love to slow their lives
down if they thought they could afford it (and not just in the
fiscal sense).

Many people measure their quality of life based on material
wealth and security. Better cars and clothes, good food and the
prospect of a fat paycheck are enough to make some people feel
pretty good ““ at least on the psychological surface. But
material possessions are not enough to make life meaningful or
fulfilling.

According to the early psychologist Abraham Maslow, humans have
a hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy starts with basic things like
food and shelter, and move up to love, esteem, and finally what he
called self-actualization.

Maslow’s hierarchy may be a bit abstract and arbitrary,
but his basic idea has merit ““ humans need material wealth up
to a certain point, but beyond certain basic needs, there are many
forms of emotional and psychological satisfaction.

Here at UCLA we all have tremendous opportunities. It is
important for us to consider what we have, and what we really need
and want in our lives. The answer might be more clothes ““ or
it might be more intellectual exploration, more time with family,
or simply slowing down a bit.