Editorial: Stricter drop policy is unnecessary, restrictive

A dramatic proposal that would restrict when students are
allowed to withdraw from class is currently pending in the Academic
Senate. It is an unnecessary restriction further limiting academic
flexibility and should not be implemented.

The Faculty Executive Committee will decide on May 6 whether
students in the UCLA College will be allowed to withdraw from
classes after fourth week. Currently, students are permitted to
drop until the last day of instruction ““ although the
withdrawal appears on their transcripts.

The new rule is meant to prevent students from slacking off late
into the quarter and then dropping classes. Proponents of the
change say it will prevent students from shopping for easy courses
and taking up seats in classes they will eventually drop.

But the Faculty Executive Committee must look at the myriad of
reasons why a strict policy is superfluous.

Current policies contain adequate hurdles and consequences for
students who decide to withdraw late. Most noticeably, professors
must approve all drops past fourth week. Should instructors feel it
is in the best interest of the class, they should let students know
on the first day that they won’t sign withdrawal forms.

The most obvious consequence is the W the student receives.
Graduate schools and employers have no illusions about what a W in
ninth or 10th week means ““ withdrawing is not a free
pass.

Students also already have enough reasons to be efficient.

Fees have nearly doubled in the past four years, inherently
making each class more expensive. Students are more motivated than
ever to proceed smoothly through UCLA. Randomly dropping classes
becomes a costly proposal.

Additionally, the Expected Cumulative Progress requirement
ensures students stay on track by verifying students accumulate
units at a healthy pace.

There is no guarantee a new drop policy will make students work
harder or take classes more seriously. More likely, students will
refrain from taking academic risks. Giving students Ds and Fs
instead of Ws doesn’t seem like the best way to encourage
academic rigor.

And ultimately, the university doesn’t need yet another
bureaucratic crackdown. Instead, the obvious solution is to let
individual professors set drop policies.

Restrictions on academic flexibility are a necessary evil
““ but UCLA already has plenty.

Such limitations make it easy to imagine others ““ perhaps
a requirement that freshmen declare a major by the end of their
first year. Certainly, there are plenty of ways to expedite student
progress, but at what cost?

While such policies may serve the university in the short term,
they slowly eat away at the quality of student life.

As the university becomes more efficient, it narrows the
latitude of experience students can explore.

Yes, other schools may have more conservative drop deadlines.
Yes, the UC Office of the President may be pressuring stricter
policies in a time of budget cuts. But ultimately, the education of
students should not be an efficient enterprise.