By Claire Parsons
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that most of you think the recent tuition increase sucks, and I’d be willing to bet the amount that Papa John’s Stadium was over budget that you think the same about the athletics fee. Unfortunately, these are just the latest in a long line of policy changes on campus.
U of L has been attempting to give itself a makeover since Shumaker got here, and we are continuing that effort despite him leaving us for our richer and larger neighbor to the south. What, precisely, does this makeover entail?
Let’s start with the most pointless first: the new grade scale. As if some little plus or minus attached to my letter grade is going to make me attend a class I hate or study more when there is a perfectly good South Park rerun on. After that, we have the attempt to squeeze as many people into on-campus housing as is humanly possible. Next, we have the increased support for athletics at the expense of regular students. Finally, one must remember the university’s attempt to build up our reputation as a research center.
In case my blatantly bitter tone in the first two paragraphs hasn’t conveyed my skepticism at our “Dare to be great” plan, allow me to be blunt: the current plan to pull U of L out of the doldrums of Kentucky educational mediocrity is a fa?ade. None of the mentioned changes do anything to help professors disseminate or students absorb knowledge better. They are merely the shiny gadget or new car that helps our university look like it’s keeping up with the Joneses.
Who, you might be asking yourself, are the Joneses? Who is it that we are trying so desperately to keep up with? Who is it that our university has been measuring itself against? UK, of course. The University of Kentucky has been for us the big brother whose shadow we have not been able to escape. Sure, we got Rick, but they have everything else we want.
Trusting the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” logic, U of L has set out on a quest to be the best copy of UK it can be. We are beefing up our research departments, nourishing our athletics with the money necessary for growth, and steering ourselves away from the label of “commuter school.” For the most part, these efforts have not been in vain. We are beginning to compete with UK in most areas, and we’ve even surpassed them in tuition.
Since the recent changes seem to be working, why, then, do I complain? The first reason is that that is what I do. The second, and more important reason is that these changes, though they might give U of L greater prestige, don’t help the students very much. Despite what some people may say, a university’s main goal should be education.
Right now, U of L’s goal seems to be marketing. If you don’t believe that, consider the money UT threw at Shumaker. He was like a free agent in the NBA with 30 points per game average. In starting U of L down the road of good academic repute, Shumaker made himself a hot commodity.
It’s not that I don’t appreciate attempts to reform our institution for the better. However, copying UK’s blasŽ attitude toward its undergraduate students is not the way to go.
If you want to help the students learn, help us find a place to park so we can go to class without resorting to homicide, or give us better facilities where we can study and attend class.
Don’t waste our time with the “greatness” of U of L, because we don’t care. We don’t read the brochures they send to the parents of high school seniors. We just go to school here.
