The Problem With Axing Lower-Division Courses

Robert Oliphant’s argument for having all lower-division teaching concentrated in the community colleges (“Eliminating the Lower Divisions,” March 19) does have one serious flaw. His proposal might indeed benefit students and taxpayers alike were it not for the fact that the same financial pressures which handicap the faculty teaching at four-year schools are even more intense at the community college level.

What has been keeping those of us who do teach transfer courses in the community colleges honest is the idea that we must try to offer at least as good a preparation for our upper-division work as would be available in other segments of California higher education. I would like to think any logic course I teach at Pierce College is comparable to what a student would get at CSUN or UCLA, but to keep it this way, I have to work many students far harder than they want to work. This contributes to a greater dropout rate than might please any administrator who is primarily interested in a body count for the sake of greater compensation from the state treasury.

Imagine now that there is no lower-division logic course at CSUN or UCLA. There is little I can say when I am asked why I risk losing students (and state funds) by taking my job too seriously. Why not then just meet the expectations today’s students bring with them from high school (those who show up and look cooperative will get A’s) rather than provide any real preparation for what they will encounter after transfer? At that point, I’m sure Oliphant would be as unhappy with us as we often tend to be with those who teach in the high schools.

I do appreciate Oliphant’s vote of confidence in community college teachers, but what concerns me is that he fails to take into account the limitations of community college administrators.

DOUGLASS McFERRAN

Philosophy instructor, Pierce College