Dear Editor,
As a member of the graduating class of 2000 I was extremely disheartened to hear that this year we would not be receiving a yearbook [“College memories through yearbook may be thing of past,” May 5]. Instead, it seems, we will be receiving a video yearbook. That we are not receiving a yearbook seems, to me, yet another step in the progression of eliminating ULV traditions. After conducting a little research into the matter of the tradition of yearbooks, I found that there are only three years unaccounted for in a printed yearbook. The years 1916 and 1917 didn’t receive a yearbook due to World War I … reasonable enough. I wasn’t able to find a reason why the class of 1920 didn’t receive a yearbook … a striking parallel to this year.
Since coming to ULV in 1996, I have seen several ULV traditions eliminated or relegated to a position of no importance. For instance, we no longer have “L” Day and for good reason. We don’t do anything to commemorate “L” Day and it seems like the new incoming classes aren’t being taught about “L” Day. Another tradition that seems to have been scrapped is our history of small class sizes. La Verne has, apparently, prided itself on low teacher-to-student ratios. Yet in recent years, as enrollment has increased, the ratio has suffered and housing has become overwhelmed.
As a future alumnus I was hoping to be able to be a part of ULV’s long and proud tradition. I wore my finest clothes for my senior portrait and even polished my shoes. But now there is no yearbook and my senior year will not be chronicled. How will future classes remember their ULV experience and the heritage that they are inheriting?
Rick Garcia
Senior
Dear Editor,
I was particularly amused by the number of column inches devoted to the article entitled “ULV takes center stage at press convention,” [May 5] or perhaps, more aptly put, “ULV Journalism Department takes …,” a piece marred by details that were irrelevant and served as grave markers for a story that was lifeless. Was it essential for the readers to learn that the previous year’s competition was poorly run or that “we could do it better”? I don’t think so.
An article that should have acknowledged the effort and accomplishments of the students who received the awards, simply mentioned various departments. People identify with individuals, not classifications. How boring it would be to read that X number of people in the psychology department had made the Dean’s List or that Universal Studios had won five Oscars at the Academy Awards, while omitting the names of the honorees.
Yes, time is of the essence and deadlines are pressing, but why the need to focus on the thoughts viewed by one major within the department. In the real world the diligent reporter gathers details from a VARIETY of sources, not what is merely convenient. The article was an insult to your photography, radio and television colleagues and a disservice to the readers.
Jon Nichols
1995 Alumnus
Rick Garcia