Lately there has been a lot of commentary about Teach for America, a nonprofit organization that primarily puts recent college grads into low income and rural classrooms across the United States. In previous years, Teach for America not only offered its workers full teaching salaries and school loan deferment, but also educational awards of more than $4,000 per year to be put toward continuing their education.

But last year, because of budget cuts, Teach for America had to abandon the award program, thus losing a substantial incentive to join. Now, the organization that seeks to revitalize inner city schools and empower underprivileged students is trying to maintain itself by drumming up interest at the UA through informative meetings and luncheons.

Obviously, the shortcomings of secondary and elementary schools are not distant problems we simply read about. As members of a college campus in Arizona, we feel the effects of poor public education. Though the diversity issues raised by "Focused Excellence" have taken a momentary backseat to program cuts, we must keep in mind that, in addition to steady tuition increases, President Peter Likins has promised higher admissions standards.

While this initially sounds like a great idea, especially from a Darwinian perspective on higher education ÷ i.e. more focused students, more challenging coursework and a more valuable degree for those who can hack it ÷ we must ask who we'll be leaving behind.

After all, since when do high school GPAs and standardized test scores guarantee intelligence or a lack thereof? The UA is a state school designed to serve its state, yet despite all Likins' long- and short-term actions to build diversity, this plan hardly reflects the interests and needs of Arizona.

Sabrina Noble Columnist

While an "excellent" and "elite" state university is certainly an exciting idea, it neglects the students who, by the circumstance of their sub-par schooling, can't throw out the numbers the UA requires, regardless of the promise their under-funded and under-motivated secondary schools never tapped. In 2000, 25.3 percent of the Arizona population was of Hispanic or Latino origin, and 5 percent was Native American. Yet, only 13.2 percent and 2 percent of the entire UA student body in fall 2002 was made up of these minorities, respectively ÷ while the school percentage of white students was 2 percent higher than Arizona's demographic average. Without doubt, the crucial factor here is money ÷ who has it and who doesn't.

If the underprivileged can't even get into their own state schools, what are they to do?

As Teach for America knows, most of the students who slip through the cracks are minorities, and it's not because they aren't just as smart. Rather, they are the ones who, because of socioeconomic reasons, are conspicuously neglected until it's time to meet quotas. If this inequality were not the case, affirmative action ÷ which is still alive and well, as seen by the University of Michigan fiasco this summer ÷ would not even be necessary. Compensation is in order not because of race, but because education is not yet fairly given and equally received · which is precisely why Teach for America and similar programs are so desperately needed.

This inequality is especially true in Arizona; in Education Week's "Quality Counts 2003" Report Card, Arizona earned an 'F' in Resources Adequacy and a 'D+' in Resources Equity. In 2002, this state ranked very last in the United States for its spending per individual student.

Until we fix Arizona's public school system, no amount of idealism in higher education is going to usher in true diversity, simply because so many students aren't making it from high school to college. Unless we get Arizona's kids on the right track, higher admission standards will only widen the gap between the haves and have-nots ÷ not to mention lead to appalling new systems of affirmative action in order to hide the signs of poor schooling.

And besides, even if the UA's Diversity Action Plan can get under-privileged minorities and low-income students onto campus, it can't place them on an equal footing once they're in the classroom. That must begin much earlier, before they fall three to five years behind the national average of math and reading skills.

Arizonans and all Americans would be best served by looking at the root of the problem: elementary and secondary education across all levels of income.

And meanwhile, Teach for America funding has been cut? Doesn't anyone have their priorities straight?

UA students must claim responsibility for the talent unfairly left behind. To say life's about survival of the fittest is lazy ignorance. Rather, we must reach out to all the talent, creativity and promise that are being lost in the shuffle.

Sabrina Noble is an English and creative writing senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu