While none of the tickets competing for Undergraduate Student Government president and vice president have emerged as particularly impressive, one ticket is clearly more informed on issues and student needs.

Jim Ryerson and Candice Anderson represent the best chance for progress on issues ranging from tuition increases to library funding. These candidates have done their homework.

They realize the importance of lobbying state legislators and have experience in dealing with University and state officials. Ryerson worked to help form an alliance of state-related schools, a lobbying organization comprising Penn State, University of Pittsburgh, Lincoln and Temple.

In addition, Ryerson, the current USG executive assistant, took part in last week's tuition workshop held at the University Board of Trustees meeting in Hershey.

These candidates have also recognized the need for a line-by-line open budget. A closed budget inhibits accountability and masks the problem of salary discrimination. Not only have Ryerson and Anderson displayed a working knowledge of the budget process, but Ryerson has pledged to sue the University if it fails to comply with the proposed Cowell Bill, which would fully open the budget.

Beyond these plans, Ryerson and Anderson support expansion of the HUB and Paul Robeson Cultural Center. And they have pledged to create the Department for Education Affordability, which would coordinate efforts to fight for increased state funds. This department could be a valuable asset in the constant struggle with legislators for more state appropriations.

They also acknowlege the problems with the current USG administration and have pledged to combat them. Specifically, Ryerson and Anderson said they would be more aggressive in talking directly with students and would not support closing USG meetings except when discussing personnel matters.

While these ideas would certainly help to improve the University, there are some flaws in their platform. Their proposed USG loan program is an interesting idea but should not detract from commitment to more important issues.

Another shortcoming concerns the ticket's inadequate response to minority issues, such as recruitment and retention and the campus environment.

It is also important to note that both candidates are involved in the current administration, which has been ineffective at generating student interest and involvement in USG. This year's small number of USG candidates is evidence of that.

Ryerson and Anderson must stick to their promises and work especially hard to combat the apathy perpetuated by the current administration.

Unfortunately, that apathy has resulted in a field of relatively mediocre candidates without much distinction among their platforms. But the Ryerson/Anderson ticket represents the most informed and experienced choice for Wednesday's USG election.