Even as the days of President George W. Bush’s administration are at last numbered and America poises to choose its next potential disaster, I can stand proud and say that I have not yet submitted to political hype that has since seized the nation. While I don’t intend to sound conceited, I also don’t pretend to stand alone in the belief that even as the daily news is swamped with pictures of press conferences, allegations of racism, and Sedona barbeques, sometimes the issues are lost beneath the waves of what really is important.
Take our nation’s education. I seem to recall that, at least at some point since last November, it was a hot issue of sort and a point of frustration for me. However, even as our Democratic candidates rally around the out-and-out (merciful) execution of the No Child Left Behind Act, I think it similarly depressing that we take for granted the possibility that there may be people who do not concur with our point of view.
In light of this desire to hear what others think, I recently sought the opinion of 78-year-old Mildred Kahn. As I met with this woman, who has such a Rockwell-grandmother appeal to her, I had no presumption that my views would be well-met in the slightest. However, Mildred surprised me when I asked for her opinion on the state of public education.
“Horse feathers. . . It’s unreal what’s going on,” responded Ms. Kahn, an answer that shocked me, if only in its rapidity. “It’s the children that suffer, as the quality of education goes down.”
Mildred speaks as if there is a great fire building up inside her that’s desperately craving oxygen to lash out at any moment. That moment arose when I questioned her about the hiring of teachers. “It’s terrible. It’s not what you know, but who you know when it comes down to it. First things first: we need to start getting rid of politics everywhere in school,” said Ms. Kahn.
As a great-grandmother, Mildred also mentioned the infamous No Child Left Behind Act, and how she feels it’s not working, to say the least. “Children need to read and write and it’s the schools fault this isn’t occurring. Parents can only do so much because of their hectic work schedule. Parents work hard to give them everything that [their children] need. They can’t be asked to tutor them in the things they aren’t [learning].”
Though Ms. Kahn fondly remembers a time when, as she puts it, “you didn’t need college,” she also recognizes the need for higher education in a world of increasing specialization. “How do you expect kids to go to college when schools aren’t preparing them for it?”
Apparently, we young folk aren’t the only ones fearful for lack of certainty in our children’s future.
Matthew Gobbler '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Sincere Voting
“Barak Obama works with Muslim terrorist organizations, Hillary Clinton fakes her tears for sympathy, and John McCain led a prison camp to freedom with a Rambo-style escape during his Vietnam War tour.” As false as the previous sentence is, there are many people across this nation who have made their voting decisions based on such bogus legends. If a voter has not taken the time to find out what a candidate for president supports and does not support, then the smart action would be to find out some facts about the candidate or do not vote at all.
Unfortunately, there are people within every break-room, classroom or place of social gathering who will not support certain candidates because of a tall-tale their racist, sexist, or ageist friend/parent/relative who told them. Anyone who takes the word of a biased informer without seeking answers from a credible source does not deserve a voice in this election; he or she does not deserve to vote! This election has been entrenched with hype over factors that have nothing to do with being a good president and everything to do with pop culture obsessions including Obama’s race, Hillary’s gender, and McCain’s war experience.
All candidates do their fair share of building up these trivial matters in public appearances, but behind the malarkey lay large amounts of information people need to know in order to decide if Clinton, Obama, or McCain is indeed the candidate for them. It is one thing to ask the stranger at the bus stop who happens to hate Hillary Clinton because her health care plan failed the first time she tried to pass it. But it’s a completely different scenario to hear her talk about her plans for health care while she debates against other candidates over the same subject.
Watching debates on television, researching campaign sites on the internet, or reading about the candidates in commendable publications are a few ways a voter can learn about a presidential candidate. However, the number of available forms of media to learn about the candidates is not the problem. The true issue lies with the voters taking the initiative to at least view the contestants’ policies once before and after primary elections. This process takes about an hour to complete and could only benefit a voter with more knowledge.
Voting is a privilege that can benefit every citizen in the U.S as long as there is an element of sincerity that surrounds the process. The next time someone in your break-room says “I’m not voting for Obama because he will be sworn in on the Koran,” please do us all a favor and rhetorically slap him or her with the proverbial “think and educate yourself before you vote!”
David Lewis '10
Wilkes University
Communitcations Studies/English
Unfortunately, there are people within every break-room, classroom or place of social gathering who will not support certain candidates because of a tall-tale their racist, sexist, or ageist friend/parent/relative who told them. Anyone who takes the word of a biased informer without seeking answers from a credible source does not deserve a voice in this election; he or she does not deserve to vote! This election has been entrenched with hype over factors that have nothing to do with being a good president and everything to do with pop culture obsessions including Obama’s race, Hillary’s gender, and McCain’s war experience.
All candidates do their fair share of building up these trivial matters in public appearances, but behind the malarkey lay large amounts of information people need to know in order to decide if Clinton, Obama, or McCain is indeed the candidate for them. It is one thing to ask the stranger at the bus stop who happens to hate Hillary Clinton because her health care plan failed the first time she tried to pass it. But it’s a completely different scenario to hear her talk about her plans for health care while she debates against other candidates over the same subject.
Watching debates on television, researching campaign sites on the internet, or reading about the candidates in commendable publications are a few ways a voter can learn about a presidential candidate. However, the number of available forms of media to learn about the candidates is not the problem. The true issue lies with the voters taking the initiative to at least view the contestants’ policies once before and after primary elections. This process takes about an hour to complete and could only benefit a voter with more knowledge.
Voting is a privilege that can benefit every citizen in the U.S as long as there is an element of sincerity that surrounds the process. The next time someone in your break-room says “I’m not voting for Obama because he will be sworn in on the Koran,” please do us all a favor and rhetorically slap him or her with the proverbial “think and educate yourself before you vote!”
David Lewis '10
Wilkes University
Communitcations Studies/English
Don’t Let Gender Define this Campaign
With the upcoming Pennsylvania primary just a few weeks away, and considering the importance our state can have on which Democratic presidential candidate gets the nomination, I wanted to remind local residents of the importance of voting for a candidate based on their plan of action, rather than their race or gender.
I’m going through an invaluable experience this semester by studying each candidate and how they plan to make our country better, and I’m also learning how campaigns “spin” a message to their candidate’s advantage. And you know, for the first time I feel educated about the political process. But, it really upsets me when I have taken the time out to study each candidate’s plan of action to find that there are people here in Wilkes-Barre, and across the country for that matter, who vote in the primary based on gender or race alone. Or, they vote on looks as the sole reason for acceptance. Now, I don’t mind if someone is voting for John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, but let’s have some sense when we go to the voting booth!
In this upcoming primary in particular, I’ve heard countless women, including my mother, say they’ll vote for Hillary because “we need a woman as President because a man couldn’t get the job done.” Vote for Hillary, but do it because you find her universal health care plan irresistible, or because you have a child going to college in the near future and you like her ideas to make his or her education more affordable. To strip each candidate to simply their race or gender is being simple and narrow-minded.
I’m not being naive on this issue. I know there will always be people who will vote for a candidate because they like their inspirational speeches or they like their significant other, who previously served in office. But, in a critical primary that can potentially shape the next couple of generations, how about we look at the content of the speeches, rather than listen to the supporters strategically clap between every other sentence?
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
I’m going through an invaluable experience this semester by studying each candidate and how they plan to make our country better, and I’m also learning how campaigns “spin” a message to their candidate’s advantage. And you know, for the first time I feel educated about the political process. But, it really upsets me when I have taken the time out to study each candidate’s plan of action to find that there are people here in Wilkes-Barre, and across the country for that matter, who vote in the primary based on gender or race alone. Or, they vote on looks as the sole reason for acceptance. Now, I don’t mind if someone is voting for John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, but let’s have some sense when we go to the voting booth!
In this upcoming primary in particular, I’ve heard countless women, including my mother, say they’ll vote for Hillary because “we need a woman as President because a man couldn’t get the job done.” Vote for Hillary, but do it because you find her universal health care plan irresistible, or because you have a child going to college in the near future and you like her ideas to make his or her education more affordable. To strip each candidate to simply their race or gender is being simple and narrow-minded.
I’m not being naive on this issue. I know there will always be people who will vote for a candidate because they like their inspirational speeches or they like their significant other, who previously served in office. But, in a critical primary that can potentially shape the next couple of generations, how about we look at the content of the speeches, rather than listen to the supporters strategically clap between every other sentence?
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Friday, March 21, 2008
Hillary Gets My Vote on the Economy
Think back to 1929, the United States was in the largest slump it had ever been in and people were in a panic. Think now to 2008, thanks to President George W. Bush we may be headed in the same direction. John Schmitt and Dean Baker from the US Center for Economic and Policy Research say that, “A recession in 2008 would raise the national unemployment rate by between 2.1 and 3.8 percentage points, increasing the number of unemployed Americans by between 3.2 million and 5.8 million.”
As a graduating college senior this frightens me more than just a little. The stock market is dropping and the financial stability of our country is dropping, wake up people. Calvin Coolidge was a reason for the recession of 1929; do we want George W. Bush to be the cause of this one? We need to educate ourselves and be aware of this situation.
According to the Morgan Stanley global economic forum, we need to be educated on four main factors: “First, weak US demand may spill into overseas economies through a traditional trade channel, as slower growth in US imports will directly or indirectly affect exports in other regions. Under the trade umbrella, we include the cross-border flows of profits resulting from direct investment in the US. Second, financial channels are probably more important today; financial shocks that began with rising US mortgage defaults are now spilling over into a global credit squeeze, deleveraging of balance sheets, and tighter financial conditions in many markets. Third, the ebbing tide of US and global growth is exposing domestic weakness in economies that had been masked by the global boom of the past few years, so understanding domestic economic health is critical. Finally, while we aren’t bearish on commodities, it’s important to assess the effects on commodity producers of slower growth in demand.”
I’ve done my homework ladies and gentleman and all the facts are leading to one outcome, at least in my mind. A recession is approaching us at a rapid pace and we need to elect the right officials to do something about it. In my eyes, Hillary Clinton is just the right woman to take on this job.
Her economic plan includes establishing a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to help states and cities mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures, take action against the stem tide of foreclosure (which includes a 90-day moratorium on sub-prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages of at least five years), provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills, accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth, and to invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.
What does this mean to me? I am graduating from college in May, the real world is just on the horizon and the fact is I am going to need a job. Hillary’s plan will help to create jobs and open up new opportunities for those of us that need them. The truth is it just isn’t encouraging when your graduating college and the economy is experiencing its “down time.” With the help of young voters such as myself, we can make sure we choose the right person to help us through our journey. I don’t want to be standing in the unemployment line, do you?
Lindsay Padavan '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
As a graduating college senior this frightens me more than just a little. The stock market is dropping and the financial stability of our country is dropping, wake up people. Calvin Coolidge was a reason for the recession of 1929; do we want George W. Bush to be the cause of this one? We need to educate ourselves and be aware of this situation.
According to the Morgan Stanley global economic forum, we need to be educated on four main factors: “First, weak US demand may spill into overseas economies through a traditional trade channel, as slower growth in US imports will directly or indirectly affect exports in other regions. Under the trade umbrella, we include the cross-border flows of profits resulting from direct investment in the US. Second, financial channels are probably more important today; financial shocks that began with rising US mortgage defaults are now spilling over into a global credit squeeze, deleveraging of balance sheets, and tighter financial conditions in many markets. Third, the ebbing tide of US and global growth is exposing domestic weakness in economies that had been masked by the global boom of the past few years, so understanding domestic economic health is critical. Finally, while we aren’t bearish on commodities, it’s important to assess the effects on commodity producers of slower growth in demand.”
I’ve done my homework ladies and gentleman and all the facts are leading to one outcome, at least in my mind. A recession is approaching us at a rapid pace and we need to elect the right officials to do something about it. In my eyes, Hillary Clinton is just the right woman to take on this job.
Her economic plan includes establishing a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to help states and cities mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures, take action against the stem tide of foreclosure (which includes a 90-day moratorium on sub-prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages of at least five years), provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills, accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth, and to invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.
What does this mean to me? I am graduating from college in May, the real world is just on the horizon and the fact is I am going to need a job. Hillary’s plan will help to create jobs and open up new opportunities for those of us that need them. The truth is it just isn’t encouraging when your graduating college and the economy is experiencing its “down time.” With the help of young voters such as myself, we can make sure we choose the right person to help us through our journey. I don’t want to be standing in the unemployment line, do you?
Lindsay Padavan '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Sex, is this all that matters?
We constantly hear that 2008 is the year of presidential firsts. Well, what about concentrating on the content of someone’s character instead of their demographics? Let us be clear, Senator Clinton understood that the road ahead would not only break new ground, but also reopen the debate as to whether a woman could be elected President. Why does it matter that she chooses to take the road less traveled? Is it necessary that Americans continue to elect the same wealthy, Caucasian, middle-aged males? I think not.
Clinton, often referred to as “Hillary” by her competitors and the press, is seen simply as a woman. Her sex is discussed more than her political agenda. For example, in New Hampshire she was accused of crying. Who saw her cry? Where is the proof? I saw photos of a person showing emotion, but I did not see anyone crying. What I have seen is a woman prove that she is more than capable of playing with the big boys. Yet the American people cannot get past her sex. In fact, Senator Clinton has encountered several gender-based attacks and the use of the "B" word. While in Las Vegas for the Democratic debate she acknowledged that what she is aiming for is "toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling." My question is why, in today’s age, is that ceiling so high? And why is she the only one aiming towards an improbable goal?
As a twenty-year-old Latina voting this year, I personally do not look at the candidate’s demographics, but his or her knowledge on what our country needs. Having stated my personal opinion, I realize this is not the consensus amongst a majority of Americans. Instead, the media and many constituents have chosen to teach our youth that sex does matter. By making such a big deal about a woman candidate, people are demonstrating that sex is an issue and cannot be overlooked in a debate, an election, or simply put, a job. After all, that is what the presidency is. It’s a job, a very important job, but a job none the less. The male candidates have been asked about their views on politics, issues concerning America, and their personal beliefs. Senator Clinton has been asked similar questions, but also questions regarding her fashion and romantic life. For example on the Tyra Banks Show, Senator Clinton was asked about her headbands, a hair accessory she wore while Bill Clinton ran for President. She was also asked about her first date, but I do not recall Senator Obama talking about his first date or why he seems to wear blue ties so often. The only “firsts” discussed with Obama were his first job and first priorities if elected President of the United States.
It is shameful that when looking at our presidential candidates a majority of Americans merely see gender. Whatever happened to choosing the best person for the job and not the best sex for the position? I hope that in some ways people realize that if we truly are to claim advancement in the struggle of the sexes, America as a whole will need to treat all the Presidential candidates equally and not simply give “Hillary” a shot but give Senator Clinton an opportunity.
Valerie Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Clinton, often referred to as “Hillary” by her competitors and the press, is seen simply as a woman. Her sex is discussed more than her political agenda. For example, in New Hampshire she was accused of crying. Who saw her cry? Where is the proof? I saw photos of a person showing emotion, but I did not see anyone crying. What I have seen is a woman prove that she is more than capable of playing with the big boys. Yet the American people cannot get past her sex. In fact, Senator Clinton has encountered several gender-based attacks and the use of the "B" word. While in Las Vegas for the Democratic debate she acknowledged that what she is aiming for is "toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling." My question is why, in today’s age, is that ceiling so high? And why is she the only one aiming towards an improbable goal?
As a twenty-year-old Latina voting this year, I personally do not look at the candidate’s demographics, but his or her knowledge on what our country needs. Having stated my personal opinion, I realize this is not the consensus amongst a majority of Americans. Instead, the media and many constituents have chosen to teach our youth that sex does matter. By making such a big deal about a woman candidate, people are demonstrating that sex is an issue and cannot be overlooked in a debate, an election, or simply put, a job. After all, that is what the presidency is. It’s a job, a very important job, but a job none the less. The male candidates have been asked about their views on politics, issues concerning America, and their personal beliefs. Senator Clinton has been asked similar questions, but also questions regarding her fashion and romantic life. For example on the Tyra Banks Show, Senator Clinton was asked about her headbands, a hair accessory she wore while Bill Clinton ran for President. She was also asked about her first date, but I do not recall Senator Obama talking about his first date or why he seems to wear blue ties so often. The only “firsts” discussed with Obama were his first job and first priorities if elected President of the United States.
It is shameful that when looking at our presidential candidates a majority of Americans merely see gender. Whatever happened to choosing the best person for the job and not the best sex for the position? I hope that in some ways people realize that if we truly are to claim advancement in the struggle of the sexes, America as a whole will need to treat all the Presidential candidates equally and not simply give “Hillary” a shot but give Senator Clinton an opportunity.
Valerie Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I Don’t Want Candidates to Preach to Me—Separation of Church and State Matters to Me
With the upcoming 2008 presidential election, each candidate has a number of tough issues to address including the War in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, the environment, the economy, etc. While all of these issues are important and need to be examined carefully by each candidate before they make a decision about which stance they will take on them, I think the question of HOW they make their choice is also of equal importance.
As a young voter, I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If a candidate thinks abortion is wrong, I’d like to know what motivates them to think this way. If they say “I think abortion is wrong because I feel its murder.” I’m ok with that, and I can respect their opinion whether I agree with them or not. However, I tend to be offended when I hear a candidate say “I think abortion is wrong because God says it's wrong.” What God? Your God? My God? What about the people who don’t believe in any God? We’re supposed to have a separation between church and state in this country, so why bring God into your reasoning behind what stance you take on an issue? If your religious beliefs are the driving force behind how you vote and what laws you choose to pass, how is that keeping church and state separate?
The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion. If the lawmakers and presidential candidates are allowing their personal religious views to determine how they vote, how are they guaranteeing freedom of religion? If they outlaw gay marriage or abortion because their God says they should, what about the people who don’t believe in their God? Why should they be subjected to following a law based on something they don’t believe in?
When I look at a candidate I’m not looking for their religious affiliation, I look at their stance on the issues and the steps they’ve taken to resolve an issue. I don’t want to be preached to. I have my own views and can form my own opinions based on the facts. If I want religious commentary, I’ll attend a religious service. I’m not saying its wrong to be religious or its wrong not to be religious, people should live their lives in whatever way makes them happy. I also don’t believe that potential political leaders should be trying to sway people’s votes by trying to appeal to them on a religious moral level. If I like a candidate because of their stance on the issues and I hear them start preaching about how “God says this is wrong”, it’s going to turn me off and make me try to find someone who doesn’t have the “holier than thou” attitude.
People who are planning to vote in the 2008 election need to be able to think for themselves. Don’t allow someone’s religious views to cloud your judgment and ability to pick the candidate with the best ideas and solutions for an issue. Challenge yourself to look beyond where and who someone worships. Take a look at the issues that they see as important and what they plan to do about them, find out the facts, and make an educated decision. They’re not running for president of a religious organization, they’re running to represent and protect everyone in this country, not just the people who practice the same religion as them.
Jamie Gibson '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
As a young voter, I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If a candidate thinks abortion is wrong, I’d like to know what motivates them to think this way. If they say “I think abortion is wrong because I feel its murder.” I’m ok with that, and I can respect their opinion whether I agree with them or not. However, I tend to be offended when I hear a candidate say “I think abortion is wrong because God says it's wrong.” What God? Your God? My God? What about the people who don’t believe in any God? We’re supposed to have a separation between church and state in this country, so why bring God into your reasoning behind what stance you take on an issue? If your religious beliefs are the driving force behind how you vote and what laws you choose to pass, how is that keeping church and state separate?
The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion. If the lawmakers and presidential candidates are allowing their personal religious views to determine how they vote, how are they guaranteeing freedom of religion? If they outlaw gay marriage or abortion because their God says they should, what about the people who don’t believe in their God? Why should they be subjected to following a law based on something they don’t believe in?
When I look at a candidate I’m not looking for their religious affiliation, I look at their stance on the issues and the steps they’ve taken to resolve an issue. I don’t want to be preached to. I have my own views and can form my own opinions based on the facts. If I want religious commentary, I’ll attend a religious service. I’m not saying its wrong to be religious or its wrong not to be religious, people should live their lives in whatever way makes them happy. I also don’t believe that potential political leaders should be trying to sway people’s votes by trying to appeal to them on a religious moral level. If I like a candidate because of their stance on the issues and I hear them start preaching about how “God says this is wrong”, it’s going to turn me off and make me try to find someone who doesn’t have the “holier than thou” attitude.
People who are planning to vote in the 2008 election need to be able to think for themselves. Don’t allow someone’s religious views to cloud your judgment and ability to pick the candidate with the best ideas and solutions for an issue. Challenge yourself to look beyond where and who someone worships. Take a look at the issues that they see as important and what they plan to do about them, find out the facts, and make an educated decision. They’re not running for president of a religious organization, they’re running to represent and protect everyone in this country, not just the people who practice the same religion as them.
Jamie Gibson '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
What Can Obama and Clinton Do to Help Me Pay for My College Education and Reduce My Debt?
I am a first semester senior at Wilkes University and that means that I will be graduating next fall. If I do find a job in the communications field, it will most likely be low paying until I can work my way up the corporate ladder. Six months into my profession the bills for the loans that I had to take out will kick in.
My loans have been accumulating interest and now I will almost have to pay double the amount that I took out. In other words, the interest rate is variable and will go up. According to rockthevote.com, in 2005 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, “which cut $12 billion in federal student aid money…the plan includes a hike in interest rates on Stafford federal student loans (rose from 5.3% to 7.14% on existing loans and to 6.8 % on new loans) and loans taken out by parents (from 6.1 to 7.4 percent on existing loans and to 8.5% on new loans).
Why did Congress do this? According to collegejournal.com, “the reduced funding is part of a $40 billion deficit reduction passed by the Senate…to help limit spending…” As a college student, I have many worries on my mind once graduation comes, worries that I will address to the presidential candidates specifically. What can the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates do to help me pay for my education and reduce my debt?
In recent years the price of college level education has skyrocketed. According to rockthevote.com, college costs are up 35% in five years. As a student at Wilkes University I am paying about $34,180 for tuition and fees along with room and board. That phenomenal fee doesn’t include books, supplies, transportation, or living expenses like extra food and toiletries. According to current reports by the College Board, “most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $95 to $1,404 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college (http://www.collegeboard.com/).”
The top two Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are aiming their education policies at lower level rather than college level education. According to HillaryClinton.com, Senator Clinton is planning to increase the maximum Pell Grant, strengthen community colleges through a $500 million investment, create a graduation fund to increase college graduation rates, and increase to $10,000 the college scholarship for those who participate in AmeriCorps full-time for one year. All of these plans are good, but the policies are vague. What about students who will just be graduating? What can Senator Clinton do about the hike in interest rates on the loans, including private lender loans, that students will have to pay off in the next one to two years?
Senator Obama has a plan that supersedes that of Senator Clinton because he provides more information and more opportunities, but he still does not address the issue of loans, other than to support eliminating costly bank subsidies. “Obama will save taxpayer money billions by eliminating the more expensive private loan program and directing that money into aid for students” (http://www.barackobama.com). The issue of loans is addressed, but there is still nothing directed at the 60 percent of college students that will leave college with debt.
Here is a plea to the current Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, start addressing the issue of the cost of college education and reducing the amount of debt that college graduates will have. There will be 60 percent of students in America graduating who will be in debt and that large percentage needs the help of the government now.
Heather Chulick ‘08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
My loans have been accumulating interest and now I will almost have to pay double the amount that I took out. In other words, the interest rate is variable and will go up. According to rockthevote.com, in 2005 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, “which cut $12 billion in federal student aid money…the plan includes a hike in interest rates on Stafford federal student loans (rose from 5.3% to 7.14% on existing loans and to 6.8 % on new loans) and loans taken out by parents (from 6.1 to 7.4 percent on existing loans and to 8.5% on new loans).
Why did Congress do this? According to collegejournal.com, “the reduced funding is part of a $40 billion deficit reduction passed by the Senate…to help limit spending…” As a college student, I have many worries on my mind once graduation comes, worries that I will address to the presidential candidates specifically. What can the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates do to help me pay for my education and reduce my debt?
In recent years the price of college level education has skyrocketed. According to rockthevote.com, college costs are up 35% in five years. As a student at Wilkes University I am paying about $34,180 for tuition and fees along with room and board. That phenomenal fee doesn’t include books, supplies, transportation, or living expenses like extra food and toiletries. According to current reports by the College Board, “most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $95 to $1,404 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college (http://www.collegeboard.com/).”
The top two Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are aiming their education policies at lower level rather than college level education. According to HillaryClinton.com, Senator Clinton is planning to increase the maximum Pell Grant, strengthen community colleges through a $500 million investment, create a graduation fund to increase college graduation rates, and increase to $10,000 the college scholarship for those who participate in AmeriCorps full-time for one year. All of these plans are good, but the policies are vague. What about students who will just be graduating? What can Senator Clinton do about the hike in interest rates on the loans, including private lender loans, that students will have to pay off in the next one to two years?
Senator Obama has a plan that supersedes that of Senator Clinton because he provides more information and more opportunities, but he still does not address the issue of loans, other than to support eliminating costly bank subsidies. “Obama will save taxpayer money billions by eliminating the more expensive private loan program and directing that money into aid for students” (http://www.barackobama.com). The issue of loans is addressed, but there is still nothing directed at the 60 percent of college students that will leave college with debt.
Here is a plea to the current Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, start addressing the issue of the cost of college education and reducing the amount of debt that college graduates will have. There will be 60 percent of students in America graduating who will be in debt and that large percentage needs the help of the government now.
Heather Chulick ‘08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Monday, March 10, 2008
McCain’s Education Plan Gets an F: A Cross-Generational Opinion
The next President of the United States will likely have a great impact on our nation’s educational policy in the next four years and for generations to come. As a student, it is something that is very important to me, but it is also important to others as I found out on a recent visit to the local Jewish Community Center. Recently, our class met with our partners in a cross-generational voting project to determine the most important issues facing voters in the Pennsylvania presidential primary.
Through a conversation there with a senior citizen woman named Roz Smulowitz, it became obvious to me that education was an issue she felt very passionately about. Surprisingly, although our age difference was significant we found some common ground along with a few differences on this topic, especially when we discussed John McCain’s position.
John McCain supports a plan to improve and equalize education throughout the country by offering parents the “voucher” option of using taxpayer money to send their children to private schools. He believes this will provide parents with the power and financial ability to remove their children from those public schools which are failing. Neither Roz nor I see this an effective plan, but we have different primary reasons for why we disagree with it.
In my opinion John McCain’s plan does not address the actual problem at hand, which is the fact that there are many public schools of poor quality. What the United States government needs to do is work to improve these schools by increasing their funding and working to attract good teachers to these schools. Instead McCain would simply help some students to leave these schools and then let the institutions continue to grow worse.
Roz had a different reason for disagreeing with McCain’s plan. She believed that this idea could not work because a large number of students would overcrowd the private schools. Consequently, the quality of these schools would then decrease. While I agree with this point, I see it as secondary to the fact that this plan is not designed to meet the real need in the first place.
Obviously there are some possible flaws in McCain’s plan for education on several different levels. However, I think that John McCain, Roz, and myself can all agree that the current inequality in the quality of education that children receive across our nation is unacceptable.
Christine Zavaskas '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Through a conversation there with a senior citizen woman named Roz Smulowitz, it became obvious to me that education was an issue she felt very passionately about. Surprisingly, although our age difference was significant we found some common ground along with a few differences on this topic, especially when we discussed John McCain’s position.
John McCain supports a plan to improve and equalize education throughout the country by offering parents the “voucher” option of using taxpayer money to send their children to private schools. He believes this will provide parents with the power and financial ability to remove their children from those public schools which are failing. Neither Roz nor I see this an effective plan, but we have different primary reasons for why we disagree with it.
In my opinion John McCain’s plan does not address the actual problem at hand, which is the fact that there are many public schools of poor quality. What the United States government needs to do is work to improve these schools by increasing their funding and working to attract good teachers to these schools. Instead McCain would simply help some students to leave these schools and then let the institutions continue to grow worse.
Roz had a different reason for disagreeing with McCain’s plan. She believed that this idea could not work because a large number of students would overcrowd the private schools. Consequently, the quality of these schools would then decrease. While I agree with this point, I see it as secondary to the fact that this plan is not designed to meet the real need in the first place.
Obviously there are some possible flaws in McCain’s plan for education on several different levels. However, I think that John McCain, Roz, and myself can all agree that the current inequality in the quality of education that children receive across our nation is unacceptable.
Christine Zavaskas '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)