Colleges place price on ambition

By Safiya Merchant

At the beginning of my college application process, I decided to apply to more than five schools. I wanted to see how much financial aid each institution would offer, and then choose which school I wanted to attend. However, I did not know that the process of applying would be expensive as well.

In order to be considered for many institutions, you need to send transcripts, ACT scores, AP test scores, SAT subject test scores, financial documents, and the applications themselves. If you do not qualify for fee waivers, you can end up paying over $500 just to apply to school. Although I obtained fee waivers for my transcripts and applications (which I hope are accepted by the schools), the remaining amount that I have to pay is still too expensive. This is ridiculous. What do these fees even go towards? ‘Processing my ACT scores?’ What does that even mean? If it means printing out my scores from a computer and using their paper and ink, I want my money back. When ACT sent us our scores last year, I kept my official score report. I wanted to photo-copy my report and send that to the schools instead of sending it electronically. However, that wasn’t good enough for my choices. They needed the electronic and expensive version. How paranoid are the admission committees at these schools? Do they really think that I bribed my teachers, counselors, principal, and the ACT agency itself to lie for me and say that I got a higher score? Right…like I really have that much power. Since these fees must also be paid before you can be considered for admission, it is as if I’m paying for my rejection letter.

When counselors, teachers, and Lane’s inspirational assemblies told us to apply to about five schools, they never mentioned that I had to pay for being goal-oriented and ambitious. Nowadays, it is too expensive to want a future, and to some students, attending college is not worth the hefty price. That’s why many students decide to not attend college and to start making money right after graduation.

I also got very angry when I heard that I had to send the CSS Financial Profile to many of my college choices. This profile costs about $16.00 to send to each school and if you’re applying to six schools, you already racked up $96.00 right there. And this profile is supposed to show that I NEED money? I think that colleges and agencies like ACT have figured out every way to suck the money out of our pockets before we are even admitted to their schools.

College has become a giant business corporation whose product is a “respectable education.” I think that the primary goal of a university should be to encourage and to nurture its students, not condemn them for wanting an education. If you want to make lots of money, it seems that you have to have lots of money in the first place. As a result of this trend, everybody on the poorer end of the social spectrum cannot utilize their full potential, and those with wealth are those who win.

Politicians bring to light issues of racial sensitivity in their use of language

By Melanie Johnson

Rod Blagojevich has been ridiculed recently because of comments characterizing himself as black. “I’m blacker than Barack Obama,” he said. “I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived; I saw it all growing up.”

I believe that Blagojevich was trying to illustrate the adversity and circumstances he faced growing up. His point was to show how hard he had to work to become successful; it wasn’t just handed to him on a silver platter. Still, comments like these make me wonder what others think it means to be “black,” and what does it take to be a successful African American in this country? In Blagojevich’s case owning a laundromat, living in an apartment, and being poor makes him more like a black person. Others may criticize these comments but deep inside they probably feel the same way – including blacks.

Just a few days before Blagojevich’s quote, Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid, issued an apology for his controversial comments that created great turmoil in the media and political world. It was revealed in an upcoming book, ColorBlindness, that Reid privately said that he believed Barack Obama was well suited for a presidential run because he is a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Even though many found this disrespectful and racist, I believe that Harry Reid’s words are a perspective that many people in America hold, especially in the workforce. Reid’s comments broadcasted how blacks are perceived in America, and even though it was offensive I think it was an eye opener for blacks to get their act together and change for the better.

While Reid was wrong for implying that Obama was more successful because he is lighter skinned, I believe that he did make a valid point regarding dialect and how he speaks. Ebonics and slang is common in the black community, though is widely considered unprofessional to use in the workplace. It is unlikely that people would get hired if in their interview they said things like: “ya’ll should hire me” or “wa’tch iz da qualifications fo’ dis job.” How one talks can take away from their presentation and credentials.

I believe many blacks were offended by Reid’s reference to black vernacular not because it isn’t true but because it came from a white man. If Jesse Jackson had said it, blacks would not have been as offended.

We all have controversial opinions about other races and ethnicities. Today people are highly sensitive when people mention their race or compare themselves to others. Many tensions still exist between Americans because of past mistreatment. But if perceptions between people of different races are to change, it will require that people be more sensitive about what they say and less sensitive about what they hear.

Universal Healthcare should be available to everyone

By Stephanie Pineda

With Republican Scott Brown’s victory over Democrat Martha Coakley and Independent Joe Kennedy in the Jan. 19 special election in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat, any efforts for a universal healthcare program were highly compromised. This is because Democrats now only have 59 Senate seats which enables Republicans to prevent a bill from being passed via a filibuster, which is an extended debate on a proposal in order to delay or entirely delay a vote on it. Thus, since most Republicans are against a healthcare reform, Scott Brown’s victory takes the super majority (3/5) away from Democrats, making it more difficult for them to pass a bill. I cannot say that, personally, I am utterly devastated by this news, but I am not pleased either.

I am lucky enough to have health insurance, so whether or not a universal healthcare program was approved would not have a direct negative effect on me. Nonetheless, I feel that for the sake of others, who can testify to needing it more than I, universal healthcare would be very beneficial. It would be extremely useful to people who cannot currently afford health insurance.

People against universal healthcare argue that it would lead to an increase in taxes. However, there are already existing laws that require emergency rooms to see patients even if they do not have health insurance. This costs hospitals money, which is passed to consumers and insurance companies. With a universal healthcare program, people who do not currently have health insurance would pay for it through taxes, and the new distributed cost would decrease the personal expenses of those who already pay for private insurance, so in reality it would be a winning situation for those so strongly opposed to it.

“Healthy” people who take care of themselves may argue that they will have to pay for the burden of smokers, obese people, etc. It is even argued that the government would be more likely to form additional restrictions by increasing taxes on cigarettes, fast food, etc., leading to a loss of their personal freedoms. The way I see it, though, this would be beneficial because smoking and obesity are responsible for so many preventable deaths in America that by increasing taxes on these unhealthy habits less people would engage in them. Therefore, we could potentially diminish the number of deaths they cause each year, and said taxes would only be a good thing for everyone.

Universal healthcare would ultimately cover everyone, regardless of whether they are employed or not, which is a huge issue because it deters many people from supporting it. Thus, people may argue that they refuse to pay for the health insurance of “lazy” people who do not work. However, with the recession we are currently in, these conservatives who are so opposed to Universal Healthcare should realize that jobs are scarce right now, and people do not always have a choice as to whether or not they are employed.

That being said, there are also people out there who hold down two or three jobs just to try to provide for their families, and it still does not suffice for health insurance. Is it fair to neglect these people healthcare simply because they cannot afford it? I think not. We are all human and deserve to be cared for, regardless of the amount of money we possess. I fail to see how lending a helping hand to those less fortunate can be so detrimental. What is wrong with people these days that it “hurts” them so much to help others? The United States spends more money on healthcare than any other developed nation. Why not offer this to everyone and not just a select few? Ultimately, “paying for other people’s insurance” should be the last thing on anyone’s mind when debating this topic.

These conservatives also look at universal healthcare in other countries where it is already an established program and argue that it is inefficient because patients are often subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. They say that it often takes a month for someone to see a specialist. Honestly, though, even with private healthcare it can often take that long to see a specialist, but with the many doctors we have in the United States, I do not see that being a problem, where we go to get universal healthcare; rather, it could prove to be quite efficient in getting people to a doctor or specialist more quickly because everyone would have equal rights to see a specialist since they would all be equally insured.

In the end, universal healthcare would prove to be beneficial to all, regardless of economic statuses, and it is very ignorant for conservatives to not want to consider this opportunity to help our country and the people in it. I particularly think Scott Brown is a hypocrite in being against Universal Healthcare considering the state of Massachusetts has had Universal Healthcare since 2006, so why not expand that to the entire United States, Mr. Senator?

Ask Ash: Am I wasting my time on him?

Dear Ash,

-Hopeless and Confused.

Dear Hopeless and Confused,

From the way I see it you have two different options here. You could either hold on and keep waiting and waiting for him to be ready, or you can let go and be stress free and just do your own thing. Honestly, holding on to him might just waste all of your time. From the way you put it, I truly don’t see you guys getting together anytime soon. Just because he needs all this time doesn’t necessarily mean you should sit around waiting. It’s not fair to you and things shouldn’t only be his way. Try to move on and find someone who puts as much into your relationship as you do. You don’t need to be with someone who’s basically pulling you along on a string. I honestly think that since he knows you’re always there and still keep trying, he’s going to use that against you. He’s doing his own thing yet still dragging you along because of the simple fact that you let him know you’re still trying. Stop putting yourself out there if he’s only going to shut you down. It is obvious you care, but maybe more then you should. It takes two to be in a relationship. Remember that. Be independent and show this boy that you don’t need him in order to be happy.

-Ash.

Dear Ash,

-Non-experienced Girl.

Dear Non-experienced Girl,

Take a step back and realize what you wrote to me. I think it’s great that you guys are talking and starting to like each other a lot, as long as you’re happy. But stop thinking that you won’t be ready or good enough for him. Your virginity is something special that no one can take from you unless you let them. Girls who are virgins should be proud to say it. Being a virgin doesn’t make you look little or stupid or not ready, it makes you look like such a great person. Guys will respect you more and look at you better if you are a virgin. And honestly, if this guy doesn’t want you because you choose to keep your virginity then you don’t need him anyways. A guy like that is no where near worth your time or any part of you. Keep your virginity as long as you can, because it is the one thing that is truly yours. Don’t be ashamed and always remember it’s a good thing.

-Ash.

If you have questions or just want someone to talk to, feel free to email me at angrant21@yahoo.com.