My comment

In response to my classmate's blog

I agree with this article. The top 10% rule is the most inefficient way to admit students into state Universities. This process eliminates the selection of students based upon their character and possibility of academic achievement. Also, with a rising population, the top number of top 10% students increase as well. The matter of fact is that not all top 10% students are of the same academic quality. Many students aspire to enter famous state Universities, but end up being turned down.

Also, increasing higher education schools wouldn't help the economy or provide better education. Like my classmate said, they would not be properly funded and wouldn't have the same quality as an established University.

The Solution?

The economy is still one of our primary concerns today and it doesn't look like it will improve at a faster rate than it is declining. So how will this issue be solved? There's an extremely high amount of unemployed people out there waiting for available jobs, but as soon as they create new jobs, they're taken up. Or if they're hiring employees for open spots, many people will be turned down. But the economy doesn't only affect people who are unemployed/laid off, it's affecting many others too.

-College students are finding it much harder to start education beyond high school. Tuition rates for Universities are rising rapidly. Many students start college in debt by using financial aid and loans, but they're in more debt when they graduate. Plus, with the shortages of available jobs, many college graduates come out unemployed and in debt.

-Small businesses struggle as well. It's a hard start because you have to save your money just to pay the lease and purchase your own equipment. Once you finally open, it's your only chance to attract and impress customers. If you can't do that, then financing will be rough and the store will probably close out immediately after it's leasing contract.

These are only 2 brief examples, but everyone in the nation is slowly suffering from this situation. Money is what we all need to support ourselves and our families, but how will we get it? Jobs are scarce and businesses are struggling. Who do we turn to? The government gets their money from us, and spends most of it on other things than the people. We can't just print out money and hand it to everyone within the state. We're all relying on experts and our government to pull us out, but they're stuck too. There has to be an efficient plan that helps us rise out of this economic chaos and prevent future crashes. What good is a solution if it only works today and not tomorrow?

My comment

In response to Adam Ryan's post.

I see your argument on this topic, but I think that this law would disrupt the environment of a higher educational campus. Its not because I don't see good in other people, but the fact that certain people have "potential" power that benefits them. I wouldn't want to be stuck on campus due to several students stuck in a standoff, wear a bullet-proof vest everyday to keep myself safe, or constantly worry if there's somebody waiting to mug me. Student safety on all levels of education is a concern, but there are other ways to approach this issue.

If we mandate passengers to go through metal detectors to get on a plane, why not implement them for school? It does cost money, but our government is concerned elsewhere with it's investments. A student with a gun on campus has any potential, regardless of their character. Sure they may save a live or several of them, but we all can't be heroes.

The Number is 6

As the title says, the magic number of courses you are allowed to drop in your undergraduate study is 6. This is a law that was passed by the Texas Legislature back in 2007. Their goal is to punish those who drop and to encourage people to finish their degrees on time. How far is government allowed to shove their foot in the education process? They're encouraging education by restricting it, a policy that contradicts itself. I believe that this policy should be nullified because people are entitled to enroll/withdraw on their own consent.

There are several reasons people may drop a course.

*Severe illnesses/injuries- People don't plan to have life saving surgery or get into a car accident during midterms/finals. Just because people are enrolled at school doesn't make them invulnerable to the possibilities of fate. Thankfully this is one of the exceptions in the policy.

*GPA standards- People aim for a certain GPA for whatever requirements they need to fulfill, such as an internship, scholarship, or if they want to transfer. Students choose to drop courses because they need to aim for higher GPA's, and wont settle with a C or B.

*Personal- People may have other issues to handle with, such as work or the distance they have to travel to get to school. That can affect stress level and time management.

People have their own reasons to drop classes and government is only interfering. They've already passed standard testing (TAKS) and mandatory fitness testing for students from K-12, how much farther will they go? If you want to learn more about the drop policy, read it here.

Who won?

In this article, Dave Mann explains to us the new change that students will embrace in their science classes. Mann is trying to reach out to everyone, so that they become informed about the changes the State Board of Education has made. The State Board of Education has decided to take a less direct approach at the theory of evolution, but rather to promote critical thinking about it. Mann criticizes the lack of professionalization within the State Board of Education because they were rambling back and forth while they debated over the changes they were making. Also, they're changes were hand-written in a sloppy cursive manner that made it hard to read. Mann is very informed about what he is talking about, as if he has witnessed this himself. He is very credible in the article, but his approach is very sarcastic, which could possibly be a negative factor if people can't take him seriously.

I disagree with Mann because I believe that the best way to resolve an issue is through a thorough debate/discussion that focuses and reviews on each detail. It may be time consuming and absurd, but it is the best way to resolve an issue. Also, Mann states that, "the school children of Texas were saved from the whims of the State Board’s seven social conservatives." There are people who are pro-evolution and believe that evolution should be taught within the science curriculum and there are people against it's teachings. My point to this blog is, who won? The pro-evolutionists still have evolution within the science curriculum, even though it only promotes critical thinking and doesn't approach evolution directly, but that is enough to dwell within a student's mind. Or did the State Board of Education win? They reduced the teachings of evolution down to merely critical thinking, rather than a subject. In the end, I believe that both groups are walking away with a piece of pie because neither side got their demands, but they settled on a compromise that suited them.

The cure?

In this editorial, they discuss a possible upcoming solution that will help cure the common cold. Although there is a twist in the cure, they have decoded a strand of Rhinovirus that could possibly lead to a cure, but researchers are still conducting studies and performing tests.

The author is appealing to people, present or future, who seek a cure for the common cold. He does not go into much depth in any details, it is very vague and brief. He is simply relaying a message rather than delivering further details, but he does emphasize the attention our medical field needs. Whether it be further research, hiring patients, or producing the cure, we often overlook the hard work medical researchers and fund them insufficiently. That is why the author wrote this editorial, to help support the drive of this medical research by appealing to a huge audience and giving a sense of hope while establishing his cause.

What the Bill?!?!

After reading this article under the Austin American Statesman, it leaves me a bit skimpy about the idea of having our urban voters decide to raise gas prices and fees. State Senator John Carona, the Senate's transportation committee chief, proposed Bill 855, which basically allows country commissioners courts to call elections and have the people within the county to decide if they would like to raise any of the 6 proposed taxes/fees:

- Gas tax, capped at 10 cents a gallon .

- "Mobility improvement fee," capped at $60 , essentially an increase in the annual vehicle registration fee.

- "Parking regulation and management fee" of up to $1 per hour for use of a parking space.

- Annual motor vehicle emissions fee, based on the amount of pollutants emitted by a vehicle, of up to $15.

- Added driver's license renewal fee (once every six years) equal to the renewal fees in current law for various types of licenses.

-"New resident impact fee" of up to $250 , levied on vehicles previous registered in another state.

They would like to implement this bill to help fund road and rail projects. The problem I see within this bill is the sacrifice the voters and residents will have to endure before they reach their financial goals. This would not be popular among the low-level economic status families, especially with our free-falling markets. It would be nice to take a quick and simple rail from Round Rock to ACC, but they'll be complete when I'm gone. It would also be convenient for others who have to travel over 30 minutes to work, or people who would like something faster and simpler.

On the other hand, people may just ignore this bill because we have already put many funds into transportation. We have just implemented toll roads, roads all over are getting re-paved, or bridges are having a U-turn lane implemented. I feel as if we should shift our focus elsewhere and make some progress.