I am writing in response to a blog by a class mate about illegal immigrants in California getting in-state tuition.
My classmate believes that it is horrible that California is making it easier for illegal immigrants to take positions in California colleges and universities from citizens. I strongly disagree.
The catch is; these illegal immigrants are only being granted in-state tuition when they have attended for three years and subsequently graduated from a California high school. That is quite the stipulation. In addition, these illegal immigrants are not allowed any federal financial aid (which of course makes sense). Judging from the circumstances under which illegal immigrants usually come to the United States, the two criteria of having a solid and continuous school record complete with graduation and having money to pay for college make it difficult enough for these illegal immigrants to attend college. And lest we forget; these illegal immigrants are just kids. They are kids who most likely did not make the decision to come to the United States illegally, but followed their parents. They are kids who haven't known much else besides the public schools they have been attending in California since coming to the United States; and they are trying to make the best of their situation.
My classmate argues that this will cause illegal immigrants to take positions in California universities away from our own national children. However, universities are and always have been competitive. If these immigrants are smarter and more qualified to attend a university and that university chooses them above a US native; then so be it. Your US citizen teenager should have appreciated their opportunities more and studied a little harder. Then maybe they could have been chosen over the illegal immigrant.
In addition, I think it is important to point out that this doesn't mean a whole bunch of illegal immigrants are going to take over California schools because as I have already stated; Even though this law makes it easier for illegal immigrants to attend college, it is still really really hard for them.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
We would prefer to have those who serve us, lie to us.
In old news, a lower court has ruled 'don't ask, don't tell' unconstitutional and the whole thing is going through the appeals process now.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the policy will not be suspended until the appeals process is completely done with.
I can't say that I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling. I know a lot of people are frustrated because they wanted to see change immediately. However, with the appeals the issue is tricky. The repeal of the policy is not set in stone and if men and women begin outing themselves now and then the appeals process comes through in the favor of 'don't ask, don't tell,' their military lives and salaries and benefits are all in danger.
Which brings me to the point that 'don't ask, don't tell' is one of the most outdated ideas still supported in a military that has supposedly become very modern. It is a form of government sanctioned segregation in a world where we like to pretend like that doesn't exist anymore. The fact that we have to sit and wait out the bureaucratic mess until we can embrace the change of policy is unsettling. All of us would prefer to see overwhelming issues like this be taken care of in one swoop.
The unfortunate truth is that many people still believe that don't ask, don't tell is beneficial to the armed forces and is an issue of combat readiness. But those members of the service who are hiding their sexuality for fear of losing their job, benefits, and the pride of serving their country; are lying to their comrades every day. Silly lies, little lies, lies that lead to more and more lies, just to cover up who they are. Maybe it is just me, but I would prefer that someone who I need to trust 100% out in the field be completely open with me, rather than to get used to the idea of lying for survival. It's not their fault, it is what the system does to them.
You hear among male service members that they are fighting with their best friends, their brothers; the people they've been through everything through. But I can't imagine how you could consider someone your best friend or your brother without them knowing key aspects of you, and who you are.
I think being able to be open with other service members would increase camaraderie and brotherhood. The only people who it would rattle are those who are homophobic or closed minded; and I don't understand why until now the military has put favor on protecting those men and women from the truth over allowing decent and gay or bisexual men and women have their freedom.
This entire post has been inspired by an article on CNN.com discussing the photography of Jeff Sheng and his commentary on 'don't ask, don't tell."
article
The Supreme Court has now ruled that the policy will not be suspended until the appeals process is completely done with.
I can't say that I disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling. I know a lot of people are frustrated because they wanted to see change immediately. However, with the appeals the issue is tricky. The repeal of the policy is not set in stone and if men and women begin outing themselves now and then the appeals process comes through in the favor of 'don't ask, don't tell,' their military lives and salaries and benefits are all in danger.
Which brings me to the point that 'don't ask, don't tell' is one of the most outdated ideas still supported in a military that has supposedly become very modern. It is a form of government sanctioned segregation in a world where we like to pretend like that doesn't exist anymore. The fact that we have to sit and wait out the bureaucratic mess until we can embrace the change of policy is unsettling. All of us would prefer to see overwhelming issues like this be taken care of in one swoop.
The unfortunate truth is that many people still believe that don't ask, don't tell is beneficial to the armed forces and is an issue of combat readiness. But those members of the service who are hiding their sexuality for fear of losing their job, benefits, and the pride of serving their country; are lying to their comrades every day. Silly lies, little lies, lies that lead to more and more lies, just to cover up who they are. Maybe it is just me, but I would prefer that someone who I need to trust 100% out in the field be completely open with me, rather than to get used to the idea of lying for survival. It's not their fault, it is what the system does to them.
You hear among male service members that they are fighting with their best friends, their brothers; the people they've been through everything through. But I can't imagine how you could consider someone your best friend or your brother without them knowing key aspects of you, and who you are.
I think being able to be open with other service members would increase camaraderie and brotherhood. The only people who it would rattle are those who are homophobic or closed minded; and I don't understand why until now the military has put favor on protecting those men and women from the truth over allowing decent and gay or bisexual men and women have their freedom.
This entire post has been inspired by an article on CNN.com discussing the photography of Jeff Sheng and his commentary on 'don't ask, don't tell."
article
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Labor laws protect employees, ESPECIALLY unskilled workers
I am writing in response to one of my classmate's blogs; Kevin Kazcorowski. His blog post discusses labor laws and whether or not they benefit society. He believes that they negatively affect unemployment by costing businesses too much money. He is a self-proclaimed libertarian and typically believes the less government control, the better.
Besides disagreeing with his opinion, I believe that certain aspects of his arguments are weak and contradictory.
For one, he makes the argument that labor laws hurt the lower income and unskilled workers that they are in place to help because they encourage companies to dump their least valuable employees. I agree that companies in times of economic crisis tend to evaluate their staff and those that are not productive to the company tend to be laid off. However, I am offended that he would assume that unskilled laborers are the ones that aren't worth much to a company. In many cases, they are the backbone. A company that is struggling economically is not just going to dump all their stock people or janitors because they're unskilled. Companies NEED those employees or they never would have hired them in the first place. There is a huge demand for unskilled laborers in the United States because there are plenty of jobs that people with degrees and specialized training are not willing to do. As well, it is entirely possible for an employee with training and education to be deemed not as necessary to a company and let go. A few years ago when the unemployment rate shot up, the people that were laid off were office workers and white collar employees.
I argue that labor laws tend to help unskilled workers the most because they usually have positions that haven't traditionally come with benefits, and with wages that tend to stay close to minimum wage. I also think that Kevin misunderstands how minimum wage works. The reason minimum wage rises is because cost of living rises. Cost of living rises because prices rise. Not vice versa. Either way, they always stay proportional. If minimum wage were to rise to $1000/ hr, it wouldn't make businesses broke, because prices would be up proportionally, because that's what inflation does.
Kevin also makes the statement that unemployment is intuitively a choice. Those who choose to be unemployed are not factored into the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are actively searching for jobs.
Finally, I am confused by Kevin's idea that we are not a capitalistic society because there is unemployment. Capitalist markets have unemployment because they are based on competition, which also applies to competition for jobs. It almost sounds more like he'd prefer a socialistic market where everyone got to keep their jobs and get paid at a set rate.
Labor laws are in place to protect ALL employees, regardless of skill level. Benefits and minimum wage are certainly not going to cause businesses to go broke, nor are they a breach of the rights of those businesses. Workers need to be protected and a standard needs to be set for how they should be treated. Otherwise it is open to interpretation and that could take us down a dangerous road.
Besides disagreeing with his opinion, I believe that certain aspects of his arguments are weak and contradictory.
For one, he makes the argument that labor laws hurt the lower income and unskilled workers that they are in place to help because they encourage companies to dump their least valuable employees. I agree that companies in times of economic crisis tend to evaluate their staff and those that are not productive to the company tend to be laid off. However, I am offended that he would assume that unskilled laborers are the ones that aren't worth much to a company. In many cases, they are the backbone. A company that is struggling economically is not just going to dump all their stock people or janitors because they're unskilled. Companies NEED those employees or they never would have hired them in the first place. There is a huge demand for unskilled laborers in the United States because there are plenty of jobs that people with degrees and specialized training are not willing to do. As well, it is entirely possible for an employee with training and education to be deemed not as necessary to a company and let go. A few years ago when the unemployment rate shot up, the people that were laid off were office workers and white collar employees.
I argue that labor laws tend to help unskilled workers the most because they usually have positions that haven't traditionally come with benefits, and with wages that tend to stay close to minimum wage. I also think that Kevin misunderstands how minimum wage works. The reason minimum wage rises is because cost of living rises. Cost of living rises because prices rise. Not vice versa. Either way, they always stay proportional. If minimum wage were to rise to $1000/ hr, it wouldn't make businesses broke, because prices would be up proportionally, because that's what inflation does.
Kevin also makes the statement that unemployment is intuitively a choice. Those who choose to be unemployed are not factored into the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are actively searching for jobs.
Finally, I am confused by Kevin's idea that we are not a capitalistic society because there is unemployment. Capitalist markets have unemployment because they are based on competition, which also applies to competition for jobs. It almost sounds more like he'd prefer a socialistic market where everyone got to keep their jobs and get paid at a set rate.
Labor laws are in place to protect ALL employees, regardless of skill level. Benefits and minimum wage are certainly not going to cause businesses to go broke, nor are they a breach of the rights of those businesses. Workers need to be protected and a standard needs to be set for how they should be treated. Otherwise it is open to interpretation and that could take us down a dangerous road.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Dear Everyone: You will be held accountable for what you write on social media sites. Period.
Social media, which is to include this blog, is the biggest fad in our nation right now. From twitter (which I do not participate in) to facebook (which I of course participate in) people everywhere are placing their thoughts in public view. People love to talk about themselves. Our favorite part of a conversation is when we're talking. And our second favorite part is when people respond to what we say. With social media, we get to talk and talk as much as we want regardless of if anyone else cares, perfect for us narcissists.
It seems that certain people (public officials) seem to forget sometimes that their social media (facebook page) is not their own personal diary and other people can see (and will hold them accountable for) their comments (about how much they hate gay people).
If you haven't noticed yet, I'm specifically referring to the Arkansas school board district member who made anti-gay comments on his facebook page. The comments were especially explicit, even saying he was glad gay people got Aids, and that they should all commit suicide.
Interested in the full story on CNN? Click here.
This issue goes even beyond this one incident, however. It doesn't matter if were are an elected official or not (although I think it's probably worse if you are), what you say on these sites, in the public eye, you better be able to stand by. The Arkansas school board member resigned from his job to spare the school district the bad press of having such an intolerant member.
In this modern age, some politicians are using social media to reach out to their voters, or to communicate with the press and other politicians. In this sense, the forum is increasing the accessibility and speed of communication. Officials who routinely utilize social media forums for this purpose, however, tend to be a lot more careful about what they say. They realize that they are accountable for their views and only post those that they want others to know and that they do not think will be detrimental to their campaign or career. If only every one who used a social media site felt that way.
As a worker in the healthcare field, I get emails on the regular about how we cannot violate patient privacy (protected by HIPPA) when we write on social media sites. In one incident, two emergency department nurses (unrelated to any hospital in Austin) took cell phone pictures of a man's body part when he was brought into the ER and posted the picture on their facebook sites with comments about how gross it was. Subsequently they were fired. Not only were they breaking the law, but they were sending a negative impression of the healthcare facility they worked for by implying that things like that happen. And they lost their jobs over it.
But how are all these people getting caught? OH RIGHT. It's the internet, and EVERYONE can see it.
We need to think before we type. How does this represent me as a person? As a representative of the company or group that I work for, how would they feel about this? Online forums are not your personal diary people, so save the racial slurs, homophobic rants, and all around negative vibes for the one that you keep under your mattress.
It seems that certain people (public officials) seem to forget sometimes that their social media (facebook page) is not their own personal diary and other people can see (and will hold them accountable for) their comments (about how much they hate gay people).
If you haven't noticed yet, I'm specifically referring to the Arkansas school board district member who made anti-gay comments on his facebook page. The comments were especially explicit, even saying he was glad gay people got Aids, and that they should all commit suicide.
Interested in the full story on CNN? Click here.
This issue goes even beyond this one incident, however. It doesn't matter if were are an elected official or not (although I think it's probably worse if you are), what you say on these sites, in the public eye, you better be able to stand by. The Arkansas school board member resigned from his job to spare the school district the bad press of having such an intolerant member.
In this modern age, some politicians are using social media to reach out to their voters, or to communicate with the press and other politicians. In this sense, the forum is increasing the accessibility and speed of communication. Officials who routinely utilize social media forums for this purpose, however, tend to be a lot more careful about what they say. They realize that they are accountable for their views and only post those that they want others to know and that they do not think will be detrimental to their campaign or career. If only every one who used a social media site felt that way.
As a worker in the healthcare field, I get emails on the regular about how we cannot violate patient privacy (protected by HIPPA) when we write on social media sites. In one incident, two emergency department nurses (unrelated to any hospital in Austin) took cell phone pictures of a man's body part when he was brought into the ER and posted the picture on their facebook sites with comments about how gross it was. Subsequently they were fired. Not only were they breaking the law, but they were sending a negative impression of the healthcare facility they worked for by implying that things like that happen. And they lost their jobs over it.
But how are all these people getting caught? OH RIGHT. It's the internet, and EVERYONE can see it.
We need to think before we type. How does this represent me as a person? As a representative of the company or group that I work for, how would they feel about this? Online forums are not your personal diary people, so save the racial slurs, homophobic rants, and all around negative vibes for the one that you keep under your mattress.
Monday, October 18, 2010
If we can't get people to care about green leaves and greenhouse gases, how about green dollar bills?
Perusing the Daily Kos political blog, I came across a particularly interesting article by contributing writer Laurence Lewis regarding the environmental crisis being an economic crisis.
Interesting Article
Naturally I thought what a brilliant way to make people care about global warming.
Daily Kos generally affiliates with the democratic party, considering their noted contributors are all democrats. I assume that's the kind of audience they are writing for as well.
The writer Laurence Lewis does not have very much about himself available to the readers of the Daily Kos, except that he has experience in writing. However, the structure of his article and the dedication to providing excerpts and references for all of his points is a clear indicator that he is serious and honest about what he does.
In this particular article, Lewis takes a very liberal view on climate change, while his entire discussion was spurred by a right winger about how we can't afford to do anything about climate change.
The whole point of the article is to urge people that solving climate change is not about the right now, it's about the road we're on and what's waiting at the end. Perhaps people are pinched for cash now. Imagine what will happen when entire populations are displaced and businesses destroyed, crops and livelihoods irreversibly damaged. This is what we look forward to if we decide not to break the piggy bank now.
Despite having spent a semester in a colloquium on climate change, and taken an entire class on environmental philosophy, I had yet to really think about the idea of having to slow/stop climate change now in order to save money later.
I guess I was just too busy thinking about how much I liked the environment, clean air, glaciers, and all the animals that depend on the weather to be the way it is; to think about how preventing global catastrophes could save me and future generations some bucks.
I find it interesting that a right wing supporter such as S. E. Cupp (the target of Lewis' rant) would believe that saving money now would be more important that saving the world for our future generations, since the right is so family oriented, or I guess maybe that's just a tactic. I don't know.
I agree with Lewis' article (in case you couldn't tell) and in fact it opened a whole new thought process to me. I am a scientist and the science of global warming speaks to me. However, I am not an economist so that part of me needs a little bit of explaining and Laurence Lewis' article takes care of that.
Climate change is science. The consequences of rising temperatures are a real threat. And just because you live inland doesn't mean you're safe from the potential impact.
Interesting Article
Naturally I thought what a brilliant way to make people care about global warming.
Daily Kos generally affiliates with the democratic party, considering their noted contributors are all democrats. I assume that's the kind of audience they are writing for as well.
The writer Laurence Lewis does not have very much about himself available to the readers of the Daily Kos, except that he has experience in writing. However, the structure of his article and the dedication to providing excerpts and references for all of his points is a clear indicator that he is serious and honest about what he does.
In this particular article, Lewis takes a very liberal view on climate change, while his entire discussion was spurred by a right winger about how we can't afford to do anything about climate change.
The whole point of the article is to urge people that solving climate change is not about the right now, it's about the road we're on and what's waiting at the end. Perhaps people are pinched for cash now. Imagine what will happen when entire populations are displaced and businesses destroyed, crops and livelihoods irreversibly damaged. This is what we look forward to if we decide not to break the piggy bank now.
Despite having spent a semester in a colloquium on climate change, and taken an entire class on environmental philosophy, I had yet to really think about the idea of having to slow/stop climate change now in order to save money later.
I guess I was just too busy thinking about how much I liked the environment, clean air, glaciers, and all the animals that depend on the weather to be the way it is; to think about how preventing global catastrophes could save me and future generations some bucks.
I find it interesting that a right wing supporter such as S. E. Cupp (the target of Lewis' rant) would believe that saving money now would be more important that saving the world for our future generations, since the right is so family oriented, or I guess maybe that's just a tactic. I don't know.
I agree with Lewis' article (in case you couldn't tell) and in fact it opened a whole new thought process to me. I am a scientist and the science of global warming speaks to me. However, I am not an economist so that part of me needs a little bit of explaining and Laurence Lewis' article takes care of that.
Climate change is science. The consequences of rising temperatures are a real threat. And just because you live inland doesn't mean you're safe from the potential impact.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Does a loophole in one state equal a murder in another?
Mayor of New York Michael Bloomburg thinks that gun laws are not enforced uniformly between states and because of that, crimes involving illegally trafficked guns are on the rise across the country. He believes that specific states being irresponsible with lackluster gun laws (Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada and Georgia) are the cause of deadly crimes throughout the whole country and not just in their own state. This is the point at which their individual gun laws become a national issue.
Read his opinion here
Mayor Bloomburg obviously feels very strongly about this issue as he is the chair of the organization "Mayors against illegal guns." This organization is where all of the information in the article comes from. He references a report issued by his organization in which a correlation is determined between laws that impair illegal gun trafficking and lower gun murder rates.
The fact that Bloomburg gets his information from one organization of which he is a member and states only one statistic in his favor is probably the weakest aspect of his opinion article. As well, none of his evidence supports the fact that illegal gun trafficking in one state is spreading to other states that have stricter laws. While we know what states have weak anti-traffic laws, it is near impossible to track an illegal gun to the state it was trafficked from.
I appreciate Bloomburg's fight and ideas, but I think he needs to develop a more solid argument to support the claims he makes before he starts putting the burden of murders involving illegal guns on only ten states of our fifty.
It would seem to me that Bloomburg would be most in favor of federal control of laws controlling illegal gun trafficking. I think that is the only way that we would be able to ensure that a solid plan that leaves no state left to blame could be in place. However, even if there were a strict federal law, I don't think the murder rate involving illegal guns will decrease by much. Overall, people will find a way to get their guns and will work around the law. At the same time, even if it were a federal requirement to have stronger gun control laws, the enforcement of such laws would vary between states. I really see no way how editing this law could make a huge impact on he stats used by Bloomburg in his article.
Read his opinion here
Mayor Bloomburg obviously feels very strongly about this issue as he is the chair of the organization "Mayors against illegal guns." This organization is where all of the information in the article comes from. He references a report issued by his organization in which a correlation is determined between laws that impair illegal gun trafficking and lower gun murder rates.
The fact that Bloomburg gets his information from one organization of which he is a member and states only one statistic in his favor is probably the weakest aspect of his opinion article. As well, none of his evidence supports the fact that illegal gun trafficking in one state is spreading to other states that have stricter laws. While we know what states have weak anti-traffic laws, it is near impossible to track an illegal gun to the state it was trafficked from.
I appreciate Bloomburg's fight and ideas, but I think he needs to develop a more solid argument to support the claims he makes before he starts putting the burden of murders involving illegal guns on only ten states of our fifty.
It would seem to me that Bloomburg would be most in favor of federal control of laws controlling illegal gun trafficking. I think that is the only way that we would be able to ensure that a solid plan that leaves no state left to blame could be in place. However, even if there were a strict federal law, I don't think the murder rate involving illegal guns will decrease by much. Overall, people will find a way to get their guns and will work around the law. At the same time, even if it were a federal requirement to have stronger gun control laws, the enforcement of such laws would vary between states. I really see no way how editing this law could make a huge impact on he stats used by Bloomburg in his article.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
How much should we bank on community colleges?
Scanning through CNN News' website (see list of links on homepage) I came across an article discussing Obama's new education plan centered around community colleges and their graduates.
This plan is sparking some tension among "for profit" colleges and universities.
As a student who has a degree from University of Maryland and is currently attending Texas State University, I can attest to the benefits of attending and receiving degrees from universities. As well as a student who has take 24 credits through Austin Community College, I can attest to the benefits of attending and receiving credits through a community college.
To begin, I think community colleges are great. they provide so many opportunities to people who otherwise wouldn't have them and they make getting an education as easy as registering for classes. Anyone can go and there is no long application process. High school students can get a head-start on college, high school graduates can ease into college, and people who have not gone to school for decades can jump back in.
The ease of getting in and registering for classes is what takes away from the prestige that a profitable university has. There is no doubt that a graduate from Harvard looks better to a future employer than a graduate from a state university like the one I attend now, just like there is no doubt that a graduate from a state university looks better to a future employer than a community college graduate. The graduate of the "better" college had to work harder to get in, and presumably had to work harder to keep their grades up.
In my opinion, graduation rates from community colleges are low and that's fine. The main role of a community college to me is a stepping stone to transfer to a for profit college or continuing education later in life.
The exception to the above statement involves technical training, especially in the health-care field. Usually these programs are difficult to get into within the community college and do not accept just anybody. The student getting into, say, a nursing program at Austin Community College goes through a large amount of stress worrying about their pre-requisite grades and their admission test required by the department. There is such a large amount of applicants for so little spots that many people end up on the waitlist for at least a year.
I can attest to the respect that ACC's nursing program receives in the Austin area because I work for the Seton network of hospitals. I have been flat out told that they prefer graduates from ACC's nursing program than from a university because of the extent of the hands-on experience that the ACC nursing students receive. However, Seton wants all of their nurses to have bachelor's degrees in nursing within the next couple years, which means all these ACC graduates have to now attend an RN to BSN program. Thus the prestige associated with a four-year university degree rears it's head once again. Employers are saying they love community college graduates in health-care programs, but it is not enough. Their employees must pursue further university guided education.
So my weighing of community college and university pros and cons comes down to this:
Since employers clearly prefer for profit college graduates over community college graduates, why would Obama be convinced that he needs to put money into getting community college graduation rates up?
Community colleges do not need to graduate more students. They are playing their role beautifully, providing technical degrees, and preparing students for further education. We need to put more money into graduating students from profitable universities where employers are looking for employees.
If Obama wants to give students money to take classes community college as an incentive, I'm all for it, because I take classes at community college. However, it shouldn't be just for students planning to get their degree from that community college. It should be for anyone using community college in some way to get a degree, whether it be from there or from a different university they intend to transfer to.
This way, we are not favoring people who graduate from community college over those using community college a a step to a higher education. And, we are still promoting graduation and receiving a degree.
Click here to see the article
This plan is sparking some tension among "for profit" colleges and universities.
As a student who has a degree from University of Maryland and is currently attending Texas State University, I can attest to the benefits of attending and receiving degrees from universities. As well as a student who has take 24 credits through Austin Community College, I can attest to the benefits of attending and receiving credits through a community college.
To begin, I think community colleges are great. they provide so many opportunities to people who otherwise wouldn't have them and they make getting an education as easy as registering for classes. Anyone can go and there is no long application process. High school students can get a head-start on college, high school graduates can ease into college, and people who have not gone to school for decades can jump back in.
The ease of getting in and registering for classes is what takes away from the prestige that a profitable university has. There is no doubt that a graduate from Harvard looks better to a future employer than a graduate from a state university like the one I attend now, just like there is no doubt that a graduate from a state university looks better to a future employer than a community college graduate. The graduate of the "better" college had to work harder to get in, and presumably had to work harder to keep their grades up.
In my opinion, graduation rates from community colleges are low and that's fine. The main role of a community college to me is a stepping stone to transfer to a for profit college or continuing education later in life.
The exception to the above statement involves technical training, especially in the health-care field. Usually these programs are difficult to get into within the community college and do not accept just anybody. The student getting into, say, a nursing program at Austin Community College goes through a large amount of stress worrying about their pre-requisite grades and their admission test required by the department. There is such a large amount of applicants for so little spots that many people end up on the waitlist for at least a year.
I can attest to the respect that ACC's nursing program receives in the Austin area because I work for the Seton network of hospitals. I have been flat out told that they prefer graduates from ACC's nursing program than from a university because of the extent of the hands-on experience that the ACC nursing students receive. However, Seton wants all of their nurses to have bachelor's degrees in nursing within the next couple years, which means all these ACC graduates have to now attend an RN to BSN program. Thus the prestige associated with a four-year university degree rears it's head once again. Employers are saying they love community college graduates in health-care programs, but it is not enough. Their employees must pursue further university guided education.
So my weighing of community college and university pros and cons comes down to this:
Since employers clearly prefer for profit college graduates over community college graduates, why would Obama be convinced that he needs to put money into getting community college graduation rates up?
Community colleges do not need to graduate more students. They are playing their role beautifully, providing technical degrees, and preparing students for further education. We need to put more money into graduating students from profitable universities where employers are looking for employees.
If Obama wants to give students money to take classes community college as an incentive, I'm all for it, because I take classes at community college. However, it shouldn't be just for students planning to get their degree from that community college. It should be for anyone using community college in some way to get a degree, whether it be from there or from a different university they intend to transfer to.
This way, we are not favoring people who graduate from community college over those using community college a a step to a higher education. And, we are still promoting graduation and receiving a degree.
Click here to see the article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)