Don't Abuse Your Right to Vote

I hadn't even made it to my first class of the day when one of them caught me:  as I walked into Thomas Building, an aggressively enthusiastic girl in a bright orange shirt stopped me at the door.  "Have you voted yet?!"  "It's 9am... I haven't even showered yet," I wanted to tell her.  Instead, I shook my head politely and took the slip of paper she handed me, pretending to listen to her instructions about how to vote online for the next University Park Undergraduate Association President.  The slip, also bright orange, read only a candidate's name and the web address to the voting site.  I received a duplicate of the piece of paper from the same girl on my way out of Thomas.  All day long, this happened.  Every building I entered, every street corner I passed, another one stopped me in my tracks.  "Have you voted yet?!"  By lunchtime, I learned to avoid the HUB completely; it was absolutely covered with those orange shirts.  "Have you voted yet?!"  Finally, around dinner time, I was headed towards Pollock Commons and noticed two of them guarding both ends of the sidewalk:  it was literally impossible to pass through unnoticed.  I proceeded, and when the guy popped the question I had already heard 12 times that day, "Have you voted yet?!," I had finally had enough.  "Yeah, I did!" I responded.  He gave me a high-five and let me go.  I didn't care that I had lied and I hadn't actually voted... I was just relieved to have made it through without having another dreaded slip of paper forced into my hand.

Yes, I know that the United States was created for the sake of democracy so that every citizen can have a say in government.  Yes, I know that, as a female, there was an entire women's rights movement in which thousands of people fought for my right to vote.  Yes, I know that my failure to vote was disrespectful to everyone who worked so hard to make voting a possibility and to everyone under other governments who desperately wants to and cannot vote.  (I'm talking national elections now, but you get the point.)  Wouldn't it have been more disrespectful had I voted without following the campaign, without knowing what each candidate stood for?  Each and every vote influences an election (no matter how small that influence may be.)  For me to sway the poll with a random vote for the sake of voting would be unfair to those who did their research and casted informed ballots.

I wonder how many of the students who voted yesterday chose a candidate because they actually understood and agreed with that person's beliefs and intentions.  How many casted their ballots haphazardly because some overly peppy orange shirt handed them a slip of paper with a candidate's name?  Would the results of the election be different if every voter had made an informed decision?  If ignorant voters found out what their chosen candidate stood for, would they wish they had made a different choice?

It is every citizen's (student's in the case of university elections) duty to utilize their right to vote.  However, if a voter is uniformed, I believe it is their responsibility to decline that right.  I wish that I had followed the elections so that I could have helped to choose a leader for my university, and I hope that I can be a better citizen come the Presidential elections in November.  However, I do not regret my choice to abstain from voting, because my uninformed choice may have been a regrettable one.

Do not listen to those orange shirts.  Vote because their is a certain candidate you want to be represented by, not because you were handed a slip of paper with a certain candidate's name.  Please do not abuse you're right to vote.

The New Face of Education

Our generation is unique—we have been given the opportunity to watch society change before our eyes as more and more aspects of daily life are being welcomed into the world of technology.  I remember when I was in 3^rd or 4^th grade and my elementary school got its first computers—one bulky Macintosh desktop for each classroom.  Each student had a specified “computer time,” a certain hour of the day on a certain day of the week when it was our turn to use the computer, usually to play “Oregon Trail” or “Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?”  In 2012, the image of technology in education is completely different.  At Penn State, the routines of students and professors would cease to function without lecture powerpoints, iClicker attendance checks, online quizzes and exams, email correspondence, and MacBook apps for taking class notes.  Today, it is even becoming common to receive an education entirely online without ever setting foot in a classroom.  While online education is arguably convenient and may open the door for a larger number of Americans to earn degrees, I’m not so sure it’s a wise choice for students in any level of schooling.

Online degree programs are highly advertised today – we hear tons of supposed “success” stories where mothers or full-time workers earn degrees at home in their spare time online.  Many conventional university students also supplement their educations with web-based classes, such as those offered by Penn State’s World Campus.  It is also becoming popular for high school dropouts to enroll in online GED programs.  However, many people today are questioning the value of these programs.  I recently read an article on MSNBC.com. revealing that many online GED programs are not actually credible and are not accepted by employers or universities.  Similarly, many graduate institutions and medical/law schools regard online classes as less rigorous and less beneficial to students.  It makes sense:  I took two online classes through a community college in high school, and they were definitely less valuable to me then the conventional college classes I’m taking now.  Communication with professors was limited to brief emails, class discussions were non-existent, and quizzes and tests were taken with an open textbook on the desk beside me.  I just didn’t learn as much because my educational experience was not as rich, and I think the same thing could be said of most online degree programs.

What really concerns me is the increasing prevalence of cyber schooling for elementary and high school students.  More and more students who struggle in a classroom setting are being pulled out of public schools and enrolled in online programs that in my opinion are absolutely incomparable to traditional classroom exposure.  Cyber schools follow state standardized curricula, so they supposedly provide students with the same knowledge bases as conventional schools.  However, cyber school students lack some of the very critical lessons of the classroom such as the ability to interact with peers and adult, the discipline of sitting still and remaining quiet for long periods of time, and the etiquette of appropriate social behavior. If a child is having problems in the classroom, there are underlying social issues that need to be addressed.  Pulling the child out on an environment where he can practice his personal conduct and communication skills with others will only deepen the problem.

Being the first generation of students with the opportunity to receive educations online, we really don’t know yet how this alternative form of schooling will affect us in our later lives and careers.  Personally, I’m worried about the children and adults who no longer attend formal classes.  There’s just something missing when school is not a dynamic social environment but instead the inside of a computer screen. Only time will tell how successful such an education can be.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=cyber+school&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1440&bih=838&tbm=isch&tbnid=cuxPVhrR1efzjM:&imgrefurl=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/c/a/2003/08/31/MN150541.DTL%26ao%3Dall&docid=xviVrfgwXUf3IM&imgurl=http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/08/31/mn_cyberschool046lh.jpg&w=580&h=400&ei=pF1rT9WWDorV0QG404XWBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1146&vpy=50&dur=1115&hovh=186&hovw=270&tx=150&ty=103&sig=109290321251259403933&page=1&tbnh=157&tbnw=210&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0

A Statement from the Board of Trustees... Again.

Marriage counselors always emphasize the importance of “fighting fairly.”  Once an issue is discussed and settled, couples are encouraged to “forgive and forget,” agreeing not to bring the matter back up in future arguments.  It’s a pretty wise idea if you ask me; reiterating one’s past mistakes may feel extra good when we want to be spiteful, but it tends only to further complicate, making it harder and harder to regain peace in a relationship.

Apparently, Penn State’s Board of Trustees missed out on this little lesson in effective communication.

Four months after the Penn State scandal broke out and almost two months since Joe Paterno’s unfortunate passing, life was returning to normal on campus.  While many refused to agree with the decision to fire Coach Paterno, most of us had at least accepted the events of last November and were beginning to adapt to the “new” Penn State, exactly what we need to do to move forward as a university.  This is why I was so perplexed when the Board of Trustees sent an unexpected email to the students to “clear up” their reasoning for firing JoePa.  Anticipating some new information about the scandal, I read on, only to be told that our legendary coach was released due to “failure of leadership” because he did not take sufficient action regarding his knowledge of the alleged sexual abuse.

Thanks, Board of Trustees.  Real shocker there!  This is exactly what we were told last November.  Regardless of whether or not Joe Paterno’s so-called “failure of leadership” constituted an abrupt end to his passionate career, old wounds are re-opened every time the matter is brought back up. It’s like they’re saying, “Hey, remember that time we really pissed you guys off?! Well, we’re going to do it again!”  The BOT isn’t “fighting fairly,” and they aren’t allowing the student body to heal, prolonging the recovery of peace of campus.  I don’t see how the Board “put[s] interests of the university first” (as the email claims they do) by repeatedly telling us why they rashly fired and hurt a man we as a student body love, especially after students reacted so intensely (i.e. – flipping over news vans) when we were told before.

 

If you have to justify something you’ve done in the past more than once or twice, you might want to re-evaluate and determine if you are actually in the one in the wrong.  The fact that the BOT finds it necessary to explain their actions over and over again makes me wonder how the Board members really feel about what they’ve done.  Surely some of them must experience guilt for what they’ve robbed from a hard-working, spirited man and the university that remains loyal to him.  If the Board of Trustees can’t move forward from the scandal, how is the student body supposed to?

Dunkin or Starbucks?

Yesterday was one of those awful days where the cold, incessant rain on campus soaked my shoes, made everything in my backpack soggy, and put me in a gloomy mood.  Looking for a way to keep warm and get a little cozier, I decided to grab a cup of coffee on my way to class.  However, running a little late, I was forced to go to Dunkin Donuts, which was on the way, rather than taking the longer route that passes by Starbucks as I normally would.

Now let’s put this into perspective with a little background info… I made most of my friends at college by offering them a free cup of Joe from my Keurig, and my dorm room always smells like a freshly brewed latte.  Ask anyone who knows me:  I love coffee.  Priding myself on being an experienced, top-class coffee drinker, I have always sworn by Starbucks.  $4 for a Caramel Macchiato?  Don’t care.  It’s Starbucks!  The brand has my loyalty.  After all, Starbucks is just better, right?

Taking that first sip yesterday, I started to question my attachment to the brand.  In my hands was a really, really good cup of coffee… from Dunkin Donuts!  Considering the fact that I had spent under $2, I began to wonder… Why is Starbucks so much better?

Starbucks has a pretty interesting marketing strategy.  Unlike Dunkin Donuts, they invest very little in advertising.  Just think about how many billboards and commericals you’ve seen for Starbucks?  Not very many.  In the ads they do produce, they never attack the competition, even though Dunkin Donuts regularly mentions Starbucks in their marketing campaigns.  Instead, Starbucks focuses on their image, boasting an ere of unmatchable quality.  Their tactic works on me!  When I think of Starbucks, I think of an atmosphere, a relaxing place decorated in mellow earth tones, comfortable chairs, soft music, and the tantalizing aroma of coffee.  Being inside Starbucks makes me want to curl up with a book… it even motivates me to study!  Dunkin Donuts lacks this presence; it just feels like a fast food restaurant!

If a coffee shop can have an ethos, Starbucks definitely got it right!  Starbucks has become a lifestyle in our country.  It’s classy and elegant, qualities sophisticated coffee drinkers love to identify with.  They emphasize organic and healthy choices, which is also attractive, and though they have a sort of “high-class” ere about them, they also focus on philanthropy and helping others.  Illogical as it may be, coffee drinkers around the world are willing to pay the extra few dollars to make their morning cup Starbucks, because they know that they’re paying for quality, for an atmosphere, for a lifestyle, for, well, Starbucks!  Dunkin Donuts may have cheaper prices, faster service, and equally delicious coffee, but I don’t think it can ever truly compare.

http://www.celebritysentry.com/post/starbucks-vs-dunkin-donuts-choose-your-side/