I'm going to have to partially agree with Lauren H's post in Taking Notice. I agree that having to pay a toll to be able to get from point A to point B faster is ridiculous, and spending state funds to build such roads is ridiculous. I disagree with her statement that people should just wake-up earlier and drive slower. Sometimes people sleep through alarms. Sometimes there are accidents that cause traffic delays. Sometimes people get off from work late. Whatever there reason is for driving fast, they are, and they should be legally able to.
I do not think that raising the speed limit to 85 MPH in Texas will really change anything. In the more rural parts of Texas, the speed limit is already posted at 75 or 80 MPH, specifically on Interstate 10. What will 5 MPH really change? In the small cities in Texas that currently have speed limits of 35 MPH, this change in speed limits will not really effect them since drivers will still need to stop for the obnoxious stop lights in their towns. If anything people will probably voluntarily go slower as to avoid using so much gas to accelerate between stop signs.
Some argue that 85 MPH is too fast, and that it will cause more accidents. Others argue that the speed limit is already at 80 MPH on over 520 miles of road in Texas, and if you want to go faster than that, you're in too big of a hurry. Yet others argue that many cars cannot safely drive that fast.
My view:
- I think more accidents are caused from people talking and texting on their cellphones, drinking while intoxicated, and driving while exhausted than from driving too fast.
- Some people actually are in a hurry. Not everyone lives in the slow paced farm mentality that many Texans have adopted.
- People know what speeds their cars can handle. If they can't go above 60 MPH, they are not going to force it and risk breaking down in the middle of West Texas. Please give humanity more credit for having some common sense.
This quote sums up my views almost perfectly: "As always, people who don't want to driver faster - or buy alcohol or play the lottery or whatever - can simply decline to participate. No one is forcing them to do anything. In turn, they should not be allowed to dictate the behavior of others."
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
I'd say the MetroRail is inching along...
I currently work at the Hilton Austin which is right across the street from the MetroRail Downtown Station. Some of my coworkers are able to use the MetroRail to get to and from work, however it is a *very* small amount. I think that until the MetroRail expands to include more than just the Northwest Austin area, it will not be viewed as successful in the eyes of Austinites. I think that the MetroRail is a great idea, but it is not even close to "picking up steam" as Surid Kaphle mentions in his blog "A Great Citizen."
Although the amount of passengers increased during SXSW, it still was not that useful. The last train left downtown at 11:30pm.
I don't know about you, but most people don't even get to downtown until after 10, and they definitely would not be ready to leave downtown before midnight. My family was going to attempt to use the MetroRail to avoid having to drive and find parking downtown, but with the cost per person so high, and the inconvenient schedule, they were not able to. The band they wanted to see didn't go on stage until 11pm, so it was not feasible for them to catch the 11:30pm train.
I think that the MetroRail has great potential, and will be successful, eventually. Austin needs to dedicate more time and money to make it useful to a larger percentage of the population.
Although the amount of passengers increased during SXSW, it still was not that useful. The last train left downtown at 11:30pm.
I don't know about you, but most people don't even get to downtown until after 10, and they definitely would not be ready to leave downtown before midnight. My family was going to attempt to use the MetroRail to avoid having to drive and find parking downtown, but with the cost per person so high, and the inconvenient schedule, they were not able to. The band they wanted to see didn't go on stage until 11pm, so it was not feasible for them to catch the 11:30pm train.
I think that the MetroRail has great potential, and will be successful, eventually. Austin needs to dedicate more time and money to make it useful to a larger percentage of the population.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
$10,000 Bachelor's Degree? You've got to be kidding me!
Earlier this year, Perry proposed that State Public Institutions offer a $10,000 Bachelor's Degree. Considering I already have $10,000 racked up in Student Loans, and I'm not even done with my Associates Degree, I must say this is a tempting proposal to support. However, after a little more research, I've deemed it extremely unrealistic.
Currently, Bachelor's Degrees cost over $31,000 for 4 years, not including books. Even if the entire Bachlor's degree is offered online, there are still professors that have to grade the papers, respond to student e-mails, and develop the coursework. Some argue that there is nothing wrong with having grad students grade the work and using published lectures as the basis for the class. If it's a literature course, then instead of using books that are still under copyright, use books that are not and sell for extremely low costs. As tempting as this sounds, as a student, I would not take these classes regardless of how cheap they were. I also have to question how effective these courses are. I'm currently in 2 online courses, and the difference between them is remarkable. My Texas Government class has a teacher that sends out weekly e-mails, has the class interact online through discussion boards, and write a blog. My other course, Introduction to Theater, has a teacher that never sends out e-mails except to confirm the receipt of our 2 play analysis. There aren't even reminders about when our tests are due. Everything we are learning is through the book. Personally, I don't think I'm retaining any of the information past the test. I do not think that online courses using published lectures would be effective. Students need some interaction with the professor and with others in the course.
College is not only about learning, its a time to meet new people, interact with others, and develop socially. If everything was offered online, people would lose their social skills even more than they have already with the rise of texting and emailing. Students already have issues interacting with people, and it shows when they get out into the workforce. If the opportunity to meet and interact with people in college is taken away, I can't even imagine how that would effect people even more.
Don't get me wrong, a $10,000 bachelor's degree would be fabulous to offer, but maybe for people that have already worked in the field and are just coming back to get their credentials. If they stripped down the required courses for a degree, and get rid of the core classes that most people take in the first 2 years of college, I have no doubt that the Texas Public Institutions would have any difficulty getting the price to $10,000. If someone has already been working in the field for 5+ years, and just needs the degree to check off a box in order to move up, there's no reason they should have to take the basics. They have already earned their respect in the workforce, it's just this one task that is keeping them from advancing. If this type of degree was offered, it should come with prerequisites. There are already certifications that have these types of requirements, such as the Certified Meeting Planner. The CMP certification requires the meeting planner must have a minimum of three years professional meeting planning experience or two years work experience with a specific meeting planning degree. There is no reason that a stripped down Bachelor's degree couldn't have the same type of requirements.
As where I think that offering a normal Bachelor's degree for $10,000 is absurd, I see no reason why a stripped down version of a Bachelor's degree could not be offered to those that already have work experience in the field that they are coming back to get their degree in. Online courses in this situation would make sense because the students would more than likely be working full-time while taking classes, and they already have background knowledge that will help them with their coursework.
Currently, Bachelor's Degrees cost over $31,000 for 4 years, not including books. Even if the entire Bachlor's degree is offered online, there are still professors that have to grade the papers, respond to student e-mails, and develop the coursework. Some argue that there is nothing wrong with having grad students grade the work and using published lectures as the basis for the class. If it's a literature course, then instead of using books that are still under copyright, use books that are not and sell for extremely low costs. As tempting as this sounds, as a student, I would not take these classes regardless of how cheap they were. I also have to question how effective these courses are. I'm currently in 2 online courses, and the difference between them is remarkable. My Texas Government class has a teacher that sends out weekly e-mails, has the class interact online through discussion boards, and write a blog. My other course, Introduction to Theater, has a teacher that never sends out e-mails except to confirm the receipt of our 2 play analysis. There aren't even reminders about when our tests are due. Everything we are learning is through the book. Personally, I don't think I'm retaining any of the information past the test. I do not think that online courses using published lectures would be effective. Students need some interaction with the professor and with others in the course.
College is not only about learning, its a time to meet new people, interact with others, and develop socially. If everything was offered online, people would lose their social skills even more than they have already with the rise of texting and emailing. Students already have issues interacting with people, and it shows when they get out into the workforce. If the opportunity to meet and interact with people in college is taken away, I can't even imagine how that would effect people even more.
Don't get me wrong, a $10,000 bachelor's degree would be fabulous to offer, but maybe for people that have already worked in the field and are just coming back to get their credentials. If they stripped down the required courses for a degree, and get rid of the core classes that most people take in the first 2 years of college, I have no doubt that the Texas Public Institutions would have any difficulty getting the price to $10,000. If someone has already been working in the field for 5+ years, and just needs the degree to check off a box in order to move up, there's no reason they should have to take the basics. They have already earned their respect in the workforce, it's just this one task that is keeping them from advancing. If this type of degree was offered, it should come with prerequisites. There are already certifications that have these types of requirements, such as the Certified Meeting Planner. The CMP certification requires the meeting planner must have a minimum of three years professional meeting planning experience or two years work experience with a specific meeting planning degree. There is no reason that a stripped down Bachelor's degree couldn't have the same type of requirements.
As where I think that offering a normal Bachelor's degree for $10,000 is absurd, I see no reason why a stripped down version of a Bachelor's degree could not be offered to those that already have work experience in the field that they are coming back to get their degree in. Online courses in this situation would make sense because the students would more than likely be working full-time while taking classes, and they already have background knowledge that will help them with their coursework.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Allowing Concealed Handguns on a University Campus
Is a huge mistake.
With the amount of drinking and stress that goes on during college years, having a lethal weapon readily available to students is only asking for trouble. If State Representative Eddie Rodriguez
succeeds in having Universities allow firearms on campus, I foresee an increase in suicides, an increase in accidental shootings, and an increase in crazed gunmans roaming around campus randomly shooting people.
I cannot think of one good reason why students would need a firearm on campus. Robert Miller of Villanova University argues that he would want certain students to be able to carry firearms in the case of a crazed gunman roaming campus. I agree that having someone ready to take a predator down is fabulous. However, the likelihood of an increase in these shootings, or an increase in deaths and injuries due to guns being on campus, makes me argue that even that is not a good reason to allow possession on campus. Miller also points out that the argument against being able to carry handguns on campus is weak. Many people, including myself, think that there will be an increase in shootings. He states that there is no reason why law-abiding individuals who already carry guns elsewhere in the state, would suddenly turn to being reckless with them. However, he then continues to contradict his argument stating that there are some places that cause normal law-abiding citizens to become more dangerous, such as in bars. He doesn't think there is anything on a college campus that would cause that, but has he forgotten his college years? Multiple all-nighters in a week would cause anyone to go crazy. Drinking at a Frat Party is sometimes worse than at a bar because there isn't a bartender or bouncer to cut you off. Bullies on campus could push people over all the time. The pure stress of midterms and finals is enough to make anyone snap.
According to the Austin American Statesman, there are laws in place that government officials are arguing over, and interpreting differently. I think it will ultimately come down to the individual universities deciding whether or not to allow guns on campus. I just hope that they take into consideration that they have hormone driven teenagers as a large percentage of their population, and I hope that they do not underestimate how much stress and alcohol effect people's ability to think clearly and rationally.
With the amount of drinking and stress that goes on during college years, having a lethal weapon readily available to students is only asking for trouble. If State Representative Eddie Rodriguez
succeeds in having Universities allow firearms on campus, I foresee an increase in suicides, an increase in accidental shootings, and an increase in crazed gunmans roaming around campus randomly shooting people.
I cannot think of one good reason why students would need a firearm on campus. Robert Miller of Villanova University argues that he would want certain students to be able to carry firearms in the case of a crazed gunman roaming campus. I agree that having someone ready to take a predator down is fabulous. However, the likelihood of an increase in these shootings, or an increase in deaths and injuries due to guns being on campus, makes me argue that even that is not a good reason to allow possession on campus. Miller also points out that the argument against being able to carry handguns on campus is weak. Many people, including myself, think that there will be an increase in shootings. He states that there is no reason why law-abiding individuals who already carry guns elsewhere in the state, would suddenly turn to being reckless with them. However, he then continues to contradict his argument stating that there are some places that cause normal law-abiding citizens to become more dangerous, such as in bars. He doesn't think there is anything on a college campus that would cause that, but has he forgotten his college years? Multiple all-nighters in a week would cause anyone to go crazy. Drinking at a Frat Party is sometimes worse than at a bar because there isn't a bartender or bouncer to cut you off. Bullies on campus could push people over all the time. The pure stress of midterms and finals is enough to make anyone snap.
According to the Austin American Statesman, there are laws in place that government officials are arguing over, and interpreting differently. I think it will ultimately come down to the individual universities deciding whether or not to allow guns on campus. I just hope that they take into consideration that they have hormone driven teenagers as a large percentage of their population, and I hope that they do not underestimate how much stress and alcohol effect people's ability to think clearly and rationally.
Friday, March 11, 2011
We aren't forcing you to lay people off...
As the Legislative Session continues, the arguments about Educational Budget Cuts heats up more and more. Charles Kuffner singles out Perry's statement claiming that the State Government isn't forcing any layoffs, that decision is made at the local level. I beg to differ with this statement. When you leave schools over $9 billion short of previous year's budgets, you give them *no choice* but to lay people off. Perry argues that there has been an increase in non-teachers added over the past few years, and those should be the ones that are laid off. I hate to break it to you Perry, but that increase is less than 1%. Even if you lay off every single non-teacher in the state, not only will you have a non-functioning school system, you'll also still have a deficit.
Kuffner is trying enlighten all Texans about how naive Perry is. Perry says he's elected on the basis that Texans want him to fix the budget, and that these budget cuts are what we asked for. However, when that "fixing" causes any aftermath, he runs away like a coward, and blames it on anyone else. Don't you think you would be proud of your work if this is what Texans want? Wouldn't you stand up to critics saying that this is what the community of Texas asked for?
Kuffner uses direct quotes to back his argument, which makes him extremely credible. He is sure to have back-up on any statements that he makes, and lets the quotes do the arguing. Kuffner points out the flaws in Perry's arguments about the increase in non-teachers. He also discredits Perry's statements about the layoffs being a local decision.
I completely agree with Kuffner's post. I think that if these budget cuts continue, we might as well get rid of public education all together, or enact a similar program as many European countries do: test kids in elementary school, and if they are college bound they continue to finish their secondary schooling, if not, they go to a trade school where they learn basic mechanical skills. It sounds harsh, but class sizes were already large when I was in high school 4 years ago, and if you double that, no one is going to learn anything.
Kuffner is trying enlighten all Texans about how naive Perry is. Perry says he's elected on the basis that Texans want him to fix the budget, and that these budget cuts are what we asked for. However, when that "fixing" causes any aftermath, he runs away like a coward, and blames it on anyone else. Don't you think you would be proud of your work if this is what Texans want? Wouldn't you stand up to critics saying that this is what the community of Texas asked for?
Kuffner uses direct quotes to back his argument, which makes him extremely credible. He is sure to have back-up on any statements that he makes, and lets the quotes do the arguing. Kuffner points out the flaws in Perry's arguments about the increase in non-teachers. He also discredits Perry's statements about the layoffs being a local decision.
I completely agree with Kuffner's post. I think that if these budget cuts continue, we might as well get rid of public education all together, or enact a similar program as many European countries do: test kids in elementary school, and if they are college bound they continue to finish their secondary schooling, if not, they go to a trade school where they learn basic mechanical skills. It sounds harsh, but class sizes were already large when I was in high school 4 years ago, and if you double that, no one is going to learn anything.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Should Texas Enact an "Arizona-Like" Immigration Law?
I have many mixed feelings about the Immigration Law that was passed in Arizona on April 23, 2010, and therefore many mixed feelings about enacting it in Texas.
I support the reasoning behind the Immigration Law. From my understanding the law was passed in order to protect Arizona citizens. Illegal immigrants, whether they are from Mexico, Canada, or China, cost US taxpayers money everyday. When they go into the emergency room and are unable to pay their bill, when they use soup kitchens to feed their families, and when they are placed in our jails, they cost the state, and therefore the citizens of Arizona, money. I think that this law will hinder illegal immigrants from being able to stay in the state of Texas, and will force them to apply for their US citizenship, or at the very least, work visas. If they become legal to work in the US, then they will be paying their portion of taxes, and will be contributing to the community.
Illegal immigrants take jobs away from US citizens. Many companies would rather hire illegal immigrants that they can pay less than minimum wage, and off the books, in order to save money. In today's economy we can't afford to have any more Texans, nor Americans, without jobs. We need to focus on helping our own citizens, before we start helping those that are not even legal to work in this country.
Another argument in support of this law is that illegal immigrants are the primary reason for drugs and crime in states along the border of Mexico. I have grandparents that live in Tucson, AZ, and they had a "drop house" in their neighborhood where illegal immigrants were living, and selling drugs. This has become a major problem in cities along the border, and it needs to be addressed. I am not naive enough to believe that this law will solve all of these issues, but it is certainly a start.
There are many opponents that are furious over Arizona's 'Nazi' immigration law, saying that it will increase stereotyping, and is taking away rights of US Citizens. The law passed in Arizona forces everyone to carry documentation with them proving that they are legal, very similar to the Yellow Star of David that Jewish people had to wear in Germany. This way if they are stopped by a police officer they can show them the proper identification. I can see how this would be annoying, but many Americans do it already. Although it is not required, many people over the age of 18 that do not have a driver's license, have an identification card. It would not be that troublesome to make it a requirement, and to extend that requirement to children under the age of 18. Although I do not support stereotyping, as it usually leads to racism, it is something that we do everyday. I am guilty of doing it myself at work. When I am checking a guest into a hotel, I stereotype them when I choose what room to assign them to, and how trusting I am that they will come back to the Front Desk if their credit card declines rather than walking out on the bill.
There is no need to wear our ID cards around our necks and "mark" us, but simply carrying them in our pockets, or wallets will suffice. Officers do not have any reason to disrupt people that are going about their day, but I would expect to have to show my ID card if I am pulled over for speeding, or caught breaking the law. How is sending an illegal immigrant back to their home country if they are caught, a bad thing? They were here illegally, they were breaking the law. It only seems natural to make them leave the country. If you have your proper identification on you, then you have nothing to worry about, that is unless you were stopped because of a crime being committed.
I do believe that passing this law in Texas would increase stereotyping, but I think that the benefits of this law outweigh the cons. However, this law should not be passed in Texas without some major training to our law enforcement. With Hispanics becoming a majority in Texas, and the majority of illegal immigrants being Hispanic, our law enforcement officers need to be careful not to upset the majority. I think that if Texans cooperate, and Identification cards are made easily accessible to citizens, we can avoid any major issues. I think this law will help border towns become safer, and it will address the issue of illegal immigration. I am all about the United States of America being a melting pot for all countries, but we need to draw the line somewhere, and protect the current citizens.
I support the reasoning behind the Immigration Law. From my understanding the law was passed in order to protect Arizona citizens. Illegal immigrants, whether they are from Mexico, Canada, or China, cost US taxpayers money everyday. When they go into the emergency room and are unable to pay their bill, when they use soup kitchens to feed their families, and when they are placed in our jails, they cost the state, and therefore the citizens of Arizona, money. I think that this law will hinder illegal immigrants from being able to stay in the state of Texas, and will force them to apply for their US citizenship, or at the very least, work visas. If they become legal to work in the US, then they will be paying their portion of taxes, and will be contributing to the community.
Illegal immigrants take jobs away from US citizens. Many companies would rather hire illegal immigrants that they can pay less than minimum wage, and off the books, in order to save money. In today's economy we can't afford to have any more Texans, nor Americans, without jobs. We need to focus on helping our own citizens, before we start helping those that are not even legal to work in this country.
Another argument in support of this law is that illegal immigrants are the primary reason for drugs and crime in states along the border of Mexico. I have grandparents that live in Tucson, AZ, and they had a "drop house" in their neighborhood where illegal immigrants were living, and selling drugs. This has become a major problem in cities along the border, and it needs to be addressed. I am not naive enough to believe that this law will solve all of these issues, but it is certainly a start.
There are many opponents that are furious over Arizona's 'Nazi' immigration law, saying that it will increase stereotyping, and is taking away rights of US Citizens. The law passed in Arizona forces everyone to carry documentation with them proving that they are legal, very similar to the Yellow Star of David that Jewish people had to wear in Germany. This way if they are stopped by a police officer they can show them the proper identification. I can see how this would be annoying, but many Americans do it already. Although it is not required, many people over the age of 18 that do not have a driver's license, have an identification card. It would not be that troublesome to make it a requirement, and to extend that requirement to children under the age of 18. Although I do not support stereotyping, as it usually leads to racism, it is something that we do everyday. I am guilty of doing it myself at work. When I am checking a guest into a hotel, I stereotype them when I choose what room to assign them to, and how trusting I am that they will come back to the Front Desk if their credit card declines rather than walking out on the bill.
There is no need to wear our ID cards around our necks and "mark" us, but simply carrying them in our pockets, or wallets will suffice. Officers do not have any reason to disrupt people that are going about their day, but I would expect to have to show my ID card if I am pulled over for speeding, or caught breaking the law. How is sending an illegal immigrant back to their home country if they are caught, a bad thing? They were here illegally, they were breaking the law. It only seems natural to make them leave the country. If you have your proper identification on you, then you have nothing to worry about, that is unless you were stopped because of a crime being committed.
I do believe that passing this law in Texas would increase stereotyping, but I think that the benefits of this law outweigh the cons. However, this law should not be passed in Texas without some major training to our law enforcement. With Hispanics becoming a majority in Texas, and the majority of illegal immigrants being Hispanic, our law enforcement officers need to be careful not to upset the majority. I think that if Texans cooperate, and Identification cards are made easily accessible to citizens, we can avoid any major issues. I think this law will help border towns become safer, and it will address the issue of illegal immigration. I am all about the United States of America being a melting pot for all countries, but we need to draw the line somewhere, and protect the current citizens.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Spare Advanced Placement Courses
Spare Advanced Placement Courses was an editorial article on the Statesman website. The author argues that the budget cut which would deny funding for the Advanced Placement Courses would in fact cost the State more money in the long run.
"More than 42,000 Texas High school students earned college credits utilizing the Advanced Placement program last year." Having personally benefited from the AP program, I can attest to the fact that have the opportunity to earn college credit in High School, saves times, money, and personal sanity during your years in college. Cutting this funding would do more harm to the state budget in the long run than it would help in the short term.
The author was appealing to all parents in the state of Texas. The article was geared towards persuading people on the benefits that AP classes have. Not only does it help save money in college, but it keeps high school students challenged and motivated, and it gives them the expereience and knowledge that they need to succeed in college.
The way this article was written, it seems to me that the author is a parent of a high school student, or has at least had a child successfully go through the AP program.
"More than 42,000 Texas High school students earned college credits utilizing the Advanced Placement program last year." Having personally benefited from the AP program, I can attest to the fact that have the opportunity to earn college credit in High School, saves times, money, and personal sanity during your years in college. Cutting this funding would do more harm to the state budget in the long run than it would help in the short term.
The author was appealing to all parents in the state of Texas. The article was geared towards persuading people on the benefits that AP classes have. Not only does it help save money in college, but it keeps high school students challenged and motivated, and it gives them the expereience and knowledge that they need to succeed in college.
The way this article was written, it seems to me that the author is a parent of a high school student, or has at least had a child successfully go through the AP program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)