As someone that interviews new grads on a regular basis, and is currently in the process of interviewing myself, I have to both agree and disagree with my peer's article "Hold A Bachelor Degree and Need A Job? GOOD LUCK." There are many reasons a company decides to hire or not hire a new grad. Some of Analise's reasonings are true in the high tech company I work for. Others, I dispute as conventional wisdom that has outlived it's time in progressive American business.


Significant job hopping is detrimental, but a willingness to be underemployed instead of unemployed shows conviction. If I see a new grad working drive-thru at McDonald's and applying to work on my team three months later, I understand and applaud their reasoning. If they graduated a year ago, and have had four jobs, I will likely pass on interviewing them. It used to be that all employers expected a minimum job commitment and for that commitment to be shown in previous work history, but the economy today has caused us to rethink our ideas of what shows good work ethic. Is it better for a bright young person to languish in a position that does not utilize their skills, or to continue to find upward growth?


I do agree that many recent grads have a sense of entitlement that is not welcome in the workplace. They believe that they graduated and now it is time for the world to pay for all their hard work at school. What many don't realize, is that the opposite is true. They spent four years in school, and have proven nothing to their eventual employer. They still must show their worth to a company before they will see any eventual rewards. The company is still taking a risk on unproven talent.   


Unemployment for new grads is certainly higher than any of us would like to see it, but it is not impossible to get a good job as long as you educate yourself on where the opportunities lie. Our own government publishes reports through the Bureau of Labor and Statistics on the increase or decrease in projected job availability for different careers. It is up to us to make intelligent choices on where we want to be, and where we will likely have a future.






http://broadstripesandbrightstarss.blogspot.com/2012/05/hold-bachelor-degree-and-need-job-good.html

Bailing out the Former Student

When I first heard about the idea of student loan forgiveness, I was excited. Who wouldn't want 10, 20 or 100 thousand dollars of debt magically wiped away. Ten years later and still without a degree, I am paying money for something with no intrinsic value. But whose fault is it? It isn't the University's fault that I didn't take school seriously back then. It isn't the banks fault. No one forced me to sign the paperwork, nor did they force me to take out the maximum amount each semester. I could have worked full time like I do now, but I didn't want to lose out on the "college experience." I knew full well what I was getting in to.  So why should the government pay to bail me out?  

Why should you pay bail me out?

The reality is that if a bail out occurs, it isn't the government that is paying to erase our debt, it is us - the tax payers. I don't believe I should have to pay for someone else's Harvard education. I made a choice to keep my education costs in check by going to community college for the first two years. Every person with debt made their choices to get there. Those people with more debt than they will ever be able to pay, often made poor choices to accumulate that debt. Why should I pay for their decision making?  

Does the government think that forgiving the debt will boost the economy? For those that truly cannot pay on their student loans, it would not make a difference since the loan would have been deferred. In order to boost the economy at all, the bail out would have to go to those that could afford to pay the loan. That way the money they were paying is now disposable income. But what is the sense in that? We are paying taxes so that other people can not pay back what they borrowed, in order to let them shop more? 

I understand why politicians would get behind something like this. At first glance it is a likable idea; a great publicity win. Then the hard facts start to crack the pretty façade. There is nothing pretty about our government incurring an additional trillion dollars of debt. Even less so in cases where the debtor can truly afford to pay. It is time that we stand up to politicians that think we only need a hand out for their vote, and look to those that understand the implications of what they are suggesting. They should be as careful with the government's money as they are with their own, because at the end of the day, it is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-hansen-clarke/student-loan-forgiveness_b_1454241.html

I wish I could say that I agreed with my peer that the United States was ready for gay marriage, but I think that we have a long way to go for true equality in this nation. In her article, "Same Sex Marriage," she makes great points about the sanctity of marriage - or the lack of it for those in the public eye, but leaves out so much more on the challenges we face to get to where we need to be. I agree that it is fear that prevents us from moving forward to a more equal nation, but that fear is deep in the hearts of many, especially in the south. However, the biggest problem that we face, is that the definition of marriage is a reserved power in the Constitution. This means that the states will individually have to decide to alter their definition of marriage, and that the US Government does not have the power to make this change.  These are the same states that invented Jim Crowe laws, and that were integrated by threat of force only 50 years ago. I want to say that equality will win out, but I am far too much of a realist to think that forcing someone to question their narrow-minded or religious beliefs will be easy or painless. I support gay marriage, but I also see the long road ahead that we must walk to get there.

Crisis of Education in America

The public education system in the United States is failing us. With a high school drop out rate of 8.1% and 14.2% of Americans unable to read this sentence, we cannot possibly believe that we are succeeding in educating the next generation. The reality in America today is that a college degree is necessary, and translates in to greater success and higher pay over a person's lifetime.

At Austin Community College, we have a front row seat to watch the failure of the education system in action. In grammar school, the education system did not prepare students to succeed in college, and now the result of that lack of preparedness is all around us. As I look around my French class that was full the first week of the semester, I see that less than half the chairs are occupied for the midterm. The other students were unable to keep up with the demanding course and have either withdrawn or will take the "F." This costs us as taxpayers, because not only are we paying a portion of their tuition at a public community college, but the likelihood of financial success without a degree is much lower. The harsh reality at ACC and other community colleges in Texas is that only 15% of the students in any of my classes will go on to graduate from a four year program and another 11% will receive an associates degree.  With an average class size of 36 students, only nine students will fulfill their dream of completing their education with a minimum of a two year degree.


We as taxpayers, spend a lot of money covering up for our lack of spending on education. While not all of societies ills can be cured by having a more educated populous, a degree does open up opportunities that may otherwise not be available without one. We must begin to bring greater focus on how to better prepare the next generation for success. We must increase k-12 education spending and hold educators accountable for where their students should be.  It is up to our generation to find ways to turn around the depressing scene that surrounds us and help our fellow students become college graduates.

In “Ultrasound in abortion should be a woman’s choice” by Brent Jones, the author takes a reasonable approach to a challenging topic.  The author chooses intellectual points over the often seen emotional arguments associated with abortion debates.    The author’s argument centers around the doctor-patient relationship instead the graphic words used in other articles trying to accomplish the same task as this author.  Nowhere in this article does Jones use terms like “medical rape” or “wand of shame” like I have read in similar editorials.  The thought-out and even-keeled opinions put forth by Jones, lends him a credibility missing from both sides of the issue.  The evidence to support his opinion is based on the state laws that are interfering with the Supreme Court decision allowing for a woman’s right to an abortion.  He details several state laws, including the recent Texas and Virginia laws requiring a more invasive ultrasound, rather than allowing the care provider to choose the best method of treating their patient.  His targeted audience appears to be the well-informed person wanting to understand a more reasoned argument for women’s freedoms.

I agree with this author.  Not because I am for or against abortion rights, but because I am strongly against the government regulating my relationship with my doctor.  As a patient, I want my doctor to inform me of all my options, and work with me to come to the best decision for my health.  I don’t believe the government will ever be able to regulate health care in such a way that it improves the level of care that can be given by a good doctor working with a well informed patient.  I do not want to have my doctor’s hands tied with threats of losing their license if they do not agree with the state on the best plan of treatment.

"Overturn the Stolen Valor Act," by Brent Jones is an honest appeal about the slippery slope of criminalizing a lie.  Prior to the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, the only lies that were criminal offenses were lying on a sworn affidavit or lying about a specific person with the intent to harm (defamation of character.)  The piece is intended for an audience deciding on their position of the supreme court challenge to the Stolen Valor Act.  Jones comes off as credible and thoughtful, giving insight on his concerns and how they were formed.  He shares his opinion that the Act is a risk, and not in line with the freedoms that our country is founded on.  Jones goes on to discuss past court precedent pulled from First Amendment challenges, like the freedom for nazi sympathizers and freedom to protest military funerals.  

As the granddaughter of a Silver Star receipient, I know the sacrifices that soldiers make in order to win any of the nation's valor medals.  I don't wish to see their glory tarnished, but they are not specifically harmed when another tries to become what they earned.  It is simple to verify any major award by contacting the military branch the person served in.  Anyone that grew up in or around a military family knows that if a person was awarded one of the top combat medals, you rarely hear about it.  After 33 years, I still do not know why my grandfather was awarded a silver star, only that his name is on the list for recipients from Saipan.   One of the reasons the media investigates these cases thoroughly is that they so often end in a sensational lie.   This should be their punishment.  They are lying to make themselves more interesting, so I think that they should be publicly outed for being their own boring self, not put in an already overcrowded prison system with hardened criminals.  I agree with Jones' idea that this could be the proverbial road to Hell.....  We want to give our soldiers every bit of the honor they have earned, and someone else pretending to have sacrificed what so many others laid down their lives for is heart wrenching.  But the question becomes, "what next?"  Are we going to criminalize lying about your education?  It hurts everyone that worked hard to finish college.  What about if you say you were a senator?  Will we criminalize that?  They spent a lot of money to get where they are.  We all make sacrifices to become the people that we are, and there will always be someone willing to take a shortcut, and pretend they are at the finish line.  In the end, they will always get caught.  Don't punish them in the courts, give them something to fear.  Let them be punished in the court of public opinion.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-21/Stolen-Valor-Act-Supreme-Court/53197316/1

Screenings are for the little people

OK.  I get it.   No one likes the TSA.  Who in their right mind wants to be pulled aside when they are running late to catch a plane, only to get felt up by a Coach Beiste look-a-like in full view of their traveling companions?  It's happened to me many times.  So many, in fact, that I refused to travel for work for almost a year, until Austin put in the new scanners.  Does it really feel necessary for me to take off my boots and walk through the airport in stocking feet?  Not really.  It does seem like a good way to get athlete's foot, and I still haven't figured out why we can't scan shoes without putting them on a conveyor belt, but if everyone in the airport sees the ugly penguin socks my mom gave me for Christmas, so be it.  I do, however, feel safer knowing that we are doing what we can to ensure the safety of air travel.  Is it perfect?  Not even close.  Could something get through? It will happen eventually.  But looking around at some of the scraggly passengers on the red eye from California to Austin, -boy- am I glad they have been checked!

Why then, do politicians, and for that matter the famous in general, think that they are above the screenings?  Why is it always a tragedy that they got singled out to get the pat down.  Rand Paul actually thinks that the TSA employees push a button on purpose to cause random extra screenings.  The great scanner conspiracy.  Put on your tin-foil hat, boys, rent-a-cop is out to get you.  I'm sorry, Rand, but have you ever known a low-level government employee, making slightly more than $10 an hour, that would willingly add to their workload?  If so, send me their resume - I could use that kind of employee.  What I want to know is why is this senator, who apparently is affronted to be treated like the rest of us, going to spend the tax dollars we paid, to investigate this alleged insult?  Unfortunately, Rand, you are not my senator, or I would veto your ability to be a moron, but alas, I am not hopeful that the state of Kentucky is going to figure it out before my money is wasted on this fool's errand.

Oh, and Rand, you can always go through the new scanners, they are only there to find cloaked aliens.