Who's Ranking is it Anyway?

    As a Junior in high school, I am starting to hear, talk, and think about college quite often. In class we were talking about what it means for something to be nice, which reminded me of a similarly general word, good. Joe Nocera from the New York Times says that "the single-minded goal of too many high school students...is to get into a "good" school." I hear people use the word "good" while talking about college all the time, and I wonder what people mean by it as oppose to what it really should mean. Recently, the U.S. News and World Report came out with their yearly ranking of colleges, and not surprisingly, on the top of the chart were schools including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Columbia. The title of the list as seen to the right, uses the word best, but what makes one school better than another? Why do so many people rush to see it if it's really just a list made by magazine editors who are simply trying to sell as many copies as they can? Nocera states that "U.S. News cares a lot about how much money a school raises and how much it spends...it cares about how selective the admissions process is." In my opinion, school rankings should not be based on these factors, but more on the satisfaction of the students that attend each specific school.
    People pay so much attention to these lists even though it shouldn't be about going to a school that is harder to get into, but instead about going to a school that a person genuinely thinks they will enjoy and have a good experience at. Especially at a school as competitive as New Trier, people should not be so obsessed with going to a school just because it's number one on a bunch of lists. What's "good" for some people, could be completely wrong for others. A "good" school should not be defined as one that is on the top of college ranking lists and is extremely hard to get into. Instead, I think it should be defined as a place that someone believes is right for them specifically. What do you think "good" means in this context? Why is there so much pressure for students to get into a school that is considered "good" because it is on top of many charts?

To read Joe Nocera's article click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/nocera-the-silly-list-everyone-cares-about.html

Super Size No More

    A few days ago as I was watching Glee, I noticed one of the characters holding a super size soda cup. Whether or not it was coincidental, it reminded me of the recent ban that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg placed on super size soda drinks in New York City. According to Michael M. Grynbaum, a writer for the New York Times, the ban "which bars the sale of many sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, is to take effect on March 12." Personally, I do not think that this is a particularly fair ban to place. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, but I am not sure banning a soda size will really help. Even though there is a serious obesity problem in the United States, is it the government's job to tell people what they can and cannot consume? I think it should be a person's own decision and should not be influenced by anyone else. It is true that drinking a lot of soda increases risks of obesity, but just because the super size cup is going to be taken away, does not mean that America's obesity problem will just disappear. On the other hand, if it ends up going well, then it could be a wake up call to many Americans to start making healthy choices. I am very curious to see how big of an influence the ban ends up having. I commend Mayor Michael Bloomberg for his efforts regarding the health of Americans, but I wonder is where it is headed next...a ban on french fries? Bic macs? Candy?
     It is more important that the government educates Americans about the importance of keeping a balanced diet and exercising, so that they are able to make their own healthy choices. Do you think that this ban is a fair one to place? Will it be helpful in improving the health of Americans?

To read more about the ban click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-approves-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0

Share the Focus

     In class, we were discussing the incredible amount of attention that 9/11 receives, but looking at the big picture, is it too much? In Afghanistan, an average of 31 American soldiers die each month and recently there has been an increase in the number of soldier and veteran deaths as a result of suicide. In fact, as Nicholas Kristof states in the New York Times, "For every soldier killed in war this year, about 25 veterans now take their own lives." A likely cause of this is that the health of the veterans is not as big of a priority to the government as it should be. Of those who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, "45 percent...are now seeking compensation for their injuries, in many cases psychological ones." It does not seem fair that these soldiers fight for our country and then come home to have to fight for their psychological health. The government is concerned with whether or not the soldiers come home, but are not thinking enough about the conditions that they may be in when that happens. An army veteran, Maj. Ben Richards, who suffered two concussions while in Afghanistan, told Kristof that 90 of his soldiers were hit by a bomb blast, but barely any of them got much treatment at all. While in service, soldiers may have to wait around 396 days to retire, even if it is due to a medical issue. For the amount of work that soldiers put in to help our country, it is a shame how little focus they receive from the government, and how little sympathy they get from American citizens.
      Is it right that people still pay so much attention to 9/11, a tragedy that happened 11 years ago, even though there are tragedies happening every day for American soldiers and their families?  9/11 was an unimaginable crisis and deserves to be respected, but so do the soldiers that have continuously fought for our country.

To read more from Nicholas Kristof's article click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/war-wounds.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

Family Matters?

    As I sat in my room doing my homework on Thursday night, I heard my mom call from downstairs, "Lily, come look at how old the girls look!" I thought maybe she was talking about a picture of my cousins or a family friend that I hadn't seen in a while, but I came downstairs to find the T.V. paused on a shot of Barack Obama's daughters, Sasha and Malia. People follow Obama's campaign and his plans for the future, but it seems that many also pay close attention to his family and personal life.
     As we talked about in class, politicians aim to make themselves seem like relatable, self made people. Even Bill Clinton in his speech at the DNC quoted Bob Strauss who "used to say that every politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself." While many politicians use this technique to make themselves relatable to their fellow voters, other politicians, including Barack Obama, use their family as well to give them an edge up on the competition. Obama shows America his family man, father figure side, proving to people that he is a normal person just like everyone else. Many people in the United States who pay even the slightest bit of attention to Barack Obama know that he has two daughters. They probably also have no idea what either one of them sounds like because, well, we never hear them talk. What we do hear, is Michelle or Barack Obama speaking fondly of their daughters as the video camera briefly pans over their faces. Sasha and Malia Obama are characters in Obama's strive to win a second term in office. In fact, one of Barack Obama's opening lines in his speech at the Democratic National Convention was, "Malia and Sasha, we are so proud of you. And yes, you do have to go to school in the morning." This of course brought laughter to the crowd and most likely smiles to the faces of people at home who can totally relate to this comment made by this seemingly normal guy, who also happens to be the President of the United States.
     Of course the goal here is electability, but shouldn't there be more focus on the burning issues facing our country? Every candidate strives to make themselves seem like an approachable, relatable person, but in the big scheme of things, shouldn't there be more focus on who is actually in it to help our country?

Barack Obama and his family at the Democratic National Convention

Do the Punishments Fit Their Crime?

    Yesterday, as many Americans may know, college football started. Personally, I am not a huge football fanatic, but did however watch some of Penn State's game. The result was not in their favor and to be honest, I felt sorry for the players. Because of the sickening actions involving child abuse and the inability of important people at their school to say anything about it, the students and entire Penn State football community are having to pay the consequences. Don't get me wrong, the actions of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, and the others involved are inexcusable and deserve to be severely punished, but it is a shame that the whole school is being pulled down with them. The following video shows Mark Emmert, the NCAA president, talking about the sanctions that will be placed on Penn State (begin video at 2:00):

  
     In an article regarding these sanctions, Michael Rosenberg, a writer for Sports Illustrated magazine says that due to the fact that Emmert took 20 scholarships per year away from Penn State's football program, "65 Penn State players will likely get their butts kicked on Saturdays as punishment for crimes that they didn't commit." Of course sanctions needed to be made, but why should students be punished for something that wasn't their fault? Also, if the message that the NCAA is trying to send is that winning is unimportant in comparison to something like child abuse, then why is it even necessary for them to strip Penn State of their wins? Aside from consequences affecting the football program, the fine that the school has to pay ($60 million), is not allowed to be used towards Penn State's educational programs. If the whole school is already being punished for the crime, wouldn't it at least make sense for the NCAA to allow the school to have money to teach students about sexual abuse?