15 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/25/12 7:34pm)
I received many gifts from Mercer over the past four years, such as amazing friends, wonderful professors and enlightening experiences.
Today, I want to highlight a fourth gift: critical thinking. This ability is one of the most important hallmarks of higher education. Unfortunately, I’m worried that the decision of both the business school’s student leaders and faculty to only support extracurricular lecturers of narrowly-defined philosophies inhibits critical thinking, and is contrary to the ultimate goal of higher education.
A particular trend becomes obvious if one attends the extracurricular economics lectures throughout the academic year—all were extremely supportive of libertarian philosophies and/or the Austrian school of thought. Not only that, but lecturers presented controversial issues as black-and-white matters with, of course, their perspective portrayed as the champion.
Students left these lectures with the impression that entire schools of economic thought were completely invalid, despite the fact that a large proportion of American economists support some Keynesian policies, such as fiscal stimulus. While I respect scholars’ substantiated assertions in controversial matters, a line is crossed when they imply to undergraduate students that no such controversy even exists, or do not even mention opposing opinions in their analysis of the issue.
For example, when Dr. Lawrence White lectured on the Hayek-Keynes debate, he only spoke in support of Hayek. For an extracurricular lecturer, this is perfectly acceptable. However, he did not mention any theories which opposed his own point of view, especially those regarding the gold standard.
The only times he spoke of Keynes, he mocked the late economist’s ego (which was admittedly large, but that is beside the point), rather than discussing his actual policies.
Instead, he utilized Paul Krugman (of whom I am no fan) as a straw man. (Krugman is an economist who very obviously and purposefully politicizes and oversimplifies economics for his newspaper column). If White seriously wished to consider opposing viewpoints, he should have discussed the writings of actively academic, and, in this case, useful Keynesian critique. I left the lecture feeling as if I had attended a political stump speech for Hayek, instead of a serious lecture.
I don’t think Dr. White should ever be muzzled, as I unequivocally support free speech, but I do wish to publicly criticize his methods, which are more politically than educationally motivated. However, I must return to my original point.
This year, (and to my knowledge in recent past years), the business school has not brought a pro-Keynesian economics lecturer, or even a moderate speaker who has criticized libertarian philosophy or the Austrian school, both of which are numerically and traditionally fringe categories of economists. While I have no doubt that the faculty of the business school has the student body’s best interests at heart, (I suspect they support these ideas, and wish to further disseminate them), their actions are inhibiting the students’ minds rather than developing them.
I do not make this assertion because I believe parts of libertarian philosophy and Austrian school policy to be flawed, (I do, but that is, once again, beside the point). Rather, I believe that presenting only one side of any issue is detrimental to mental development and contrary to the purpose of higher education.
If professors believe that libertarian and Austrian stances are correct, they should bring serious, credible lecturers to publicly debate both sides of the issue, and then allow students decide on the validity of each stance for themselves.
Otherwise, students remain in a high school state of mind—partisan automatons, never forced to question their core beliefs. If the faculty does not offer more balanced lectures, they are, on this specific matter, failing their students and acting against what Mercer stands for—an education that allows students to think independently.
In conclusion, I wish to preemptively counter what I believe will be two common objections to this opinion. First, while I realize that these lectures are extracurricular and therefore not required events for students, most professors offer substantial extra credit for attending them. By creating an incentive system that entices students to attend, they are partially responsible for their attendance. Therefore, they hold partial responsibility for the effect of the lectures on students’ educations.
Second, I should note that a majority of economics lectures, if not all of them, are funded by a small number of organizations, namely the Liberty Fund and Koch Foundation, both strongly libertarian organizations. If these types of lectures are more often scheduled because these private organizations provide funding for them, (therefore relieving fiscal strains on the department), then one must reconsider their role in the academia.
For obvious reasons, the amount of money supporting political and economic philosophies should not dictate their prominence in the academic setting.
Both politicization and the desire for academic glory already distort and reduce the efficacy of debate between schools of thought. The injection of fiscal inequality only aggravates this problem.
By flooding an academic subject with ideologically-driven money, and therefore studies and conferences, scholars are surrounded with others who agree with a single ideology, resulting in intellectual insulation from serious and fundamental challenges to that ideology or school of thought’s core tenets. To help remedy this problem, perhaps the department can contact organizations from the other side of the political/economic aisle and request funding for speakers. Keynesians, too, have large pockets.
Our professors, who are all extremely intelligent lecturers, can participate in debates with them as to spark the student body’s interest.
What should be clear is that I am not interested in limiting the availability of libertarian or Austrian school-related information on this campus. I am only attempting to equalize speaking rights for what is, on this campus, a minority position.
In fact, doing so must never require the limiting of information for one side; such action sets a dangerous precedent. Instead, it should only necessitate a little extra effort and open-mindedness on the part of students and faculty. Alas, if I were not graduating, I would attempt to amend this inequality myself by starting a new student organization. Instead, I must call for both returning students and the faculty of the economics department to take action. I am confident they agree with my central point—the ability to critically think is more important than the proliferation of any political or economic philosophy.
Comments, questions or concerns about this column can be sent to sean.r.kennedy@live..mercer.edu
(03/28/12 8:03pm)
Let’s talk about gas prices. As anyone with a car, or a television knows, the price per gallon increased significantly over the past few months. Most of the Republican candidates blame this increase on the Obama administration’s policies.
I’m going to attempt to explain why oil prices are largely unaffected by the government’s actions.
Will ramping up domestic drilling lower gas prices quickly?
No. Oil is a global commodity. The key word is global—oil from across the planet is traded in various international markets, and all of these markets influence each other’s prices.
For example, the West Texas Intermediate, the United States’ crude price benchmark, is heavily influenced by Brent crude prices, which are in turn influenced by Middle Eastern oil supplies.
Everything is interconnected, and the United States simply doesn’t have enough spare capacity, to push prices downwards in the short-term.
Ramping up domestic drilling would increase this spare capacity, however doing so takes years.
Also, the United States does not nationalize its oil companies, so it cannot take advantage of domestic drilling in the same manner as most other oil producing nations.
So why won’t Obama increase our domestic capacity to lower long-term prices?
Well, he is. Domestic oil production is currently at an all-time high, due to both Obama’s energy policies and increased demand.
While many condemned Obama’s Gulf moratorium, in reality, that barely affected overall capacity.
It reduced only that region’s output by less than 10%. That’s nothing in the big picture.
Again, increasing domestic capacity will only decrease prices in the long-term, and that assumes that drilling can keep up with demand.
It will take many, many years of energy source exploration and development to significantly lower long-term prices. So projects like the Keystone XL pipeline will do nothing to affect current prices, and then will have a limited effect on prices once fully operational.
Why did Energy Secretary Chu and (pre-primary) Mitt Romney support high gas prices?
The massive consumption of fossil fuels is detrimental to our economy in the long run. Many types of emissions are negative externalities—they harm the environment and the health of citizens, and they accelerate global warming.
If gas prices were to increase dramatically (to, say, $10 per gallon), the American economy would rebase itself upon alternative energy sources that do not cause so much harm. Car companies would increase the efficiency of their vehicles, public transportation would expand in quality and scope, etc.
So why are gas prices currently rising?
There are a couple of reasons. Supply and demand (the fundamental laws of economics) is the main one. Demand is extremely high at the moment, therefore prices are increasing.
Supply is also struggling to keep up with this increased demand, partially due to both systematic constraints and Iranian sanctions.
However, the Saudi oil minister recently ramped up his country’s exports in order to reduce prices. He did so because the Kingdom’s oil profits are hurt if prices rise to the point where they reduce demand.
Second, there is speculation. As I mentioned earlier, oil markets are futures markets, in which futures contracts, which are pre-arranged agreements to deliver a barrel of oil for a pre-determined price, are traded.
This allows for speculation. Investors are fearful of regional war with Iran, who controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20-30% of global crude is transported.
While the Navy’s Fifth Fleet could easily eliminate any Iranian measures blockading the Strait, such a military maneuver would spike gas prices for a couple of weeks (mines take time to safely remove).
Insurance costs on freighters would also spike for a much longer period of time if conflict were to break out, further increasing gas prices.
Finally, gas prices are also influenced by a variety of other factors unrelated to crude, which only affect two thirds of gas prices.
These factors range from state taxes to distribution costs for gasoline. These, however, are not behind the current price rises.
Why were gas prices so low when Obama first took office?
Because we were in the middle of a sharp recession.
During recessions, people have less disposable income. This reduces demand, which in turn reduces oil prices.
As the economy improves, demand increases, along with oil prices. And the economy strengthened significantly in the past six months.
Should I believe any candidate who promises lower gas prices?
No, probably not. It’s a ploy to get votes. Obama tried it out in 2008, as did every candidate before him. I’d suggest pushing for less harmful energy policies instead. If this country wishes to become energy-independent, it must do so gradually.
The taxing of carbon emissions will force the market to develop new, sustainable (and domestic) energy sources, while allowing time for the labor force and manufacturing sector to readjust.
The beauty of this solution is that it prevents the government from playing venture capitalist in the energy sector (cough, Solyndra).
It simply accelerates the market-fueled process of shifting from fossil fuels to more sustainable and less harmful types of energy.
Oil prices are eventually going to go up, and I’d rather the market shift be gradual, not harsh.
By steadily acclimatizing to the new energy paradigm, a spike in structural unemployment will be avoided. And why not save the environment while you are at it?
Comments or questions about this column can be sent to sean.r.kennedy@live.mercer.edu
(03/14/12 8:46pm)
President Obama is finally getting a break after a politically rough year. It is my opinion that he will most likely win the general election in November. Here is why.
First, the economy is picking up steam. Consumer confidence is rising significantly—this metric is a more accurate predictor of re-election than the oft-mentioned unemployment rate.
Obama’s economic policies have not worked perfectly, but they sped up the recovery sufficiently.
I’ll provide two examples of his policies: the stimulus bill and the auto bailout.
The stimulus bill’s short-term benefits are largely agreed upon in the academic community—the legislation cut taxes and delayed government layoffs until alternative jobs were available for the afflicted workers.
As a result, the economy recovered more quickly, and structural unemployment was reduced.
Since everyone is going to hound me for evidence here, I am providing the link to a fantastic, apolitical column by Ezra Klein which surveys the academic studies of the stimulus.
I should also note that the jury has yet to decide whether the final cost of the bill will outweigh the economic benefits. The article can be found online at http://wapo.st/pNqBOI.
The bailout of General Motors prevented the messy liquidation of a significant portion of the auto-manufacturing sector.
The company is once again profitable after a government-managed bankruptcy. Voters, especially the Democrats in Michigan, will remember this fact when they go to the polls.
(Side-note: The justification for implementing a government-managed bankruptcy rather than a private-sector one is simple: in the middle of severe credit crunches, inadequate private capital exists for the bankruptcies of such large companies. On the other hand, the government can raise the necessary capital with the click of a mouse).
In the end, the bailout didn’t even cost the taxpayers a dime—they actually stand to make around $20-60 billion after the cost of the auto bailout is subtracted from the profits of the bank bailouts.
My second point is straightforward—Obama has money, and a lot of it.
He has a well-established network of small-amount grassroots donors. He is now accepting SuperPAC funds, which will bring him enormous amounts of cash from unions and other single, wealthy donors such as George Soros.
In the meantime, the Republican contenders are burning millions of dollars in the primaries as they bloody each other, while Obama is projected to raise over $1 billion for the general election.
Contrary to the complaints of many liberals, the Citizens United decision will probably help Democrats more than the Republicans. Such flagrant money-flinging probably won’t be healthy for our democracy, but I will gripe about that issue later.
Third, the Republicans are self-destructing in the primaries.
Mitt Romney, the only candidate moderate enough to be elected by the entire country, is alienating the all-important independent voters in the polls as he panders to right.
For example, polls show that the contraception flap drove young, independent women (most of whom are sexually active and use contraception) away from the GOP.
This is a crucial demographic which propelled Obama to the White House in 2008 (not solely African Americans, as most assume).
Not only are women outnumbering men, but they also vote more often and are better educated.
Romney needs this demographic, but he’s scaring them off.
They may not come back before November.
Of course, energizing one’s base is also important during elections, but decades of research shows the independent vote to be necessary for victory.
Not that it matters—Romney can’t even excite the Republican base.
Many of them refuse to vote for him.
Instead, voters are fracturing the party and leaning towards socially conservative candidate, Rick Santorum.
The GOP is finally paying for its endorsement of the Tea Party. While the drawn-out Democratic primary of 2008 helped to increase Obama’s underdog popularity, polls show that this elongated Republican primary is hurting all of the candidates’ reputations.
Fourth and least controversially, Obama is an incumbent. His name is recognized throughout the United States.
He already has in place a huge, well-funded campaign infrastructure. Incumbency is actually Obama’s greatest asset—incumbents typically don’t lose.
All of these observations suggest Obama’s re-election in November, bar any black swan events such as war with Iran or the breakup of the euro-zone.
Unfortunately, black swan events are by definition unpredictable, so take this opinion with a grain of salt.
Regardless, one must agree that the Republicans aren’t helping themselves.
Do they want to win elections? Or do they want to blissfully ignore the 120 million non-conservatives in this country?
Those citizens can vote too, and the Republican Party would do well to remember that come 2016.
Comments, questions or concerns about this column can be sent to sean.r.kennedy@live.mercer.edu
(02/22/12 9:02pm)
In the last issue of the Cluster, I bored the majority of this newspaper’s readers with a lengthy overview of Ron Paul’s monetary policies. I am pleased to announce that this final article of the series will be less mundane when examining his plans for America’s fiscal affairs. When I speak of fiscal affairs, I am referring to Paul’s deficit reduction platform. I’m going to focus on entitlement reform because that is where the problem lies. To start, I want to clear up some common misconceptions about America’s deficit. First, the deficit is not an immediate problem. Deficits only directly restrict an economy’s growth under two circumstances: when the “crowding-out effect” manifests and when investor fear drastically increases the size of the deficit. Obviously, one may make a separate argument that government spending is less efficient than private sector spending, however that issue is not catastrophically urgent. The “crowding-out effect” occurs when oversized government debt increases interest rates, therefore crowding out private-sector investment. There are two reasons why this effect has yet to occur in the United States. First, interest rates are currently at or below real zero due to expansionary monetary policy. Second, our deficit isn’t a high enough proportion of our GDP. The Economist, a conservative British publication, estimates that the we have until around the end of the decade before we have to worry about the deficit’s direct effects on private investment. The other reason why America’s deficit is not a catastrophically urgent issue is that investor fear will most likely not attack the United States in the short or medium-terms. Treasury bonds are perceived to be the safest investments, and this status is unlikely to change in the short-term, mostly due to the absence of any serious competitors. Look around—there aren’t any other large economies with ample political and financial stability to take our place. A second common misconception regarding America’s deficit is that discretionary spending, such as funding for infrastructure, is the main culprit. The numbers are clear: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are the most problematic liabilities because their expenses are projected to grow exponentially over the next 50 years. While defense spending is significant, it is not growing and currently has no reason to grow at a rate similar to that of the entitlements. The good news is that we can fix this problem without hurting economic growth. Increasing the eligibility ages of benefits eliminates much of the fiscal problem, while shifting the incentive structure of healthcare away from services and towards quality of care greatly reduces inefficiency. So why haven’t we done anything? The answer is purely democratic—the current entitlement system is supported by the vast majority of voters. There isn’t enough political courage in Washington to make the tough choices. However, Ron Paul seems genuinely angry enough to shake up the system. In short, Paul’s policies would gut the current entitlement system and privatize the majority of it. He would also greatly reduce discretionary spending and would close or defund various federal agencies. I could write many thousands of words on Paul’s specific entitlement reforms, but I won’t for two reasons. First, I need to sleep. Second, I’d frequently make mistakes—I’m an undergraduate political science student untrained in public policy analysis. I don’t want to comment on subjects I don’t fully understand. Instead, I want to offer some general advice based upon three considerations. First, as I pointed out, the deficit is not an immediate problem. When it becomes a problem, the negative effects will not instantaneously tank the economy. They will gradually erode private sector growth. Second, one should note that because Paul is a fringe politician, his policies are typically based upon ideological rather than pragmatic rationales. As I demonstrated in my last article, he is often revises history to align with libertarianism. He also tends to ignore the results of his actions as long as narrowly and arbitrarily-defined liberties are preserved. Ideological purism makes me uncomfortable—not much good comes from those who base their entire decision-making framework on black-and-white terms. For example, in the case of healthcare policy, he would not require immunizations, even though government immunization programs have saved or improved many millions of lives since their implementation. (Behavioral research demonstrates that people typically refuse catastrophic insurance because human psychology makes the investment seem irrational when it is, in fact, a smart move.)Finally, one should remember that historically, economic institutions override political ones. In other words, when the time of crisis arrives, politicians typically enact any necessary fiscal reforms. With history as my guide, if bond yields begin shooting upwards, we will see some pretty quick reform from our government, barring further political polarization. Will this be a painless crisis? No. But it’s better than needlessly gutting discretionary spending. Let’s add these considerations up. Is the support of an fringe candidate justified by the current fiscal situation in America? While I wouldn’t mind solving fiscal dilemmas ahead of a crisis, I’m not sure such a benefit would outweigh the deleterious effects of Paul’s foreign, monetary, and discretionary spending policies (or at least the ones Congress and the courts would allow). It’s hard to have patience when every year the punditry proclaim imminent political and economic collapse. But I’ve got a feeling that America can wait for a better solution to her problems. I know I’m sidestepping the question of his fiscal policy’s efficacy, but
I’m asserting that it doesn’t really matter in the light of his personal and political flaws. America seems to agree at the polls. I fully realize there is a chance I am making a mistake by not endorsing the quick fix. The future is uncertain. But I think I can reduce collateral damage by waiting. That’s why these are the opinion pages, not the horoscopes, right? Comments, questions, or rebuttals to this column can be sent to sean.r.kennedy@live.mercer.edu
(02/08/12 9:50pm)
(01/25/12 9:46pm)
Ron Paul holds much sway with young conservatives and libertarians. However, once put into context, some of his stances become unrealistic. In this two-part series, I will examine his foreign and economic policies.
I will begin with the most lambasted: foreign policy. Paul believes the military is overstretched, and that foreign aid should be discontinued.
I partially agree with him on the former point. In the long term, it makes little sense to constantly embroil oneself in conflicted regions such as the Middle East.
However, American military aid currently props up governments that produce and ship the petroleum upon which our entire economy depends.
Indeed, we only receive a small percentage of our oil from the Middle East, but the resource is a global commodity. Even localized destabilization in key areas such as Saudi Arabia could sharply increase oil futures by as much as 50 percent overnight, resulting in global economic crisis.
The American economy would take many years to rebase itself upon alternative energy sources, even if domestic oil sites and the shale fracking industry were deregulated.
In the meantime, many chemicals and technologies would become prohibitively expensive. Our transportation infrastructure might collapse.
If this country wishes to become energy-independent, it must do so gradually.
The taxing of carbon emissions will force the market to develop new, sustainable energy sources, while allowing time for the labor force and manufacturing sector to readjust.
By steadily acclimatizing to the new environment, a spike in structural unemployment will be avoided.
A second problem with Paul’s foreign policy involves Iraq and Afghanistan. The complete removal of aid from these states would most likely condemn them to civil war.
I’m not being paternalistic, I’m being realistic.
The people within these borders must not be left without aid.
Their lack of American citizenship does not absolve the United States of a moral duty to help establish the foundation for a functioning state.
I am not suggesting that our military drop democracy from bombers.
Nor am I calling for a renewed occupation. I’m glad our troops are coming home.
But invading and vacating a country without even helping to finance necessary security and economic infrastructures is not simply irresponsible, it is inhumane.
Even minimal, smartly distributed aid can provide a medium-term anchor upon which a native government can take control.
For example, America should continue to help train domestic security forces.
The delicate transitions of power in these two countries are in critical phases. If America pulls all foreign aid now, much evidence points towards a dark outcome in both.
The task of government-building is formidable, often tainted by fraud and corruption, but the conflict-ridden alternative is worse.
As for the fiscal cost of the wars, I personally have few moral qualms about slightly reducing domestic government benefits to compensate for the small aid budget (1% of federal spending) which allows civilians to survive in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Again, aid brings with it many problems, but in this case, the benefits are greater than the costs.
The total elimination of foreign aid is unjustified. As is the case with American energy independence, Middle Eastern development must be dealt with slowly and steadily.
And I needn’t even mention how many lives medical aid saves in other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa.
Ron Paul makes some accurate observations about the current state of international policy.
However, his responses are often over-the-top and unrealistic. His reforms come at great and avoidable costs, both at home and abroad.
I support pulling America’s hands out of certain foreign affairs, but I’d rather do so smartly, not impulsively.
The United States is the most powerful and possibly the most interconnected country in the world. That position brings with it innumerable benefits and costs, many of which Paul does not seem to recognize.
Comments or questions about this column can be emailed to sean.r.kennedy@live.mercer.edu
(08/18/11 9:54pm)
The summer months frustrated countless Mercer students. As of August 14, the school has yet to notify many students of this semester’s cost. It’s not comforting to move back into expensive dorms and houses while financially blind. Study-abroad students bought their $1,000+ plane tickets without knowing how much tuition their scholarships covered, including yours truly. Many must also take out student loans at their local banks before moving to Macon.
The main culprit behind this delay is the new computer system. By no means do I believe my IT implementation skills are more effective than those who installed the new SIS; however, it isn’t hard to notice when something has gone terribly wrong.
Mercer’s SIS was outdated for years, and replacement’s implementation was delayed repeatedly. Regardless of these delays, which should have worked out any remaining kinks, the system arrived with more bugs than the entire Georgia wilderness. Classes disappeared from the database as students tried to register. Various issues forced departments to process files by hand. This fiasco not only inconvenienced students but also placed massive stress on Mercer’s employees, such as those in financial aid. Advisers had to juggle frustrated students, a broken computer system and layoffs.
So who screwed up? Honestly, I don’t know.
This letter calls for investigation rather than condemnation. I am confident that President Underwood will take this failure of management seriously, even if it lies within the highest ranks of the administration. However, in the meantime, students should treat all Mercer employees with respect. Many are overwhelmed and are doing their best to cope with limited resources. Remember, all are innocent until proven guilty. But I hope the guilty are sacked.
- Sean Kennedy
sean.r.kennedy@live.mercer.edu
(04/13/11 10:50pm)
Recently, there’s been a whirlwind of abortion-related opinions on these pages (and our sidewalks). Honestly, it’s refreshing to see Mercer students actually care about controversial issues once in awhile. I figured I should jump into the fray and make a few compelling points.
1) When one says many wonderful friends or talented leaders were never born due to their abortion, they must remember that many murderers and criminals also never entered the world. This argument is bunk.
2) The pro-life moniker is inaccurate. No one is pro-death. Abortion rights proponents simply disagree on the definitions of life and personhood.
3) A person is not defined by a beating heart or functioning nervous system. Animals have those too, and we tend to eat them. While the definition of personhood is constantly debated, one criterion is consciousness (or the ability to regain consciousness, in the case of comatose patients with a reasonable chance of waking up).
4) The majority of abortions (96 percent or so) occur well before a fetus can even biologically qualify as a person. Twenty-two-ish weeks into the pregnancy might be a safe point to start restricting abortions, as the nervous system and higher brain activity can develop from there on.
5) Planned Parenthood self-reports that only 3 percent of their procedures are abortions, while the rest are health-related (cancer screenings, contraceptives, etc). No third-party statistics exist to confirm the organization’s claim, but I doubt the margin of error is enormous. Regardless, the defunding of the organization would be detrimental to the health of millions of women and men.
6) While religious folk are certainly entitled to believe personhood begins at conception, they cannot prove the existence of the soul using scientific methodology and therefore cannot impose their restrictions on others who do not share their beliefs. The United States is not a theocracy.
7) The Bible doesn’t say anything remotely clear about abortion. Seriously. Check with the Christianity department at any respected university. For obvious reasons, I’d trust scholars over assorted church pastors and pamphlets.
Boxes of chalk, along with comments on this opinion should be sent to opinions@mercercluster.com
(03/30/11 8:33pm)
A common theme seen in the more liberal media outlets is populist anger against “the rich.” Those two words encompass a diverse group of people.
Dr. Thomas Stanley, a premier expert on America’s affluent, ran statistical analyses showing that “the rich” are composed of three groups: the richest, the average and then the fake millionaires.
The flashy millionaires are a small number of mostly unintelligent celebrities who blow their cash on Ferraris and G6s. They do not invest or grow their wealth after they earn or inherit it, probably because they never cultivated their minds.
The average millionaires are 94 percent of the demographic. They drive Fords and Toyotas while owning houses valued around $500,000 and below, typically sized to their needs. Their money is smartly invested and they also regularly donate a sizable sum to charity.
They shop at Marshall’s and other discount retailers and do not own expensive watches. They also work long hours and have battled through multiple graduate degrees. Simply put, most millionaires are smart, modest, and decent people.
Onto the fake millionaires. They drive BMWs, Mercedes and own McMansions (which used to be valued at around $700,000 and up before the crash). They wear Rolexes and shop at expensive department stores such as Bloomingdale’s.
They do not invest their money because they have none — these people are in debt up to their chins. They borrowed heavily against their house and they leased their cars. They lack the income to be taxed in the same bracket as the richest, and judging by their financial decisions, they aren’t modest or intelligent.
What can one draw from this information? The populist anger against them is misdirected at a false image of the affluent. The media often reinforces this stereotype.
What should matter in the battle over the tax cuts for the rich is data, not emotion. Most millionaires offer their wealth up for investment and charity while maintaining modest lifestyles and working harder than most.
Yes, some financial fat cats and CEOs made bad decisions that helped push the economy over the edge. But they were in the minority, and the rest of the rich should not be torn down with them.
Demagoguery should be directed toward opinions@mercercluster.com
(03/16/11 10:38pm)
Yes, it happened again: the gym was closed the week before Spring Break. While I am glad that our school has had the opportunity to host the A-Sun tournament because I know it brings in a lot of revenue, I think it is unfair that the University Center workout area is closed the week of the tournament that also happens to be the week of midterm exams.
Many students, including myself, work out as a way to de-stress, and the fact that the gym is closed during one of the most stressful weeks of the semester is ridiculous. While I understand that the A-Sun basketball teams need to practice, I also understood before I came to Mercer that as a student, my tuition would pay for me to use the gym facilities every day excluding some holidays.
Never was it mentioned that the gym would be closed during midterms due to basketball tournaments.
Even so, I argue that both sides can be accommodated. I think the basketball teams can practice and the students can work out. All that needs to be done is set aside an allotted time period of three hours each day for students to use the gym, and at any other times the gym can be closed to allow the teams to practice. Alternatively, I also argue that the basketball teams can practice at the same times that students are using the workout facility. There are barriers that are already installed and can be pulled down. The practicing team could use the farthest court from the workout equipment and the track could be closed. That way, no one could see what the team was doing during its closed practice.
Also, every day of the tournament four teams are knocked out of the brackets. It is therefore plausible that with each successive day, less practice time needs to be set aside for the visiting teams due to decreasing numbers, and it should be easier to allow Mercer students to use the gym facilities for a certain amount of time.
Another reason they may close the gym is to try to get more students to attend the games, but I have news for them: not allowing students to work out is not going to encourage them to attend a basketball game they were not planning on going to anyway. It will merely stress them out because they cannot use the gym during the week of midterms.
For people like me who work out every day, the finding that the gym is closed during midterms week is a serious detriment to one’s day. Yes, one may argue that students can run outside. However, many students do not feel safe running around campus, and others have torn their ACL twice and cannot run on hard concrete.
As I previously stated, midterms week is one of the two most stressful weeks during the semester, and I think with a little effort the athletic department and UC administrators can figure out a way to accommodate both the Mercer students and the visiting basketball teams. Not to mention that this happens every year the week before Spring Break, and HELLO…some people are trying to get bikini-ready.
Comments on this opinion can be sent to marielle.nicole.youmans@live.mercer.edu
(03/16/11 5:32pm)
The United States’ mediocre education system needs help, badly. Contrary to popular thought, increasing funding doesn’t help—it doubled over the past 40 years while students’ test scores stagnated. Instead, we must enact substantial structural reforms before the educated labor force shrinks further and threatens this nation’s future.
Before I can begin to discuss the education system’s specific issues and potential solutions, I must stress how badly students are failing. The state with the best education system is Massachusetts. It ranks 17th internationally. (In regards to standardized test scores, that is.
As a side note, I realize such testing is no perfect measure of learning, but it’s better than nothing.) Georgia scores half as well as the Bay State, ranking just slightly above Serbia, which spends much less on its students.
Such is the case nationally—the United States loves to spend on education. American students receive more dollars per pupil than most other countries, yet they perform terribly. Yes, many children in Georgia are graduating from high school with 4.0s, but they cannot read at an 8th grade level. College students, who incessantly gripe about stress and finals, study half as much as collegians 40 years ago.
However, university graduation rates and GPA averages remain the same, suggesting a proliferation of widespread grade inflation and with less rigorous coursework. Today, many university graduates leave with a degree in one hand, overwhelming student debt in the other, topped off with a brain void of critical thinking and civic skills.
Why is our education system failing on so many levels, and what can we do to improve it? For starters, all must share the blame: parents, politicians, school administrators and teachers. Many parents take little interest in their children’s education or discipline. If they actually happen to notice their child’s poor performance, they blame the teachers first instead of recognizing their own failures.
School administrators, under pressure from politicians and parents to churn out “successful” students, hand out 4.0s like candy instead of actually improving classroom policy. (As recently witnessed in Atlanta, they have even forged test scores to increase graduation rates.)
Some teachers perform abysmally, not even passing their own students’ tests. They enjoy excessive benefits and protection from teachers’ unions, such as tenure. Politicians never suggest substantial reform; their uninformed constituencies consider additional funding a panacea.
How can we derive viable solutions from the chaotic circle of finger-pointing? A look at the data might help. A recent paper from the NBER, one of the most respected economic research institutions, proposed the replacement of the bottom 10 percent worst-performing teachers in the United States, resulting in a jump to the top of international math and science rankings.
To target these under-performers, states should require instructors to take their students’ standardized tests. If they fail, dismissal should follow. Like Massachusetts, where legislators successfully executed a similar plan, a sizable proportion of teachers will most likely not make the grade.
To enact this reform, deft political maneuvering will be required of state legislatures and governors. They must spiritedly negotiate with teachers’ unions, perhaps by offering substantial wage increases to the teachers performing in the top 50 percent in exchange for firing the bottom 10 percent. Inane tenure rules and other hurdles might be present, but determined officials can overcome them even if vigorous anti-union rhetoric is required (Here’s lookin’ at you, Chris Christie).
Educational advancement requires reform outside of the classroom as well. Community–driven programs must encourage active parenting. Social Impact Bonds might be up to the task, or at least President Obama seems to think so. The government must clean out incompetent and crooked administrators, such as those populating the Atlanta Board of Education. Schools must extend early childhood programs; research demonstrates their importance in a child’s mental development.
The United States should also look to Germany for higher education guidance. Like those in the booming European state, students who cannot succeed in high school should be required to attend technical colleges. Rather than allowing students to drop out and join the unskilled labor force, where their living standards will plummet as they compete emerging overseas economies for unskilled jobs, a technical education offers a modest future in skilled labor.
There is a lot of work to be done, and time is pressing. Side-effects of the failing education infrastructure are already visible. Schools created so few skilled workers that an imbalance within the labor market appeared, resulting in uneven wage gains between upper, middle, and lower classes (the very same inequality liberals harp about).
If this country wishes to retain its supremacy, it must foster a future population of skilled workers. Otherwise, both GDP and living standards will drop, accelerating an era of decline for the red, white and blue.
Any finger-pointing should be directed toward opinions@mercercluster.com
(02/23/11 10:16pm)
Plenty of the top students at this school are Greek. Not all of the Baptists believe in restricting gay rights. There are athletes who are better at organic chemistry than most. I suppose my point is cliché, but it remains valid. Don’t judge a book by its cover; otherwise you might be shocked when reading its pages.
People have an innate ability to see patterns where there are none. For example, non-Greek students who come into the school with a preconception that all Greeks are lazy boozers running off Daddy’s trust fund will have the tendency to only pick out those fitting the stereotype.
However, I personally know several Greeks who spend the majority of their time studying hard and earning some of the highest grades at this school.
Yes, people fitting the negative stereotype exist at Mercer. But at the same time there are non-Greeks handing their parents a $30,000 bill while coasting on a 2.0 GPA and a 24-pack of Natty Light. Before you start to judge someone based on their clothing label, try getting to know them first.
I also have strong words in regards to stereotyping students based on their religious affiliation. Several of the most religiously committed people on campus are also the most open-minded — they have traveled extensively to cultures with different beliefs. Some of the non-religious folk are also incredibly happy, intelligent and generous.
Yes, there are also negative examples of both — Baptists who are judgmental towards those who believe differently and atheists who are smug and self-involved. In the end, it all depends on the person, not the affiliation.
However, I do have one caveat. I don’t believe one should attend or support a religious organization if it preaches principles with which one disagrees. I’m not advocating that hundreds of sects be formed due to minor scriptural disagreements. But when pro gay-rights students attend RUF (which has specifically condemned gay marriage), they are committing themselves to a negative stereotype.
If they wish to break free of that unfavorable view, they should join a campus organization that not only worships God but also preaches equality. Yes, they exist. If one doesn’t suit the purpose, at the very least they should not attend the services of the previous group.
Leaving one’s comfort/friend zone for one hour per week is not much to ask, especially when the support of a persecuted minority is on the other end of the scale. Friendships will most likely survive such a shift — I continue to be friends with multiple RUFers even though I haven’t attended in years. Who knows? Perhaps other schoolmates will tag along.
Remember, clichés can still be useful regardless of their overuse. Avoid stereotyping others while making sure to avoid being a negative one yourself.
Comments on this opinion can be sent to this terrible, evil, ‘Merica-hating liberal at opinions@mercercluster.com
(02/09/11 6:39pm)
Mercer’s website suggests that this university churns out students with a mission to better the world (or something else along the lines of that cliché phrase). The marketing campaign is certainly catchy. After all, who doesn’t want to be a bear with humanitarian instincts? Unfortunately, Mercer has a long way to go before it can live up to its claims.
Apart from a small percentage of students, there seems to be an atmosphere of apathy at this school. For example, the Princeton Review lists Mercer to be one of the top 20 most conservative campuses in the nation, yet the Libertarian and Republican clubs are often empty or completely inactive.
Perhaps students simply identify with the religious rather than the religious right; I can only speculate at this point. Regardless, any who wish to change the world should note that involvement in governmental affairs is a good place to start.
Another great example of apathy is the level of disconnect students have with Macon. As if it wasn’t obvious enough, the city is one of the 10 poorest in the nation. Students, especially freshmen, avoid downtown except for the occasional club outing. They complain Macon is disgusting and dangerous, yet students do nothing to improve the city’s situation. They close their eyes and plug their ears, staying on campus except for the occasional trip to Kroger or Zaxby’s. Gandhi nailed this one on the head when he said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
Many students have a rigid mindset; they think Macon is a pit stop for four years, and once they are out of vocational school they will never return. I know I will be leaving Georgia after my time at Mercer is done, but I also recognize everything Mercer has given me. I’ve grown as a person and developed an intricate understanding of the world. I want to give back to the school and city that shaped me over the past couple years.
If Mercer wants to live up to its mantra, it needs to focus on not only building up the Corridor, but also helping the poorer parts of town. I admit it would be silly to think that Mercer can simply brainwash students into a humanitarian mindset; many people do not have the mental capacity or upbringing to care about anything other than themselves and their jobs.
However, I think Mercer can take students with that potential and push them in the right direction via an expanded Service Scholars program or additional requirements for the Presidential Scholarship.
Macon is our city. Mercer is part of it. If there is any place to start changing the world, this city is it.
Angry e-mails from Mercer’s marketing department can be sent to opinions@mercercluster.com
(02/09/11 3:23am)
We pay a tuition fee and in turn we get a service. I’m afraid the argument against the bear statue ends at the fact that it did not come from tuition funds, but I’ll supplement my statement anyway. First: How can you possibly argue that someone—or a university, in this case—must use extra funds the way a student(s) sees fit? It is true that there are different departments that could use the money for something else. Any department could argue that they need a new “something.”
Let me put it in a different perspective. No customer goes into a fast food restaurant demanding that they quit wasting money on fancy unnecessary renovations, huge play slides or even that useless art you often see. They begin worrying more on the quality of their service: you hand the cashier a dollar, he hands you a burger.
I’m not trying to compare Mercer to a fast food restaurant but rather point out that the underlying principle is the same. You pay Mercer and Mercer provides a quality education. Second: You portray Mercer as being selfish and misguided in their ethics, when in fact it is you who does not fully understand the ethics at hand. Perhaps JFK’s quote will help get the point across: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
I suggest you first start finding a way to better this university and “change the world” yourself before you worry about what others do. Furthermore, I don’t believe buying a statue promotes any negative mindset to students, especially one that promotes our school as strong and courageous.
I trust in what Mercer does and you should too, but perhaps I’m being too hard on you. Maybe you’re right. Let’s take down the bear and sell him; besides, there are lots of schools with a bear as a mascot. While we’re at it, let’s grab ol’ Jesse Mercer and sell him for parts. After all, he has no use sitting all alone at the Quad, but I hope for Jesse’s sake all your fellow students don’t agree.
- Michael Lopez
Comments to this opinion can be sent to michael.a.lopez@live.mercer.edu
(02/09/11 3:09am)
As director of Mercer University’s Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), I feel it is imperative to the Mercer community that I respond to Clarissa Price’s editorial “Pregnancy Resources on Mercer’s Campus in Need of Expansion” in the Jan. 27 edition of the Cluster.
The information conveyed in Ms. Price’s editorial misrepresented the services of CAPS. CAPS complies with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Codes of Conduct set forth by the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as well as the respective state of Georgia licensing boards.
These professional codes of ethics require us as licensed therapists to be objective, respectful and open to all issues presented by clients.
Unfortunately, the information Ms. Price extracted from our e-mail conversation does not accurately represent the information I conveyed to her about CAPS services.
The article’s block quote states that CAPS limits a student’s right to explore choices. To the contrary, CAPS is very concerned about students and helping them make decisions that they feel are right for them.
Based on our ethical codes, CAPS provides a safe place for students to discuss and explore all options available.
In addition, CAPS refers students to organizations and websites that will provide students with the opportunity to explore accurate information about all options.
Discussions regarding pregnancy can lead to heated debates in which people take very strong stances. As a professional counseling center, CAPS is legally prohibited from taking sides.
Our therapists have to be impartial in order to provide an environment where a student feels comfortable discussing pregnancy and all other personal issues.
The role of CAPS is not to dictate to students what they should do in any given circumstance but to support and assist them in discovering the option that is best for them.
We are privileged to serve Mercer students in the most caring and respectful manner possible.
Dr. Piassick is the director of Mercer’s Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS). Comments on this opinion can be sent to piassick_ea@mercer.edu