IZZY

While many of the 850 schools choosing to forego standardized test scores are bible schools, nursing schools, music schools, or other more specialized institutions, larger liberal arts colleges are beginning to take the leap as well.   Among the most noteworthy are American University, Bowdoin College, DePaul University, George Mason University, Lewis and Clark College, and Wake Forest University.  These schools argue that standardized tests are not a fair representation or indicator of success.  When push comes to shove, the SAT and ACT are just Saturdays, and any student could have one bad Saturday or five bad Saturdays, and that should not be a hindrance to their college admission.  Some students merely don’t test well.  Those same students are often the most creative and ingenuitive thinkers, whom I venture to guess college admissions officers would like to have on their campuses.

Most traditional academic institutions, however, are sticking by these standardized tests. Brown University’s Dean of Admissions, Jim Miller 73’, claims that the use and purpose of standardized test scores varies from school to school, saying “While we get transcripts — which are the most critical  — and teacher recommendations and essays, one of the things standardized tests does is help give us a sense of comparing apples to apples.  It’s nowhere near the most important tool, but it does add to our understanding of a student’s credentials.”  So students should rest assured that while most schools do consider test scores, they are most definitely not the most important factor. Test scores are more or less a standard basis of comparison among applicants - who would be otherwise hard to compare as courses and grading systems vary from high school to high school.  While colleges do make a point to assess academics within the context of a high school, they also use standardized test scores as a standard.

Among the schools which have not transitioned to test-optional, weight placed on test scores has actually increased.  As applicant pools grow and admission staffs do not, schools are forced to become more reliant on SAT scores as a broad basis of comparison (U.S. News). That being said, like Jim Miller noted, colleges use test scores very differently.  Stephanie Meade of The Collegiate Edge told U.S. News that “for admissions, virtually all colleges care more about good grades and challenging classes than test scores.  But many colleges, particularly those with extremely competitve admissions still care a lot about scores.  And here’s the catch: Many colleges, even test optional, use test scores to award ‘merit aid’.” It is much more plausible for small, liberal arts schools to go test optional as they can dedicate more time to each individual application.  

  That considered, it is amazing how many barriers women have overcome - with not much more than sheer power of will and constant agitation - over the course of the past century.  To our young minds, a century feels like a millenium, but we must remember that time is relative.  Because of women who did not merely stop working when their pay did not equal that of their male counterparts, women who refused to stop fighting or buy into their “inferiority”, and women who continuously challenged the stereotypical notions of femininity, we know a different nation than that which existed even twenty years ago.

The notion of a “1950s Housewife” seems ludicrous to us nowadays, but we must remember that just 60 years ago, women were still confined largely to the home.  In 1950, only 33.9% of women over the age of 16 worked - that is only ⅓ of the female population.  The remaining two-third’s were expected to care for their children and have dinner ready at six.  In 1952, Judith Moyers’ favorite high school teacher, a PhD historian, wrote in her senior year yearbook: “Congratulations to our valedictorian, who has the brains to reveal it and the charm to conceal it.” In 2010, not even a lifetime later, 58.6% of women were a part of the labor force; and those women continue to be encouraged to take pride in, rather than conceal, their intelligence.  (U.S. Department of Labor).

Not only has the percentage of women working grown exponentially, but women have expanded into fields once reserved for males. 60 years ago, women were still more-or-less limited to “pink-collar-jobs”, jobs which were thought to be extensions of the woman’s nurturing place in the home: teacher, nurse, secretary, librarian, etc. Today, women comprise 27% of the individuals employed in computer sciences and mathematics, and 48% of the AP Calculus test takers are young women.  On the other hand, males now comprise 18.2% of the elementary and middle school teaching staff and 43% of high school teachers. (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics)  

Female expansion into the American workforce has brought with it a corresponding pay raise.  Just 47 years ago, in 1966, the average American woman brought home a mere 57.6 cents for every dollar the American man earned.  Approximately half a century later, in 2011, women were earning 77.0 cents on the dollar.  And that value will only come closer to 100 cents on the dollar as women continue to gain a more forceful and evident presence in offices throughout the country (payequity.org).        

The evidence is clear that as women’s involvement in the workforce has risen, so too has their economic and political presence.  In each presidential election from 1980 to present, the portion of the female population turning up at the polls has outweighed that of males.  Nowadays, more women receive both graduate and undergraduate degrees than men, and nearly 40% of U.S. working wives out-earn their husbands. (npr.org)

I hope that if a seventeen-year-old confined to the box that is Utah can see this, Congress can to.  I realize that this decision is not entirely up to you - unfortunately, partisan forces run rampant in our country - but willingness to compromise for the safety of the American people is not too much to ask.  

I do not suggest, by any means, that we rid America of firearms.  People are entitled to their second amendment right, and besides that, it’s just not realistic.  But change must be implemented on a national basis.  We need comprehensive universal background checks. Our rights only extend so far until they impede on someone else’s - and that includes our right to privacy.  There should be no “gun show loophole”, nor should private sales be allowed. Period.  The simple truth is that it needs to be harder to obtain a gun of any kind.  And once one has proven himself qualified, he or she should have to complete a simple gun safety course beforehand - much like I had to undergo hours of driver’s education before I received my license.  

Coming from a state with the most minimal of gun control laws, I deem it necessary that we have a national gun control policy which states can only expound upon, not make void.  Gun violence is not going to be curbed until change is implemented.  I’ve seen firsthand how a shooting can affect a society (Trolley Square, 6 dead, 2007), and that is something no community should have to endure.  We live in America, which means no man, woman, or child should fear the possibility of being shot when he or she walks into a movie theater, visits the mall, or sits down to class.  But I have been afraid, and I imagine you have been too.

Sincerely,

According to a 2007 report by the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey, the United States, with less than 5 percent of the global population, possesses  35-50 percent of the world’s civilian owned guns - a number which totals to approximately 270 million (cfr.org).  Up until now, the Supreme Court has upheld the American citizens’ constitutional right to bear arms.  And so it should continue to uphold that right, but designate a few more national prerequisites to gun ownership as well.  The current federal gun control policy sets a minimum standard for states, which then have the authority to implement more lenient or more strict gun control policies.  

The limited federal legislation on gun control has been in place for decades.  It is archaic and ineffective. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to all those under the age of 18, as well as those with criminal records, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, etc. 25 years later, in 1993, that law was expanded upon by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, an act which mandated background checks for all unlicensed people purchasing a gun from a federally licensed dealer.  But these laws simply are doing the job. (cfr.org)

The United States gun control policy is ridden with loopholes.  Anyone - from criminals to the clinically insane - is able to buy a gun sans background check at gun shows.  According to the New York Times, background checks are utilized in only 60% of legal gun transactions.  Even when background checks are employed, they’re far from thorough.  Many states refuse to release mental illness files to federal government databases, and the background check system is completely inconsistent.  

More guns means more lives lost. Therefore buying a gun should not be easy, in fact, the U.S. government has a responsibility to make it much, much harder.  Today, President Obama is calling for reform on gun policy.  Unfortunately, both he and passionate gun policy advocates like myself must realize that it is not pragmatic, nor realistic, to expect the American system will be completely transformed, but the following proposals are nothing but reasonable.  

The Federal government must close background check loopholes to ensure only mentally stable, record free citizens have access to firearms.  Yes, this means background checks for ALL gun sales, especially those that fall under “private” or “gun show” loopholes.  A federal mandate must be issued requiring states to release mental health information - as well as hefty incentives for them to do so. Federal Agencies must also be held responsible for sharing all reliable information pertinent to the sale of firearms to the Federal Government.  At least 38 of the above mentioned 62 killers showed signs of mental illness before committing their respective crimes - had they been prevented purchase of firearms, countless lives would have been saved.  

Not only does it need to be more difficult to buy a gun, but the American people should not have access to such dangerous guns.  All assault and military grade weapons should be banned to the American public.  Magazines should be limited to 10 rounds, as well.  Most shooters involved in gun homicides are not well trained. Thus taking into account their low accuracy, the amount of hits would be decreased further by smaller magazines (fewer rounds).  The shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, and Newtown all used magazines holding more than 10 rounds - and coincidentally, the death counts from each of the shootings was especially high.            

Finally, the American government must increase access to mental health services.  Over 80% of mental illnesses go undiagnosed, and coincidentally, 90% of gun suicides are committed by the undiagnosed mentally ill (iccd.org).  Gun control wouldn’t only prevent murder, it would prevent suicide, as well.   

On a final note, 72% of gun homicides are committed using handguns rather than military assault rifles or high-magazine firearms.  It’s clear that too many people are able to purchase guns. Period. If nothing else comes of these tragedies, America needs a more stringent gun application process.  Believe me, we would reap the benefits. There are already 270 million guns in circulation here in the U.S., and we cannot afford for that number to grow (cnn.com)

It is a common misconception that presidents dictate to what extent the American economy is regulated and to what extent it is allowed freedom to grow or shrink.  In reality, that power lies in the hands of the Federal Reserve - a governmental entity which acts independent of the executive and legislative branches. The Federal Reserve has a mandate to keep the economy growing at a healthy level - not too fast nor too slow, and it does so via interest rates. Today’s average interest rate, 3.53%, is the lowest it has ever been, meaning money is quite cheap to borrow - which in theory should improve the housing market, fund new business opportunities, etc. (nytimes.com)

The executive’s hand in the economy is essentially limited to three factors: tax policy, spending policy (under which we would see the bank bailout, stimulus plan, etc.), and regulative policy - but still he needs Congress in order to make these proposals reality.  This is where the presidential candidates come into play.  

President Obama and Candidate Romney foremost differ on a fundamental economic level.  It is Republican philosophy that the government should tax and regulate the economy as little as possible, while Democratic philosophy believes the government should play a bigger role in regulating money and redistributing wealth.  Obama wants to continue Bush era tax cuts for those who make under $250,000 a year, while Romney wants to make the Bush era tax cuts permanent for all.  Both men believe that the Corporate Tax Rate is too high, and while Obama proposes to lower it to 28%, Romney hopes to lower it to 25%.  The candidates’ biggest economic divide lies in environmental policy: while 93% of democrats want stricter environmental regulations, only 47% of Republicans hope for the same (nytimes.com). Long term, both candidates want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, but it remains unseen just how they might do this, though Obama has made it clear that he intends to raise taxes for the wealthy, and Romney that he will not be cutting military spending. (npr.org)

America has reached an economic turning point.  No longer can the American government continue to spend without repercussion.  Our president simply cannot have it all. We need to increase revenue and decrease spending, which means whomever is elected come November will be forced to make unpopular decisions.  It is likely that President Obama will raise taxes for the upper echelon of the American population, and that President Romney will simplify the tax structure - which, in reality, means the loss of a myriad of tax deductibles.  Neither of these policies will result in immediate economic change nor turn the economy around, though.  It must be remembered that a president’s economic success is in part dependent on the luck of the draw, and largely dependent on the global economy.  While one president might pump millions of tax-payer dollars into the American infrastructure, a lackluster President ten years down the line might reap the benefits.

In the words of Stephen Dubner, the president’s role in the American economy is more like that of a “cheerleader” than a “CEO”, but never will the American people hear a presidential candidate say, “My fellow Americans, I can't control the U.S. economy. I've got a little bit of influence but mostly it does what it does. So if it gets worse on my watch, you shouldn't blame me -- and if it happens to get better, you probably shouldn't give me too much credit either.” (marketplace.org)

It is a common misconception that 50% of American marriages will end in divorce, though it is not far off.  Divorcerates.org estimates that 40% of marriages will end in divorce, though this number should be falling in accordane to divorce and marriage trends (divorcerates.org).

Education has also proven to be an equally important factor in the decline of divorce rates.  Among couples with merely a high school diploma, divorce rates have remained constant.  But among college educated couples, divorce rates have steadily declined (cnbcnews.com).  Most account this to the fact that those with a college education are redefining gender roles in marriage.   According to Stephanie Coontz, a history and family studies professor at Evergreen State College,  “divorces are dropping in the college-educated sector because many spouses are learning how to negotiate marriages based on less rigid gender roles” (MSNBC).  Women are no longer expected to run the household and the household only, but being accepted as equally intelligent and capable employees and business-women.  Thus household chores are being split evenly between husband and wife, evoking a sense of equality in marriages that has never been present before.  Laundry and dishes are no longer a bone of contention among men and women, but a grounds for agreement and appreciation.  As the number of college graduates is rising, the number of divorce rates appear to be falling drastically.

The rate of marriages altogether is also dwindling.  Today, the marriage rate is 6.8 (meaning 6.8 out of every one thousand people are married), while in 2005 the number was approximately 7.5 (CDC).  The biggest factor in this decrease is a rise in gay and lesbian relationships.  In the past decade, over 50% of Americans have come to accept gays and lesbians (GALLUP).  As society’s acceptance has grown, gays and lesbians have begun “coming out” at much younger ages, while mere decades ago people were waiting until after they’d been married and had children to even consider the prospect of homoesexuality.  Gays who were formally marrying due to societal pressure are now entering long-term partnerships.  Even those living in states that have legalized gay marriage refuse to partake until all gays are granted this basic right.  Some more liberal straight couples have vowed not to marry until gays are granted this equality, as well.  Amber Settle, who has been with boyfriend Andre Berthiaume for ten years, claims that among their reasons not to marry is their “belief it would be unfair to get married until same-sex couples across the country had the same opportunity”.

This dwindling number of marriages isn’t merely accountable to a rise in lesbian and gay partnerships, but also a rise in the amount of people who have found that marriage simply isn’t for them.  Marriage is no longer a status quo to solidify relationships. Couples are growing more and more comfortable with the prospect of having children and creating a life together without marrying. In some cases, relationships go awry when they become a “marriage”, which, in this day and age, has come to be seen as a burden.  Couples now view cohabitation as a choice, while marriage has become somewhat inescapable - especially considering our recent economic downturn and the rise in divorce costs.

So arises a new reason for this drop in divorce rates: the economy.  The economy was expected to grow considerably these past few years - thus prices inflated in expectation of this influx of money.  But that influx never came.  In fact, just the opposite occurred, but the prices had already risen and it seemed nothing could be done to reverse that fact.  Divorce costs were no different.  Divorce was growing more and more expensive as incomes were shrinking.  

More optimistic people like to attribute the simultaneous economic downturn and drop in divorce rates to a renewed effort in the success of marriages.  The economy was in the trash, money was sparse, and couples were coming together to trudge through the recession.  But the cold hard truth of the matter is that divorce just became too expensive.  Even those who could afford the divorce alone reconsidered due to alimony and additional utilities costs. Often married couples were living under different roofs and leading entirely separate lives, but they simply couldn’t afford to divorce.  This fact might have forced some couples to reconsider their trifles, but it made most deepen in their resentment towards one another.  

The first step we must take in obtaining energy efficiency might appear quite mundane and obvious: turn out the lights, or, even better, don’t use them at all. When a classroom is not in use, or a bathroom for that matter, there is no reason whatsoever that the lights should be on - it’s simply an inexcusable waste. And on the sunniest of days, there’s no need for lights at all. Natural lighting is less harsh and, in my opinion, more conducive to learning - so it doesn’t hurt that it provides no detriment to our environment, nor increase to our utilities bill. On a high note, props to teachers like Mr. Baird, who turns out the lights and lets mother nature’s greatest light fixture illuminate the classroom.

Another equally simple, though albeit slightly more costly, step we can take is this: install programmable thermostats. Most of you are probably wondering what exactly that is. A programmable thermostat allows the homeowner - or school-owner in this case - to regulate the temperature of his/her home according to when the owner might be home. There is no need for the heating to run night and day, so a programmable thermostat aids in eliminating wasted energy. These thermostats could also come in handy from a room to room basis, so that teachers might regulate the room’s temperature in terms of when they do and do not have classes.  

An additional action both teachers and students alike can take is shutting the door. Not only does shutting the door drown out noisy hallway banter, but it keeps warm - or cool - air in the classroom, which is a definite plus. Also, to ensure the school is running most efficiently, heating and cooling systems should be evaluated on a monthly basis. In the long haul what would prove most effective - though it would be quite costly initially - is investing in all new heating and air conditioning. Like the school, our devices are somewhat archaic. Only some heirlooms get better with age, and I’m sad to say heaters and air conditioners are not among them.

Heating and air conditioning doesn’t only escape via doors, though, but it flows both ways through windows. If window’s aren’t properly sealed and insulated, they allow air to flow in and out - which makes consuming only as much as we need to quite the difficult feat. In order to avoid losing energy and money to the sky, window films and insulation might be installed to keep all the right air in, and all the wrong air out.

Another quick fix which would most definitely save money and just might slow the depletion of mother nature’s water supplies is fixing the faucets. A single leaking faucet, which drips 20 times per minutes would waste 694 gallons of water per year (ga.water.usgs.gov).  To put that in perspective, a human being should drink approximately 228 gallons of water per year - and we consider that a lot of water (scientificamerica.com). A drippy faucet is annoying, yes, but we often fail to realize just how much water that is wasting, water which could go to a cause much worthier than washing our hands or taming unruly hair.  

Here at Judge though, I’d like to think we aim higher than just these quick fixes. Though these next options would require fundraising and time, there’s few causes quite so worthy as the environment. In the future, we might consider taking bounds, as opposed to steps, toward energy efficiency, such as installing solar panels. Though the initial cost might be somewhat outrageous and overwhelming - according to GreenEcon.net, they cost approximately $95 per square foot - in the long haul, the money saved on utilities would far outweigh the money spent on the panels themselves.  On average, solar panels pay for themselves in 3-5 years, so from that point on they would be essentially making money for the school (easywaystogogreen.com). Other changes, such as installing low flush toilets and Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs), would do a great deal to curb our energy consumption as well. Regular old toilets, such as those found in all of our bathrooms here at Judge, use roughly 13 liters of water per flush, while low flush toilets use only 3-5 liters per flush, which could save thousands upon thousands of liters per year (toiletabcs.org). CFL’s require much less electricity than your typical incandescent lights, although they do have a delayed reaction and take a bit of time to reach full luminosity. The upsides of CFLs however, far outweigh the detriments: in a sixth month time span the bulbs will pay for themselves, and in their lifetime, they will make approximately $30 each (earthfriends.org).

Though it’s unrealistic to expect that we make any huge changes in the short time to

Now, some ladies and gentlemen have dared to compare The Hunger Games to Twilight, but Judge students seem to believe there is no comparison there. Senior Lizzie Gibbs, a self proclaimed Hunger Games addict, claims, “A lot of people are saying it’s the next Twilight, but I think the books are a lot better.”

Judge students have consumed these books at unprecedented rates, senior Marisa Bush read the entire trilogy in “less than a week”, as have many of her fellow bulldogs.

Because of this ravenous addiction, students can’t help but look forward to the movie, which is not looking to disappoint.  Senior Alyssa Corbett says, “I think they are casted really well, which is usually where good books become bad movies.”  And it doesn’t quite hurt that “ they picked very good looking men”.