Admission of Guilt

For decades, the premier colleges throughout America have maintained strict admission policies. Referencing their legal right to allow or deny any student from their academic superiority, many colleges have relied heavily on the "Legacy" policy for their candidate selection. This policy was used in attempts to prevent African Americans, and other minorities, from integrating onto their campuses, though eventually their hands were forced by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Though legacy admissions have been on the decline over the past decade, they still account for over half of the admissions in "Ivy League" universities.

On the other hand, we have community colleges, such as HACC, which provides an educational opportunity for anyone willing, and able, to pay the admission fee. These establishments allow for higher education opportunities to young single mothers, established career professionals, and recent legal immigrants. Whether you're a 73 year old grandmother or an eighteen year old recent high school graduate without a direction in life; one may find the opportunity to advance their education through community colleges.

I don't see these bastions of education as having any negative effect; this is to say that people do not try to create one.

One may hint that the open admission policy is set in place by overzealous capitalists whose eyes are trained on a student's pockets and not their mind.

There is some truth in this theory. A college is a business that provides a service. All businesses are in the business of making money. Therefore, a college is in the business of making money, while providing the student a service. The service comes in the form of credits, degrees, and transcripts. One may choose to continue their education at a university, which they will be able to utilizing the service of a college transcript. As absurd as this may sound to some people, much like purchasing those $100 designer jeans or sneakers, you're paying for the Harrisburg Area Community College label. HACC has gone to great lengths to provide a collaboration with universities, such as Penn State, to guarantee transfer of all credits, thus saving the student money that would have to be spent at a university. Thanks to this, attending a community college will ultimately save money that would have been spent on the first two years of a university.

Another reason one may protest against the open admission policy is the argument that these colleges prey on students that, as the counselors would agree, will not be able to meet the academic criteria to pass. This person may argue that "college isn't for everyone".

To this I bring up a story from my time in high school. I chose the "Business" curriculum, where many others chose the "College Prep" curriculum. In this curriculum I learned accounting, typing, proper filing, how to write a proper business letter and resume, and was Microsoft Office certified. Meanwhile, the College Prep students learned calculus, chemistry, and biology. At the end of all of my course descriptions in the course handbook it stated "This class is not intended for the college bound student." My own school's course manual said that I was unable to go to college because I was taking classes that prepared me for working in business.

After graduation, I joined the Marine Corps and ended up teaching my class how to use Power Point. I left the Marine Corps and decided to go to college. I'm not the smartest person, and I would say that I'm an "average" student. I study the night before the exam, and write my papers the day they're due. I put the 'pro' in procrastination. I would argue that when I first started, a counselor would say that I was wasting my time as well.

Until college admission deans have a precognitive ability to foresee whether or not a student has the potential to get their degree or not, it is not up to them, it is up to the student.

College is a learning experience, whether you graduate or not. What many fail to acknowledge is the hidden curriculum found at a community college.

Because of my experiences in college over the past two years, I've learned to be more tolerant toward people and their opinions. I've learned that it's perfectly acceptable to "agree to disagree", and that that separation is what makes everyone unique. Arguably, I've found out more about myself within the past two years than I had within the twenty-four that preceded them.

I didn't take "Tolerance 201" or "Finding Yourself 102", I just attended class. This all began with one open admissions policy at Northampton Community College in Tannersville, Pennsyltucky.

The Present Dent

President Obama sparked severe criticism when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He joined the ranks with the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Frank Kellogg, Mother Teresa, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, George Marshall, and Yasser Arafat.

Many, including President Obama himself, claim that he did not deserve the award. According to Nobelprize.org, President Obama received the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

I believe that these negative sentiments come from his lack of time in office, along with his (as the press calls it) "rock star appeal". Compare this to Martti Ahtisaarifor, the 2008 Nobel winner and arguably a person that no one in the class has ever heard of, for "his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts".

Three decades!! President Obama won the award when he was 48 years old. He was a teenager when Martti began resolving international conflicts!

I believe that Martti Ahtisaarifor is what the world has come to accept as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, or the likes of Jody Williams and the ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines) for going out and clearing anti-personnel landmines from old battlefields. These people have taken action, set precedents, and made a difference.

Has President Obama really made a difference? Has he made a significant impact on this world?

Recently President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has signed a treaty to disarm a third of the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons. Many claim this to be an Obama victory, suggesting that President Obama was the creator of this treaty.

However, many Americans are very forgetful. It was actually former President Ronald Reagan who originally proposed the treaty to, then, Union of Soviet Socialist Republic President Mikhail Gorbachev.

True, Obama did get a signature, and in standard form Fox overreacted and cried anti-Christ, while every other US news media praised him for curing the blind and walking on water.

But just as Reagan "broke the wall", Obama's been riding many lesser known coattails of his predecessor. Over a year later and he's still following the Bush administration's timeline for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet those were his major selling points while on the "Bob the Builder" campaign trail. DID HE STEAL IT, YES HE DID!!

Just my suggestion; we should concentrate on world peace.

Where's my damned prize money?

Slippery Slope Fallacies run rampant in the streets

If you give a mouse a cookie, he will ask for a glass of milk....

If "people spores" implant themselves into my furniture, I will stop smoking this crazy shit....

If a burglar breaks into my house, I will shoot him with the 12 gauge behind the door....

If a baby breaks into my house, I will love it until my dying breath....