SPOi
THE BATTALll
) to a
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 11 * MorKtey.
ith Tiger Woods
>und of the Pfl
mship, and got an]
mpse at how hard I
major championsh"
shot 80 that day,
mah Country Club?
sappointed but
learn from the exul
as a very difficult'!
hen, but at the
lid observe howlii
I his victory fe
d. “And I rented
h putt he made or]
he really stayed!
s made one big els
7 to win his firstPfl
ay, Weir made tlier|
ie record, he had
the day. But the si
is meaningless as
e in the Masters,
ade literally a
ide of 8 feet tod:
d. “At the PGA
an't think I made
That was the di
week.”
Too much work, no credit
Engineering 111 and 112 classes are too difficult for number of hours given
ght batters while
ete game shutout
(30-14, 8-4 Big
sophomore
f the season.
m
>me team
iber Dawson andMi
mda Raffaelli andKil
rizona Cup compel
e quartet defeated!
, to take the teaiutJ
ry over Canada ini
e archery compel'
y-
any Texas A&M stu
dents couldn’t imag
ine having to build
air-powered car on a budg-
t of $50. Nor could they
nagine a class that requires
lie design of a device that
punches pingpong balls,
hile at the same time has
fiem completing complicated
roblem-solving homework, creating intricate
nd detailed drawings and passing tough com-
non exams. But this is what freshman engi-
eering students taking the engineering 111 and
12 courses deal with every semester.
Many engineering students feel these cours-
s are two of the most rigorous offered by the
niversity, which is why it is surprising that
|tudents who survive them are only rewarded
no credit hours for their efforts. The college of
engineering should increase the number of
redit hours given for engineering 111/112 so
they more accurately reflect the intense effort
involved in passing these courses.
I Fortunately for future engineering students,
a task force headed by Dr. Jo W. Howze, asso
ciate dean of engineering for the college of
engineering and assistant director of the Texas
Engineering Experiment Station, has been set
up to assess engineering 111/112. The task
force will reportedly suggest whether to
Increase the number of credit hours given for
the classes and has sought input from students
who have taken the courses.
| This is important because many engineering
111/112 students believe that the two courses
arc “weed out” classes. That is, they are
designed to filter out an arbitrary number of
students from engineering by whatever means
possible — including making thenv undergo
strenuous course work while only getting
slightly more credit than the standard kinesiol-
gy course.
Dr. Mark Holtzapple of the Department of
Chemical Engineering, an engineering 112 pro
fessor and co-author of “Foundations of
Engineering,” the textbook used by engineering
111/112 students says the college of engineer
ing doesn’t make any attempt to weed out stu
dents. “In fact, the truth is the exact opposite.
There is a lot of concern among the administra
tion that we retain engineering students.”
Holtzapple adds, “In our effort to retain stu
dents, we did not want to dumb down the
course.”
Holtzapple is correct. The amount of materi
al covered in engineering 111/112 shouldn’t
change. But according to the history of engi
neering 111/112 available at the engineering
112 Web site (engineering! 12.tamu.edu),
before the formation of engineering! 11/112 in
1998, freshman engineers took engineering
109, a three-hour course that introduced stu
dents to the engineering discipline, and envi
ronmental design 105, a two-hour graphics
course. Administrators then decided to fuse the
two courses “. . . into a single two-semester
course sequence designated engineering 111
and engineering 112.”
Essentially, engineering 111 and engineering
112, which have a problem-solving component
and a graphics component, are two courses in
one. Logically, it would make sense if each
were a five-hour course. Even a four-hour
course would prove beneficial to engineering
students, but rewarding two hours for the
amount of work involved is not fair.
Holtzapple said, “The reason for two credit
hours is historical. When engineering 111/112
was created, there was a concern among the
engineering departments that the state was
going to limit the total number of credit hours
for graduation. Also, at the time, there was a
very large core curriculum in the humanities
that squeezed the number of credit hours
allowed for engineering courses.”
It appears these reasons no longer hinder the
addition of credit hours to engineering 111/112.
“Since that time, there has been a reduction in
the humanities core curriculum,” Holtzapple
said. “Also, in the last few years, I have not
heard of an effort by the state to reduce credit
hours.”
Holtzapple says he favors adding credit
hours to engineering 111/112. “Perhaps the
time is right to relook at this issue and consider
adding credit hours.” He said the number of
credit hours given for engineering 111/112
makes some freshman engineering majors
cranky.
There may be one positive with only giving
two credit hours to engineering 111/112. “One
way of looking at it is that it costs you more
money to take classes with more credit hours,”
Holtzapple says. “Look at all the education we
provide in engineering 111/112 for a discount
price!” True, but many engineering majors
would likely be willing to pay the higher cost if
it means the blood, sweat and tears involved in
completing engineering 111/112 is properly
reflected on their transcript.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
Graphic by Radhika Thirunarayanan.
th
m
:ce
ards
ax cuts inappropriate Easily saved lives
during time of war Needle exchange programs need funds
'resident Bush’s proposal is bad politics
Bucks
(U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES
At the height of the Cold
ar, President John F.
ennedy stood in front of the
ation and boldly declared that
[acrifice was something
quired of all Americans,
hen he proclaimed, “Ask not
hat your country can do for
du, but what you can do for
our country,” the American
ublic took him seriously and
as willing to forego short-
rm luxuries in exchange for
ng-term benefits. How times
ave changed!
Today, at the height of our
ar against Iraq, President
eorge W. Bush is declaring a
t of things to the American
ublic, but a call to sacrifice is
ot among the White House’s
eclarations.
Instead of focusing on
sues that benefit the common
ood, Bush has been playing
America’s greed, promising
uge tax cuts for those who
on’t need it. It seems rather
ypocritical of the Bush
[dministration to call on some
mericans (our troops fighting
Iraq) to make the ultimate
[acrifice for their country,
bile giving benefits to others
he wealthy targets of the
x cut).
If the Bush administration
ere to have a motto, it could
asily be “Ask not what you
an do for your country, but
/hat your country can do for
our bank account.”
Now, I am not necessarily
riticizing the need for a tax
ut. Some economists, who
now a lot more than I do
[bout governmental fiscal pol-
y, seem to think it’s a pretty
ood idea. I am criticizing
Bush’s timing. It is completely
inappropriate to be discussing
a huge tax cut for the rich
while soldiers, many of them
poor, are dying.
Bush sends a mixed mes
sage to the American people
when he asks so much from
our troops — those he calls
“our best citizens” — and so
little from those who can
afford to give much more.
Bush’s proposal calls for a
$674 billion tax cut and its
centerpiece is a $300 billion
tax reduction resulting from
the elimination of the dividend
tax. If you think I’m playing
class warfare when I call it a
tax cut for the rich, take a look
at the numbers.
Let’s use our soldiers as an
example. Mark Shields, a
nationally known columnist
and CNN commentator writes,
“Bush’s tax break won’t do
much for those Americans
doing the fighting, you see,
because the base pay for a
staff sergeant is $21,247.20
and for a first lieutenant it’s
$30,182.40, which would
mean an average tax-cut for all
American service personnel in
those ranks or below of
approximately $148.” That is
not enough to buy a quarter’s
worth of books at the UCLA
bookstore!
What about the wealthiest
Americans? Don’t worry; they
are well taken care of. Under
Bush’s plan, someone pulling
in about one million dollars
per year will get a tax break of
approximately $90,222 —
more than enough to pay for
books, housing and tuition at
the University of California at
Los Angeles for more than six
years.
A tax cut for the wealthy?
Obviously. Does it help those
who are currently risking their
lives to defend us? Not at all.
I am not the only one who
thinks this is the wrong time
to discuss a huge tax cut.
In his first “60 Minutes”
debate with Bob Dole, Bill
Clinton stated, “Never before
have we had a big tax cut in
times of national crisis. Lincoln
didn’t. FDR didn’t. With over
200,000 young Americans in
the Persian Gulf, we shouldn’t.
It’s wrong and it’s bad econom
ics.” Admittedly, Clinton is not
a very unbiased source of criti
cism, but he makes a
good point.
Traditionally, the United
States has waited until the
bullets stop flying to talk tax
cuts. This is a good precedent
to follow.
Victory in Iraq is a good
thing and tax cuts are a good
thing, just not together. With
the war approaching a speedy
end, Bush should realize that
his tax cuts can wait a few
months out of respect for our
soldiers.
Kennedy’s call for sacrifice
is as applicable today as it was
40 years ago. Let’s hope that
Bush echoes his call and
reminds people that in times
of national crisis, Americans,
both rich and poor, need to do
whatever they can for their
country. We can wait on the
benefits of what our country
can do for us.
Doug Ludlow is a columnist
at the University of Califomia-
Los Angeles.
JOHN DAVID
BLAKLEY
I f politics
consisted
exclu
sively of
black and
white facts,
there would
be no parti
sanship for
the proper
policy, role
of government would be
clearly defined and there
would be no room for dispute.
However, political affairs
often contain gray areas in
which decisions must be made
to obtain the greater good,
sometimes through the means
of what many believe to be a
lesser evil.
For example, for some time
a debate has existed in the
United States over whether it
is proper and effective to use
federal money to fund needle
exchange programs. In such
programs, injection drug users
are permitted to exchange
potentially contaminated
syringes for sterile ones,
resulting in the decrease of
needle sharing and the spread
of blood-borne pathogens
such as HIV.
No person familiar with the
effects of injection drug use
can effectively label the habit
a positive practice. However,
no person familiar with the
effects of AIDS can label the
virus a pleasant experience.
When the federal government
is able, it should work within
its power to prevent more
people from contracting this
horrible, terminal disease.
Every year, approximately
40,000 Americans are infected
with HIV, according to the
Center for Disease Control
and Prevention. One-half of
these Americans are younger
than 25 years old. Despite the
popular belief that sexual
intercourse is the predominant
cause of AIDS, one-half of all
new HIV infections are
caused by injection drug use,
according to the AIDScience
Web site.
There is sound reason
behind the plans President
George W. Bush announced
during his last State of the
Union address for AIDS pre
vention in Africa. The life
expectancy rates in African
countries such as Zimbabwe
have dropped from 65 to 39
years due to AIDS, according
to CNN. However, the presi
dent must not forget that
almost one million Americans
are living with and dying
from AIDS. The average
infected American lives less
than two years after contract
ing the virus. America must
fund programs to prevent
more people from suffering
from this deadly disease.
Why has the federal gov
ernment been resistant to
implementing NEPs, which
are supported by the
American Medical
Association, the American
Public Health Association^ the
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and the United
Nations? Why did the federal
government put a ban on the
use of federal funds for NEPs
in 1998?
First, the United States has
long enforced a zero-tolerance
policy toward illicit drug use,
preferring criminal punish
ment to medical prevention
and treatment. This mentality
often leads to the belief that
NEPs result in increased drug
use. However, studies from
the AIDScience Web site
show that these programs do
not increase the rate of drug
use or crime in areas where
they are used. The programs
do not encourage or assist
drug use. They merely ensure
that a person who cannot or
will not cease needle drug use
will not be at risk of an HIV
infection.
In fact, NEPs serve as piv
otal starting points for drug
treatment and rehabilitation.
According to the Dogwood
Center Web site, Dr. Robert
Brooner of Johns Hopkins
University conducted a study
that demonstrated the effec
tiveness of the combination of
NEPs with more traditional
drug abuse programs. The
study showed that in new
admissions to a drug treat
ment program, those referred
by NEPs showed significant
reduction of drug use and
criminal behavior. NEPs do
not only lower incidence rates
of HIV transmission, but can
be complementary to pro
grams that reduce and elimi
nate drug use altogether.
Opponents to NEPs cite the
cost that would result with
their administration. However,
NEPs prevent significant
numbers of HIV infections
among clients of the pro
grams, their drug and sex
partners and their children,
according to a study conduct
ed by the University of
California-Berkeley. Because
these programs do avert many
HIV infections, their average
annual budget of $169,000
falls considerably below the
average lifetime cost of treat
ing one HIV-infected person,
which is estimated at
$195,000, according to the
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
The disease of drug addic
tion can be cured by drug
counseling and rehabilitation.
Drug counseling centers can
use NEPs to help injection
drug users rid themselves of
their addictions, while pre
venting the spread of HIV
through infected needles.
There is no cure for AIDS.
Needle exchange programs
save lives.
John David Blakley is a freshman
political science major.