Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 23, 2003)
SPORTS HE BATTALI01 lends s and the Comp-, aid he was confidei: would be in plati ;on. But alsolikeife rk left to be done, ts 18,500 new seat have been installs e building increases >50 and capacity n Postolos said f® orefer, by 2,8001: 2,500 of the seat added capacity- , he hoped woul; n’t afford the Wi should notice ovd : wider concoums, ncession stands ani ddeo screens ini! rid is currently Mi s’ new home, high standard the) American Airline in 2001. ‘‘But; :ed, we’re in posi e to have incredi :tions s for next year." Casserly gave higt e available cropo! ers and defensivi die saying the pool racks and offensh? rybe not as stroiis Irafts.” drew a chuckli 1 if he and otlia lagers read maten- y “draftniks”sud Mel Kiper Jr. am! routing Services d he receives ani 'ormation, taking! s away here ail ould never bases i publications. )d stall reading i. Opinion The Battalion Page 5B • Wednesday, April 23, 2003 Tuition rebate is useless A reward for graduating within a prescribed number of hours is unnecessary T o most students, receiving $ 1 .OOO upon graduating from college probably sounds like a really good deal. Or it would if they didn’t know how easily they could fail to meet the eligibility requirements to receive that money. In 1997, the Texas Legislature created a tuition rebate plan where a student graduating within four years of entering college with no more than three hours in excess of his degree requirements could be eligible to receive a $1,000 rebate from his university in what the bill tenns “local funds.' The source of local funds is actually the state, described in the bill as “savings to the State resulting from reduc tions in the number of courses taken by undergraduate students.” But of course there is a catch to this tuition rebate — these hours include all attempted hours. Attempted includes dropped courses, credits from high school or other colleges and Advanced Placement credits. Three credits that do not fit in one of the blanks on a degree plan void the offer completely. Instead of amending the requirements for the rebate, the state should do away this unnecessary bill. The goal of the established tuition rebate is partly to expedite graduation and open more seats for more students. The state could be better suited in raising tuition rates once the hours on the degree plan have been attempted, charging more for excess credits. Thus the same result is achieved, more money for the state and less time spent in school by Texas students, but the burden would fall on students who outstay the state’s welcome and the funds set aside for the $1,000 rebates would be saved. According to the January 2003 Limited Government, Unlimited Opportunity, which is the annual report of fiscal activity issued by Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, “the 1997 Legislature created a tuition rebate program that allows college students to apply for a $1,000 rebate of their college tuition fees upon graduation if they complete their undergraduate course requirements ‘efficiently,’ as defined by the program’s crite ria.” Comptroller Strayhorn sees the flaws in the program and calls for an amendment that would exempt up to nine hours of AP class es rather than the current three hours that are exempted. But this does not address the poor logic behind the rebate plan. The plan is designed to encourage students to choose majors quickly and make career plans early in their university educations. This is simply unrealistic and assumes that it is detrimental to the students if they decide to change their majors or drop a course at some point in their university careers. Changing majors, study abroad, minor courses of study, double majors and employment during college all hinder students’ abilities to carry 15 hours a semester, which would allow for a four-year graduation. That being said, it is entirely possible that a student can grad uate in four years, what would seem to be the goal of the pro gram, and not receive the rebate. One Q-drop, excess high school credits pawned off as electives, or even a late declaration of a minor can hinder a four-year graduate’s chances of receiv ing the $1,000 rebate. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board began study ing rebates in 2001 and its findings are noted by the Comptroller’s study. According to THECB, 34 colleges and universities in Texas awarded 685 bonuses in the 2000-01 school year. Texas A&M- awarded the most. Alternatively, nine institutions did not award any bonuses. These findings prove that in the first years of the incentive plan, at least nine universities have no students being awarded for their “efficient” graduation: only 685 of the thousands of graduates received the rebate. At A&M in.«Spring 2002, of the 3.781 graduates, 999 under graduates applied and 508 rebates were awarded, A&M Registrar Don Carter said. And in Fall 2002, of the 2,861 gradu ates, 496 undergraduates applied for the rebate and only 187 were awarded, Carter said. These are not high percentages of students being awarded the rebate, and they represent some of the highest in the state. It is not necessary for the state to offer monetary incentive for timely and efficient graduation. The limitations placed on students by this rebate plan are far too great and actually may hinder their educational opportunities. Rather than amending the bill, the state should consider doing away with it all together because the incen tive is simply not compelling enough to achieve the desired result. As it stands, the plan serves no wide-sweeping purpose. The number of students receiving the rebate is not steadily increasing which must mean they are not “efficiently” graduating and in the state’s eyes, they are sitting in someone else’s seat. Kelln Zimmer is a senio\ English majoi Graphics by Josh Darwin ones, or his form sm. Bldg) ur resume position? ce to see :ially in the )plying? )u have in es? he staff? )u have on are pril 24 office. Saving the department Journalism is part of Vision 2020 Democratic candidates challenge Bush policies Presidential hopefuls provide options I n 2001, a team of con sultants evaluated the journalism department at Texas A&M and found it lacking in several areas. Since that point, the depart ment and curriculum have undergone scrutiny, restruc turing and inconveniences such as limiting the number of students in the department. Now it falls under the budget cut ax that is chopping up the quality of education at A&M, threatening to remove the program altogether as one ultimate option. Although the department needs consider able improvements, the changes enacted should amplifyof the department, not the elim inate it. It is undeniable that the department is plagued with problems that need to be dealt with. Journalism majors must battle to get into their required classes, the faculty to student ratio is proportionally lower than other depart ments within the College of Liberal Arts and the requirements to get into the program grow more competitive each semester at an attempt to shave the number of journalism majors, which currently stands at approximately 540, according to senior lecturer and undergraduate adviser for journalism Dr. Edward Walraven. Because these problems remain uncured, the department chose to institute enrollment management, which requires students entering the program after June 2002 to maintain a 2.75 GPR and raises the minimum score for passing the Grammar/Spelling/Punctuation test that is necessary before becoming a jour nalism major. While these changes offered a temporary alleviation to the over-enrollment in the pro gram, budgetary problems and a lack of admin istrative interest in the department, they have also made the problems resurface and multiply. Elimination of the department may seem like a quick fix, but this easy solution would be detrimental to A&M. Without offering journalism as a major, A&M would be taking a leap backward despite its repeated claims to be progressing toward Vision 2020 and hopes of becoming a top learning institution. Writing off a depart ment as essential as journalism shows a lack of foresight by the administration, especially in regards to the current job market. Besides just a degree that is directed toward news writ ing and editing, journalism covers the broad scope of public relations, advertising and broadcast journalism. Neglecting to provide educational opportu nities in this wide job field not only shows a lack of concern toward A&M’s goals of expanding its academic capabilities beyond engineering, business and agriculture but also ignores the demand for professionals profi cient in the communications field. According to the U.S. Department of Labor Web site, www.bls.gov, all the industries relat ing to journalism are projected to increase. Advertising is projected to increase by 32.5 percent by the year 2010, public relations by 42.2 percent and radio and television broad casting by 9.7 percent. With the job market demand that continues to increase in these fields, eliminating the journalism program would be detrimental toward A&M’s expressed goals. However, the improvements that the jour nalism department needs require a severe investment of money, energy and time. This causes a problem when the department not only faces extreme budgetary cutbacks that eliminate 40 percent of their current million dollar annual budget, but confronts the possi bility of complete removal, according to a Battalion article on April 9. What will actually occur remains undetermined, and no one will know exactly how the reductions will span out until early in the summer, according to Leroy Dorsey, interim department head of the depart ment of journalism. However, the College of Liberal Arts should carefully consider any decisions to remove a program that continues to attract more students, and should contemplate the effects a haphazard removal would produce. Not only would future A&M graduates be less qualified for jobs in the communication field, but A&M’s status as a reputable univer sity would deteriorate. Sara Foley is a sophomore journalism major. W ith the primaries only nine months away, Democratic presidential candidates have started showing Americans what they have to offer com pared to President George W. Bush. Although the pool of hopefuls is large, the array of Democratic faces is proving to be a potent alternative to the incumbent. All the candidates can provide relief from the difficulties Bush’s tax cuts have provided at home. According to the National Public Radio Web site, with the money saved from ending these cuts, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina plans to provide tuition for a state or community college to any young person who works 10 hours a week their first year. Bush’s economics have had a backward effect. The money has failed to trickle down, and the wealthy have received the bulk of the benefits while the people with the most need receive nothing. Ironically, it would be the latter who are more likely to consume and strengthen the economy. The administration’s cuts have resulted in a $300 billion deficit in two years and a loss of two million jobs, according to the Public Cause Network Web site. The Democratic presidential candidates have proposed to provide economic support directly to those who need it the most. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a physician and candidate building tremendous momentum, is insisting on health insurance for every American child, according to deanforamerica.com. He successfully implement ed this plan during his governorship. According to C-Span.org, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri agrees that universal health insurance is the moral and right policy for the United States. Because the United States lacks a universal system, Americans fail to spend enough money on prevention. So, according to CommonDreams.org, despite spending nearly 14 percent of the national income on health care, Americans have average life expectancies about five years lower than Europeans or Japanese, even though those countries spend less than 10 percent of their GDP on health. According to a March 14, 2001 Washington Post article. Bush did not seek reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions of the nation’s power plants, reversing himself on a campaign pledge made in 2000. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has set as a priority capping car bon omissions from power plants, as well as making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient, according to Time.com. If there is one candidate who can motivate the American people it is the Rev. A1 Sharpton. According to C-Span.org, he vowed to go on the offensive against an administration that will give tax cuts to the rich, cut aid to public educa tion and daycare and turn around and use the rhetoric of “Leave No Child Behind” while they cut the budget of numerous mandates. And why shouldn’t he go on the offensive against the administration when the White House has failed to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act, the No Child Left Behind Act and various other homeland security measures, according to the Government Technology Web site? These man dates have remained unfounded not because of heightened defense, but due to the irresponsible tax cuts of the Bush administration. It may seem to some as if Bush is gliding into an easy victory in 2004. Even if the war in Iraq proceeds flawlessly, Americans must not forget the strains Bush has caused between the United States and the United Nations, NATO and coun tries around the world. These strains will have serious consequences in possible future conflicts with countries such as North Korea. As much as the Bush administration would like the war to take attention away from domestic issues, Americans will always keep health care, employment and the environment in mind when they go to the polls. If former President George Bush’s loss to Bill Clinton in 1992 taught us any thing, it is that a victory overseas does not make up for economic problems at home. John David Blakley is ajreshman political science major. SARA FOLEY JOHN DAVID BLAKLEY
