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