4 - Friday, January 13, 2012
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4 - Friday, January13, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandailycom
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER
JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ANDREW WEINER JOSH HEALY
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
Promise tuition
Michigan 2020 reinvests in higher education
It's been said many times before, and it should be repeated until a
solution comes forth - the importance of higher education can-
not be understated. The state of Michigan and Republican Gov.
Rick Snyder have continued a decade-long trend and significantly cut
higher education funding over the past two years. College degrees
are critical to strong economies - an educated workforce brings
advanced technologies and jobs. A new plan introduced by Michigan
Senate Democrats has the potential to help more students afford col-
lege educations by subsidizing tuition. The state Legislature should
continue exploring the Michigan 2020 plan, and help put higher edu-
cation within reach of all Michigan residents. .
EITOi:D INMCH ARAC ERSO L
@CCLittleBusStop Perhaps your
elec. signs could say WHEN THE
BUSES ARE COMING?!
We know the fight song
#whatawaste
-@michdailyoped
Like, reall , girls.
0
Yesterday, Senate Democrats, including
state Sen. Rebekah Warren (D - Ann Arbor)
unveiled the Michigan 2020 Plan. Along with
proposing an end to many tax loopholes for
corporations, the plan gives students who
attend public school in Michigan from grades
K-12 $9,575 - the median cost of tuition at
public colleges in the state - per year for
tuition expenses at any of the state's 15 public
universities.
The plan would be administered by the
Michigan Department of Education, and
implementation would cost an estimated $1.8
billion. The price tag may appear shocking, but,
its potential benefit to Michigan's struggling
economy exceeds the cost. Michigan's manu-
facturing and automotive markets have proven
unable to sustain jobs. As the country moves
toward a knowledge-based economy, Michi-
gan must move away from a manufacturing-
based economy. Investing in students now will
increase the state's competitiveness in emerg-
ing, lucrative fields in the future.
A smaller-scale version of the plan, pay-
ing for two years of tuition would cost signifi-
cantly less - an estimated $618 million. Only
subsidizing half of a degree, however, would be
detrimental to a student's education and hinder
Michigan 2020's success. A student would have
far less incentive to finish a degree knowing
state aid would cease after two years.
The proposal is based on the Kalamazoo
Promise, a privately financed tuition fund for
public school students entering its sixth year
in Kalamazoo, Mich. Michigan 2020 follows
the same basic structure as the Promise, which
has seen impressive results. Nearly 90 percent
of eligible students have enrolled in college.
That number greatly contrasts the 52 percent
of non-eligible Kalamazoo students enrolled.
Clearly, financial support allows more students
to attain higher education, and the benefit of
this to Michigan's economy will be seen in the
long run.
Last year, the state's funding to the Univer-
sity was cut by 15 percent, and state funding
has also dropped by 30 percent over the past 10
years. The cuts in public funding have forced
tuition increases, makinghigher education less
accessible to all.
Michigan should be focusing on higher edu-
cation, not continuously cutting public funds
to colleges. The state is ranked 42nd among
states on per capita higher education spending.
That ranking is unacceptable. It worsens the
state's brain drain as educated residents leave
for other states because few jobs opportunities
exist in advanced fields here, and it creates a
workforce unprepared for the future.
Michigan's responsibility to its students
shouldn't end after high school graduation.
The state, the University and the federal gov-
ernment need to refocus on making higher
education accessible. Despite high costs, the
Michigan 2020 plan puts students on the
right path.
Since Kim Kardashian is the
role model of the 21st cen-
tury, all women must want to
be just like her,
right? To be a
true Kardashian,
one has to emu-
late her voice,
and apparently
all women today
are doing this.
People are tak- ADRIENNE
ing notice of this ROBERTS
change. Numer-
ous commentar-
ies, studies and parodies regarding
the way in which young women
speak are nothing new. In the last
few years, however, discussions
regarding this topic have reached an
unprecedented level. From research
studies about the inflection of wom-
en's voices at the end of sentences
to trending on Twitter about #Shit-
GirlsSay, this cultural phenomenon
is here to stay. And I'm saying well,
like, it's all bogus. Seriously.
For decades people have assumed
that the "popular girls" on television
shows and movies are the sole sub-
jects of women's envy. When Alicia
Silverstone played Cher (a popular
high school student in California)
in the forever-quoted '90s movie
"Clueless," people claimed that the
rise of the phrases "whatever" and
"as if" - valley Girl Speak - was
due to the desire of young women
across the country to sound like
her. This Valley Speak is said to
persist throughout speech today.
In September, CNN wrote an arti-
cle describing how Valley Speak
is inhibiting women career-wise
because it's stopping them from
being taken seriously.
Apparently Cher is not women's
only inspiration - brainiacs like
Britney Spears and Ke$ha inspire
them as well. A September study
published in the Journal of Voice
describes a phenomenon called
vocal frying. Found in college
women, vocal frying is described as
a croaking and creaky sound given
to words, usually at the end of sen-
tences. Some singers use the tech-
nique in their songs, such as Lady
Gaga and Zooey Deschanel, and a
few celebrities speak using the tech-
nique as well.
While the study claims to apply to
women in college across the coun-
try, only 34 college females in New
York are examined. While these 34
women from New York obviously
do not represent the general col-
lege female population, this still
has become a national obsession
featured on major networks such as
ABC and NBC.According to reports,
many women supposedly look to
Kim Kardashian and Ke$ha for tips
on how to be cool when talking.
Not only do college women sup-
posedly croak words at the end of
sentences, they also say a variety
of the 100 or so phrases trend-
ing on Twitter as #ShitGirlsSay.
From "First of all, ew" to "Twin-
sies," women apparently love to
talk about well, shit. Conversations
about literature, politics and reli-
gion are topics that readers likely
assume women do not discuss on
a regular basis. A YouTube video
featuring phrases from the twit-
ter account @ShitGirlsSay shows a
man dressed in drag quoting Twit-
ter. The female clothing sends a
strong message that there is a dis-
tinct separation between the things
men and women say.
Classifying the way college
females speak is grossly over-exag-
gerated. Women do have other role
models than just the average gossip
columnist or narcissistic celebri-
ties. Britney Spears in "Oops I Did It
Again" is not a person most women
are striving to become. To say that
women are inhibiting themselves
career-wise because of the number
of "likes" they use in daily speech or
the inflection they place at the end
of their sentences is unjust and sim-
ply incorrect.
Women are likely
to be judged on
speech patterns.
This generalization is a reflec-
tion of the real problem - that
women are more likely than men
to be judged on many things, even
their way of speaking. Though many
women hold the "likes" and have
never said "as if," people assume
this type of speech is commonplace.
It's easy to make this claim, and
at times doing so asserts power in
a subtle way. Without specifically
saying this, society is able to claim
that young women are inferior to
men because of their unintelligent
speech that is perpetually influ-
enced by what they see or hear in
the media. Things like @ShitGirls-
Say may be funny, and women can
laugh along with it at times, but
really it's just plain sexist. Excuse
me though, I have to go, can't miss
"Kim and Kourtney taking New
York" tonight.
- Adrienne Roberts is can be
reached at adrirobe@umich.edu.
Follow her on Twitter at @AdrRoberts.
0
CONTRIBUTE TO THE COVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should be fewer
than 300 words while viewpoints should be 550-850 words. Both must include the writer's full
name and University affiliation. Send submissions to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
Predictably unpredictable
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Lauren Argintar, Kaan Avdan, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer,
Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley,
Harsha Panduranga, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts,Vanessa Rychlinski,
Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner
JESSE KLEIN I
Advertising decisions
Last year the National Public Radio show
Freakonomics ran a 22-minute program
called "The NFL's Best Real Estate Isn't for
Sale." The podcast asked why a multibillion-
dollar franchise that has made astounding
revenues hasn't caved into advertising on
teams' jerseys.
The National Football League is the most
profitable sports league in the United States.
Owners, players and all involved love to make
money. They've branded and sold everything
from cup-cozies to flat-screen TVs. Yet, they
are unwilling to compromise the sacredness
of the game jersey. According to Freakonom-
ics, the NFL could bring in an Pxtra half a bil-
lion dollars a year if they sold advertisement
space on jerseys. The NFL forgoes this sub-
stantial pile of cash for one big reason - tra-
dition. NFL teams have always been brands
of their own, so while adding "Shop at Sta-
ples" across the front of their jerseys would
increase cash flow for the NFL, it would also
lessen the brand value of the specific team's
name.
Like everything else in this world, however,
the NFL has started to cave. They've allowed
sponsors to advertise on practice jerseys.
The NFL is one of the last organizations
to cave to advertising, at least on jerseys.
There are some establishments that have
been advertising since their inception - tele-
vision, magazines and newspapers. Others
have only recently started. Things that were
once valued because of their freedom from
advertisements suddenly have multitudes
of commercials. Buses are plastered with
movie posters and healthcgre ads. Highways
are sprinkled with billboards. Commercials
of every form have taken over the Internet,
which was once a free space of expression.
I know I'm not the only one who wants to
throw my laptop out the window when You-
tube puts an ad before my video of a sneezing
baby panda. Websites, mobile apps, Face-
book, Google, e-readers - not too long ago
all of these things were free of any obvious
industry sponsorship.
Just as advertisements have infiltrated the
Internet, they have become a driving force in
political campaigns. Everywhere I look I see
"Vote for Romney" - or whoever is the front-
runner this week. Ads on Youtube and televi-
sion that say nothing of substance are there
for the sole purpose of getting the candidates
name out. Debates on the issues are second to
the massive amounts of money poured into
publicity. Our presidential race has come
down to an ad campaign, like the latest sale on
jeans at Macy's.
In Scott Adam's book "The Dilbert Prin-
ciple," Adams explains how cell phone com-
panies use "confusifiles" - plans designed
specifically to confuse - and high rates of
advertisements to gain new clients. Clients
are so confused and overwhelmed that they
end up choosing the company or plan that
they've heard of the most.
The presidential race and other political
campaigns are the same thing. The issues are
so confusing, complicated and almost impos-
sible to understand, even for the candidates
themselves. Most voters don't even try to
understand the issues or their candidate's
position. They end up choosing based on
other factors - usually the amount of times
they have heard about candidate. The world
is in trouble when our decisions are based on
advertisements, not thought.
Jesse Klein is an Assistant Editorial Page Editor.
Predictions. Our society runs
on them. How much will
a gallon of gasoline cost a
week from now?
Which indus-
try will grow
the fastest?
How many tons
of wheat will
Americans con-
sume this year?
What will the
Dow Jones aver- KRISTEN
age be? KILUK
Or maybe a
little closer to
home: How long will I be on this
class waitlist? Where will I work
after graduation?
Accurately predictingthe answers
to these questions is vital to process-
es from structuring national policies
to the decision making of both busi-
ness leaders and college students.
All things on the predictabil-
ity scale, however, are not created
equal. For this reason, we employ
individuals to act as masters of pre-
diction in their fields. I'm not talk-
ingabout fortune tellers. I'mtalking
about mathematicians, social scien-
tists, natural scientists, politicians,
economist's and the like.
After they spend years pour-
ing over textbooks (sound famil-
iar?) and weighing all possibilities,
these specialists publish their find-
ings, their predictions. If we follow
their logic well enough, we adopt
their ideas and structure decisions
around them.
So, why do I raise this point?
Lately, I've found myself scratching
my head at the weather, and have
the feeling a lot of you may have
been, too. Though normally I would
predict the need for a winter jacket
when walking outside in the heart of
a Michigan winter, this has recently
resulted in overheating.
This brought to mind many pub-
lished predictions that claim that
extreme climate irregularities -
events from heat waves and cold
fronts to tsunamis and tornadoes
- may be a consequence of human-
induced climate change. The insur-
ance group Munich Re reported that
2011 endured the highest total dam-
age costs due to natural disasters
in recorded history - $380 billion.
This may be attributed to increas-
ing population and value of devel-
opment in storms' paths, but the
possibility that this trend may be
following climate scientists' predic-
tions can't be ruled out. So, are the
weird weather woes of 2011 attribut-
able to the dynamics of anthropo-
genic climate change?
In Enviornmental Protection
Agency's report Climate Change
Indicators in The United States
the term climate is defined as "the
average weather in a given place,
usually over a period of more than
30 years". Day-to-day weather is
inherently variable. So, climate sci-
entists focus their predictions on
climate trends instead of weather
observations. If you don't believe
me, just track the accuracy rates of
a weatherman's predictions.
For this reason, it's difficult to
correlate day-to-day occurrences
with climate change, and, unfortu-
nately, harder for us to contextual-
ize its impacts. Contrary to popular
belief, this does not demonstrate a
lack of credibility or evidence. It's a
more complex issue - the average
person can't accurately draw conclu-
sions about climatic trends without
knowledge of greater records.
The American political system
breeds us to believe many issues
have two distinct sides: pro or con,
red or blue. This is a dangerous
mindset to apply to climate change.
One should avoid pledging to simply
believe or not believe in the all-pub-
lished angles of the phenomenon.
Why is the global climate such
a big deal? It's not just a matter of
which jacket to wear or air condi-
tioning unit to install. It's a matter
of where and how food is produced,
which regions may be habitable in
the future, where resources may
shift and which organisms, includ-
ing humans, may or may not survive
on this planet.
Don't correlate
weird weather
with climate
change.
Climate scientists are still unsure
exactly how all of earth's ecosystems
and organisms will respond to an
increased presence of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. Still, it's a
complex and severe enough question
to justify continuation of and respect
. for their research. Whether you sup-
port every last detail or not, an abun-
dant set of data and predictions on
the topic of climate change will help
us come closer to the reality of our
situation, and continued research on
climate change is more important
than ever.
Human nature urges us to make
decisions based on predictions for
a reason - so that we can prepare
for the future as best as we can. I
don't know about you, but I'd like to
be prepared for this one. It's kind of
important.
- Kristen Kiluk can be reached
at kkiluk@umich.edu. Follow her
on Twitter at @KristenKiluk.
0
0
0i
A