4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 30, 2001
Edited and managed by JACQUELYN NIXON AUBREY HENRETTY
Students at the U Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor
University of Michigan E Cdi P d
40MyadSre0 A IFWAI5 Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the
420 M a y nard St reet majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily
When the states settled with the
tobacco cornpanies in 1998, the
state of Michigan received one
billion dollars, which it used to create
the Life Sciences Corridor. The purpose
of the Corridor, according to University
spokeswoman Sally Pobojewski, was to
"nurture the biotechnology industry and
research base here in the state of Michi-
gan."
Most of the state money goes to sci-
entific research, with a lesser portion
dedicated to commercial development.
Participants in this initiative other than
the University include Michigan State
University, Wayne State University and
the Van Andel Institute of Grand
Rapids.
Biotechnology is one of the fastest-
changing and most talked about fields
in science today. From the vast disease-
curing potential of stem cell therapy
research to the many mysteries waiting
to be unraveled by the human genome
project, human beings stand to benefit
immensely from all the field has to
offer.
But, like so many great public edu-
Death for Life Sciences
Legislature should not cut LSC funding
cation programs of late, the LSC may
soon receive an ugly funding cut from
the government. A bill currently facing
the state House of Representatives
would shrink 2002 life sciences funding
by $10 million. The Senate passed this
bill last month. While this latest attempt
by the Legislature to balance the budget
at our expense is not surprising, it is
worthy of our criticism. Governor
Engler recently approved a 2002 budget
that would grant a meager 1.5 percent
increase (or a $324 million) to the
state's 28 public universities. Since the
rate of inflation is more than double
that at 3.6 percent, this forced the Uni-
versity to raise 2002 tuition by a stag-
gering 6.5 percent.
Meanwhile, Engler's budget increas-
es funding the state corrections funding
by two percent, for an overall correc-
tions budget of $1.7 billion. The Legis-
lature has been looking to higher educa-
tion to fill its funding gaps far too
frequently. The LSC would be an excel-
lent place to stop; the House should kill
this bill while it has the chance.
Since 1998, the University has
received nearly $50 million dollars
from the LSC, with Ann Arbor busi-
nesses receiving $11 million. Without
this cash flow, countless important stud-
ies would have been left incomplete or
uninitiated.
Cutting 20 percent of the budget for
this advanced technological research
affects biotechnological businesses and
researchers, both of which play vital
roles in the development of new tech-
nology. As other states are continuing to
invest in this hot research area, the Leg-
islature must not allow our state to be
left in the dust..
Ann Arbor denizens should be espe
cially outraged by this bill, sincesth
largest share of the funds traditionally
go to the University and the business
most likely to be aaected by the cutsa
Ann Arbor based.
Michigan universities have to strug
gle every year to get the funds the
need to provide solid educations fo
their tuition-paying students. Now, the
Legislature may force upper echelon
organizations like the LSC to reconfig
ure their budgets with significant)I
slashed funds.
It is understandable that the state
legislature is looking for funds to bal-
ance the budget. But removing a fifth
the LSC's budget, taking away mon$
specifically earmarked for this purpose,
is unjustified and insulting. If the
House does not cease these funding
cuts immediately, there is not telling
how long they'll go on. Today, the life
sciences bear the brunt. Tomorrow, it
could be any other department. If our
representatives value education, they
will vote against this bill.
A -e cnd chan
Bush admin. should learn from Reagan's errors
'U' should not use biased tests in admissions
Immigration is a sensitive issue regard-
less of what context it is brought up.
Whether it is about curtailing immi-
gration or improving the immigration
process, critics abound and timeless argu-
ments resurface. President Bush's propos-
al to allow current illegal immigrants to
obtain citizenship has caused similar
questions about the potential problems of
one-time amnesty to resurface.
The nation's Immigration and Natural-
ization Service estimates that there are
anywhere from 6.5 to 7.5 million illegal
immigrants in the country today, 3 mil-
lion of which are Mexicans. The Bush
administration is considering legislation
that would allow those people who meet
outlined requirements to become full U.S.
citizens. While nothing is set in stone,
these requirements are likely to include
job history and language proficiency.
The most apparent problem with this
type of legislation is that it seems to
condone illegal immigration. Some say
the plan is a poor attempt to make up for
the United States' substandard illegal
immigrant control - particularly along
the border with Mexico. They say that
blanket amnesty - even a one-time
offer - would encourage immigrants to
enter the United States illegally. But
Bush has said in no uncertain terms that
he opposes blanket amnesty; while the
specific requirements that would allow
once-illegal immigrants to stay in the
United States are unclear, Bush does not
advocate complete, unconditional for-
giveness.
Another problem is competition
between U.S. citizens and these immi-
grants for jobs. Many of these immigrants
are currently employed in sectors of the
economy where citizenship isn't required.
Many work as maids or farm workers. If
these people were granted employment
status, they would become eligible for
blue collar jobs. Critics also say that
granting citizenship would make many
eligible to receive social benefits like
medicaid and welfare, perhaps overload-
ing these systems.
The Bush administration is aware of
these potential problems and has empha-
sized that this will not be the type of gen-
eral amnesty law that was passed during
the Reagan administration. It has stated
that any legislation passed would be an
expanded guest-worker program rather
than blanket amnesty. Bush very much
wants to avoid the failure of Reagan's
1986 amnesty program, which actually
wound up raising the tide of illegal immi-
gration.
At present, many illegal aliens live in
a somewhat underground economy
because they fear being caught. They
must endure low pay and poor working
conditions because they do not have a
legal voice. In fact, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Hispanic
immigrants - often unskilled and here
illegally - are hired disproportionately
into dangerous jobs. The consequence is
that they die from workplace injuries at a
far higher rate than other workers.
What's worse, they are often afraid of
checking themselves into hospitals, even
for serious ailments.
These are the problems the Bush
administration is targeting with the pro-
posed legislation. Although nothing has
reached Congress for debate, Bush is tak-
ing a step in the right direction. Critics of
Bush's plan bring up valid points: Unem-
ployment is a problem in the United
States and as a country, we cannot advo-
cate entering the country illegally. The
Bush administration must learn from the
mistakes of its predecessor and draft leg-
islation carefully.
The United States is touted as a land
of opportunity. To uphold this image, it is
important that we are hospitable to those
who would seek better lives here.
s the University's class of 2005
gears up to begin classes in Sep-
tember, many older University stu-
dents are shelling out large chunks of
change for graduate school admissions
test preparatory classes. For the right
price, students are guaranteed higher
scores on the LSAT, MCAT, GMAT and
others.
Green though they may be, members
of this year's freshman class are no
strangers to life-altering standardized
tests, the stress they cause or the pricey
prep classes that promise results. They've
just been through what is perhaps the
most rigorous and relentless battery of
standardized tests they will ever have to
endure. Most Michigan high school stu-
dents take one or more of the following:
The ACT, DAT, SAT, SAT II, MEAP and
a host of Advanced Placement tests, all in
hopes of securing admission to presti-
gious universities.
While these four years of near-constant
testing do prove useful when it comes
time to fill out college applications, even
high school students usually realize the
pointlessness of these exams; they under-
stand that good scores alone don't make
them smart. Despite the tremendous
weight given them by institutions of high-
er learning, standardized tests have long
proven to be poor indicators of intelli-
gence.
The claim that these tests can accurate-
ly measure the depth of one's intellect in a
few hours is dubious at best. Furthermore,
studies conducted on the most widely used
standardized tests have consistently
revealed the tests' biases. For example,
Princeton Review Executive Director Jay
Rosner found that 575 of the 580 ques-
tions on the 1988-89 SAT displayed
"white preference." A study conducted by
Testing for Public director David White
found a wide gap between the scores of
students from different ethnic back-
grounds with similar grade point averages.
More recently, the College Board
released SAT statistics from the college-
bound seniors in the year 2000. White stu-
dents significantly out-scored black
students, Latino students, Native Ame'
can students and students of other mino
ty groups. On average, males scored
higher than females.
Another serious problem caused by
standardized testing is that it places pres-
sure on individual school districts and
teachers to produce students with impres-
sive scores. In Michigan, this problem
became widespread in the mid-1990s
when the state revamped the high school
MEAP (formerly HSPT) test; some dit
tricts now require MEAP preparatory
activities in every class during the weeks
leading up to the test.
There is something tragically wrong
with a system that forces teachers to teach
students how to pass a specific test rather
than how to apply knowledge in the real
world. Educators should take this as a
giant red flag that the testing has gone too
far.
More than 280 universities across the
country have done just that by reducing 7
eliminating the role of the SAT and/or tl
ACT in their undergraduate admissions
requirements. The University is not one of
them. All schools and departments at the
University - from the Business School to
the Medical School - should follow the
lead of these 280 schools and take a stand
against standardized tests.
It's hard to pin down the worst aspect
of these tests. Is it their inherent ethnic
prejudices and gender biases? Is it t
power that allows them to overtake
teacher's curriculum for days or even
weeks? Is it the undue stress they cause
students, parents and educators? Universi-
ties should not continue to use these tests
simply because they provide convenient
quantitative data.