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.