BINGHAMTON REVIEW
Managing
Shane
Copy
Business
Social
Liam
Cover
Editor
Staff
Bren
Contributors
Dear Readers,
I’mback! I hope Angelo didn’t fuck up the last issue too bad when I made him do production. Wait, what do you mean the article titles on the front cover are gone? That’s it. I’m making him write the editorial for me as punishment.
Anyway, I am pleased to announce we somehow have a stackeder issue than last time, with just about everything a Binghamton student could possibly want to read. First and foremost, Aiden Miller answers your burning question, “What are they gonna do about the parking problem?” on page 5. For insight on our university’s admissions data, check out Xinpeng Gao’s featured article on pages 8 and 9. On pages 6 or 7 (haha), Bren Dover recounts a rather interesting experience he had at a concert. For the usual political spread, check out Nick Aparicio and Marcus Caniano’s articles on pages 10 and 11. But those aren’t the only controversial takes in this issue—Shane Rossi and Angelo DiTocco write on pages 14 and 15 about how social contagion has eroded on Binghamton’s campus, and what atrocious, awful, useless, abhorrent technologies have contributed to that social decay. I’m going all over the place here, but “lastly,” on pages 12 and 13, Comson Cao outlines just how incompetent hiring managers can be. In other words, the sky is blue.
Until Next Time,
Aiden Miller
Our Mission
Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run news magazine founded in 1987 at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. The mark of true maturity is being able to engage with these perspectives rationally while maintaining one’s own convictions. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free and open exchange of ideas and offer alternative viewpoints not normally found on campus. We stand against dogma in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the tenents of free expression and believe all sudents should have a voice on campus to convey their thoughts. Finally, we understand that mutual respect is a necessary component of any prosperous society. We strive to inform, engage with, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.
Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole.
Advice Column
We offered to give you all life advice. Here were your questions:
Does anyone have experience with the SUNY Escort Service? I’m really lonely and I was wondering if it’s worth the money.
Endicott hookers are more bang for your buck and they put the condom on for me.
John Green was my sexual awakening. How do I stop myself from being a sick fucking freak?
Return to monkey, Beat meat in tree.
Diddy: guilty or innocent?
D4VID literally had a body in his trunk and he got off.
Will the Jets actually win a game or will they just go 0-17?
LETS GOOOO YANKEEEEEES
What do you think of Alex Jones’ new mustache?
Logical progression. ‘Twas only a matter of time
How will the government shutdown affect the SUNY system?
Who cares. Another 20 billion to Israel ENDICOTT HOOKERS.
The preacher’s back on campus!!!! How can I troll him this time?
Wheel out the ark of the covenant and watch the show
Why is FlightReacts a top 2 human of all time?
Pretty sure we answered this one last issue, but to phrase it differently, he really just captures a certain je ne sais quoi about the human condition.
Who should they bring for Fall Fest?
Pheromone Maxing Spunk Bob
Someone made a Sora AI video of me jacking off in the dining hall and now they’re trying to expel me
The Binghamton Gooner! Is that you????
How do you feel about them renaming Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day?
Written by our Staff
He discovered America is what he did. He was a brave Italian explorer. And on this campus, Christopher Columbus is a hero. End of story!
I recently acquired 67% white rum. What can I mix it with?
Six…
What are the consequences of the Grove adding yet another floor?
It’s gonna be Building 7’d out of existence
Thoughts on Mark Sanchez?
From the river to the sea Mark Sanchez will be Free)
What’s your drink of choice?
Idk bout you but I’m guzzling on dat LEBRONESSY
Someone from a different “apartment” is accusing me of stealing candy from their “kitchen,” even though we’ve never been there. How can we prove our innocence?
Plant unpackaged smarties in their bags and report them to UPD for possessing ecstasy
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck Celeste in D4vd’s trunk?
…Not…Guilty…???
Milwaukee, DeWalt, Makita, or Ryobi?
University to Eliminate M-Lot by Summer 2028
VESTAL, NY – In a move to promote sustainability and “A Greener Tomorrow,” Binghamton University has announced new plans to phase out the usage of M-Lot. Over the course of the next two and a half years, the University’s Facilities Management will permanently close the University’s largest parking area to create room for an over 12-acre expansion of the Nature Preserve and the addition of a state-of-the-art lecture hall. In a multifaceted $347 million plan developed in part with Barone Construction & Sanitation, the University will close the lot in five phases, with completion scheduled for the summer of 2028.
University officials are calling the move to eliminate the lot “a necessary step to ensure ecological sustainability and innovative education at the state’s ‘Premier Public Ivy’” and assure students that the elimination of over 700 parking spots will have a “minimal impact” on daily commute times. “Listen, we’ve dotted our t’s and crossed our i’s, and feel extremely confident that students, faculty, and animals alike will benefit greatly,” said current President Harvey Stenger. The decision comes mere months after a portion of M-Lot was closed for construction of the new lecture hall in what Facilities Management calls “something!” The administration’s move has been hailed as “a win for students and yellow-spotted salamanders” by the Office of Sustainability.
With over half of the students attending Binghamton hailing from New York City, Mayor Eric Adams weighed in on the over $347 million project, dubbing the Nature Preserve “The Amazon of the Adirondacks.” Adams guarantees the plans will significantly benefit the current and future city-born students attending Binghamton University. “Now, listen – Binghamton ain’t Istanbul, but let me tell you something: Binghamton University? That’s the Oxford of New York. And I’m not just saying that. I know the young people of this city are going to shine there. I remember when folks told me I’d never make it. They counted me out. But like I always say, ‘all my haters become my waiters when I sit down at the table of success.’ And guess what? These kids from Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, who go and are going to Binghamton – they’ll be pulling up a chair at that table. And they’re not just sitting – they’re serving excellence.”
According to the official statement made by the University on Bluesky, the project aims to “reduce carbon greenhouse gas emissions at Binghamton University, while ensuring the survival of the yellow-spotted salamander population and various other animal populations.” Furthermore, the University says the addition of the new lecture hall to the expanded Nature Preserve will be where “Nature and Knowledge Collide.” When pressed about the carbon emissions of the construction project and how that directly contradicts Binghamton’s goals of “A Greener Tomorrow,” Richard Woodhard, Sustainability Czar at Binghamton University, stated, “For every two diesel trucks, we’ll have one electric truck. For every three gas power tools, we’ll have one Ryobi electric power tool.” Woodhard went on further to say, “We’ll have
By Aiden Miller
men with… men AND women, excuse me, using traditional axes, hand saws, and anything that will help offset our carbon footprint during the project.” An independent study of the project’s carbon emissions suggested that once completed, it would take nearly two decades to offset the carbon footprint left by the project.
Certain details of the five-phase plan are unclear, but the University has highlighted that the Nature Preserve expansion will include a reflection pond, more dirt walking paths, and a new Rainforest Cafe located on the eastern end of the expansion, making it a short walking distance from the new lecture hall. Binghamton University’s Chief Undergraduate Manager (CUM) Bob Dingle said in an interview with Binghamton Review that the project “is about the student community and doing right by them. Students wanted a new lecture hall and more recreation space, and that’s what this project does. On top of that, we’re slashing traffic congestion on campus, making campus safer for pedestrians and animals alike.”
Although scheduled to be finished by summer 2028, public documents with Barone Construction & Sanitation show a “project completion grace period” of a “maximum of five years” past the project’s scheduled completion. However, University officials assure students that the project will be completed, as President Stenger put it, “on time, because that’s the Binghamton Way!”
Despite the University’s assurance, some students are concerned about the project. John Longisland, from Westchester County, called the move by the University “Idiotic.” “Where the fuck am I supposed to park? LOS TAPATIOS?! THE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES COMPLEX, or the ITC for short!!??” Poughkeepsie Owens, a rising senior studying engineering, told us she “couldn’t give less of a fuck about a stupid parking lot,” and told us we should “go commit toaster bath, fascist!” Despite the mixed responses to the project, the University plans to introduce new programs to ensure students can arrive on campus on time. In the Bluesky post, the University announced the creation of a new scooter-sharing program, an expanded OCCT route, and a new paramotoring system aimed at delivering students straight to campus.
An update on the project is expected in the spring of 2026.
Moshed Potatoes
By Bren Dover
Welcome
back, readers! It is I, Bren Dover. You must forgive my absence as I was getting half-certified in SCUBA diving. No, I will not be explaining further. Now that I am back, I wish to share a whole new area of ball knowledge. Hardcore metal concerts! For context, I seldom listen to heavy metal. It is one of those genres of music that I assume comes with eons of ear damage and the violent plucking of nerves from one’s brain. While I respect the grind, I abstain from it. That was until two weekends ago, when I unknowingly and accidentally indulged in a hardcore concert.
Allow me to place the scene. Late September, Buffalo, New York. The stage was placed right on top of Lake Erie, in a scenic outdoor venue known as Terminal B at the Outer Harbor. I had driven over three hours to attend this concert, hailing from humble Binghamton. You may ask, dear reader, who was it I intended to see? After answering this question, I am usually met with confused faces and a hint of second-hand embarrassment. It would seem that the artist I intended to see was, as I feared, far too niche. Far too underground. It would appear my taste in music is too complex, for when I wish to share my concert experience with my fellow man, he is unable to compute the sheer swag of whomever’s name left my mouth.
“When I wish to share my concert experience with my fellow man, he is unable to compute the sheer swag of whomever’s name left my mouth.”
There were four bands. Three openers and one headliner. The headliner was known as Turnstile, a hardcore punk band that I have only heard of in name alone. The other openers were as follows: Jane Remover, Speed, and Manniquin Pussy. If you know ball, then bless your taste. Each band was a certain taste of alternative. My drink of choice was, in fact, Jane Remover. With emphasis on “turning up or dying” (Jane’s words, not
mine), I was more than drawn to her music. I began indulging in them last year, and when I heard they would be in Buffalo, a close distance to where I originally hail, I was inclined to go. With only wishing to see one band, I neglected to research the other bands. Perhaps out of a lack of respect, sure, but I was not prepared for the following music.
I arrived at the venue, very early, mind you, and placed myself in line as the eleventh person in attendance. I had the full intention to be at the glorious barricade for maximum enjoyment of the concert. My plan was simple. Get crazy lit for Jane, indulge ever so slightly in the other performers, then promptly leave. I wish to include another piece of information that I seem to have neglected to share. I attended this concert alone. Solo. Unescorted and unattended. What can I say? The tickets were cheap, and the venue was lit. Luckily enough, my aforementioned swag pulled through, and I was able to befriend many a concertgoer.
As the clock struck 6:00, it was time for the pearly gates to open. They promptly scanned my ticket, and like an edgy Redditor in Area 51, I raced to the stage. Baggy jeans flying in the wind. Performative cross necklaces jangled around my neck. An excessive amount of bracelets and rings clacked at every step. I cannot say I was built for stealth, but boy, was I made for outrunning suicidal teenagers. I adorned myself in a leopard scarf around my head, mostly for pious reasons, but also for the everloving drip of it all. This scarf flew in the wind like a clan insignia on its way to battle. And boy was there a battle.
I placed myself right in the middle of the barricade at the front row and began my wait. I was surrounded by familiar faces that I met in previous concerts and in the line outside the venue. I was prepared for the concert. Jane Remover took her stance on stage. Her voice was like an angel if it were getting open heart surgery without anesthesia. Beautiful and absolutely terrifying, screaming at the top of her lungs every chance she could. Indeed, reader, the crowd was hype af, but a level of hype one could find at a frat party or an elementary school dance after they turn on Beautiful Things by Benson Boone. Acceptable, fun, and all around enjoyable. What I was not prepared for was
the band that followed.
The band was known as Speed, which hailed from Sydney, Australia. Again, I neglected to research the music that followed Jane, for I assumed I was not going to stick around. Yet a lurking voice in the back of the head spoke, saying, “Just stay, bro”. Against my better judgment, I did indeed stay. They took the stage, and in a thick and raspy Australian accent, the lead singer screamed, “BUFFALO! I WANNA SEE YOU BLEED!”. It was at this moment that I realized I had severely fucked up.
The people craved violence. It was baffling that the barricade even held, for the force of sweaty 20-50-year-old men behind me was like nothing I had ever seen. The interesting thing was, I had never seen people take such good direction before. Everything the band commanded was brought to fruition before I could even blink. “OPEN UP THIS MOSH PIT RIGHT NOW!”. Almost immediately, men, who for some reason had just come from jiu jitsu practice, took to the center of a magically opened circle and began ripping shit up. “EVERYBODY CROWD SURF RIGHT NOW!”. Like the tides in the ocean, now came the waves of around 50 people making their way to the barricade, riding on the hands of those below them. I real-
ize now that it was a curse to be in the front row, for the final hand in getting these people to the ever-so-jacked security guards was my own. I imagine I looked like that one Willem Dafoe meme of him looking up at whatever atrocity awaited him above. I tell you earnestly, dear reader, it was so bad that when someone lost their balance, and their face came tumbling down near my arm, their canine tooth collided with my own wrist, and I was left with a regaled scar.
“I imagine I looked like that one Willem Dafoe meme of him looking up at whatever atrocity awaited him above.”
I moshed. I headbanged. I was overwhelmed with the emo culture that I just had to join. Did I walk away with severe neck pain and the inability to hear for the next 3 days? Yes indeed. But like Jesus Christ himself, I rose after those three days and realized that’s what hardcore is about. Even though I merely accidentally experienced it, I learned that there is a true culture and community that exists here. Between songs, these bands preached love and humanity, then sang very violent lyrics about blood and killing police officers, but I got the gist. The rage people hold from the world, they express here with other people who are mad about the same things. They come here to let it out and find people to lean on, physically and emotionally. It was honestly quite beautiful. To conclude the story, the concert was cut short due to weather restrictions, but when I entered the Buffalo Taco Bell with a friend I had met just 3 hours ago, I realized the true meaning of the music I had heard that night. That friendship is magic. Friends are meant to both hug and punch in the face, with love, of course. That metal concert was undoubltyy a bucket list item I did not know I had, and also did not know I was going to check off. Now that I have, I consider myself a changed man. My message to you, reader: Let’s bleed. Lovingly.
Who Binghamton’s Admitting & Who’s Left Behind
It is now the middle of October, meaning that high school seniors and prospective transfer students are starting to flood universities once again with their applications. Here is an overview of Binghamton’s Admissions and Enrollment data, starting from 2009 (which is the earliest Common Dataset available on their website). Whether you are a prospective or current student at Binghamton or an alumnus looking to brag about the selectivity of the school you went to, this article should provide you with something to take away.
From 2009 to 2024, applications to Binghamton surged by approximately 82.4%, from 29,061 to 53,007, with a notable spike in 2023. Students admitted have also risen from 9,692 to 20,464. Despite the record number of applicants and the increasing number of students admitted, however, the number of students enrolled at Binghamton has stayed relatively stable, fluctuating between approximately 2123 and 3248. This is because the yield rate—the percentage of admitted students who enroll—has declined over the same period, dropping from 21.9% in 2009 to 15.9% in 2024. Binghamton is attracting a larger and more competitive applicant pool, but there are underlying factors limiting enrollment growth, potentially including competition from other institutions, financial considerations, or capacity constraints at the university.
By Xinpeng Gao
The first-year acceptance rate has stayed steady but generally trended upward from 33.35% in 2009 to 38.61% in 2024, with a peak of 44.15% in 2021 despite there being an increase in the number of applicants. From 2009-2014, the acceptance rate rose steadily from 33.35% to 44.06%, indicating a less selective admissions process as applications grew modestly. From 20152021, it was relatively high, suggesting that either Binghamton admitted a larger proportion of applicants to accommodate growing interest, or less people applied during COVID. Finally, in 2023 and 2024, the acceptance rate dipped to 37.73% in 2023 before rising slightly to 38.61% in 2024, despite record applications (49,519 and 53,007).
Meanwhile, acceptance rates for transfer students have consistently been higher than first-year rates, ranging from 34.77% in 2009 to a peak of 51.11% in 2014, and settling at 45.23% in 2024. The gap between first-year and transfer acceptance rates has widened over time (from 1.42% to 6.62%), indicating that Binghamton has become less selective for transfer applicants, possibly to fill gaps in enrollment or attract diverse student profiles.
Despite the enrollment remaining relatively stable (2,123 to 3,248), the demographics of enrolled first-year students have changed significantly, reflecting a more diverse student body. The proportion of Asian students nearly doubled from 11.40% to 22.44% while White students decreased from a peak of 66.25% in 2019 to 55.76% in 2024. Hispanic representation has fluctuated, reaching 4.90% in 2024 after a low of 2.38% in 2015. Black students remained stable at 4–5%. Finally, there has always been a lack of American Indian and Pacific Islander representation on campus (<0.25%), and the “unknown” category dropped from 18.23% to 2.86%, indicating improved data reporting as the years went on. There was an uptick in the number
of White students enrolled in 2024. The Supreme Court ruling that colleges could not use race as a factor for admissions may or may not have played a role in this (The New York Times).
The median SAT score of current freshmen has drastically increased from 1286 to 1420. Median ACT scores increased from 28 to 33. The average SAT and ACT scores in 2009 were 1017 and 2,1, respectively, which Binghamton students have consistently surpassed throughout the years, reflecting its growing academic competitiveness. Today, the top 25% of test-submitted enrolled students are scoring above the 95th percentile nationally. However, these standardized test scores may be inflated, as the percentage of enrolled students who actually submit test scores is low (44% for SAT and 9% for ACT).
From a high of 17% in 2009 and 2011, the percentage of admissions who are out of state steadily dropped to just 7% by 2018. At that point, Binghamton’s freshman class was overwhelmingly dominated by New York students. However, this share has gradually rebounded, reaching 13.9% in 2023 and 15% in 2024. In general, Binghamton has historically enrolled far fewer out-of-state students than many of its peer public flagship institutions.
From 2009 to 2015, in-state tuition rose steadily from $4,970 to $6,470. But after 2019, in-state rates essentially froze at $7,070, staying flat through 2024. For NY residents, Binghamton has become one of the most affordable public flagships in the country—at least in terms of sticker price. However, outof-state students faced a very different reality as their tuition
nearly doubled from $12,870 in 2009 to $26,950 in 2024. The required fees also crept up from $1,791 to $3,497, adding another layer of cost growth for all students. The recent rise in out-of-state enrollment (15% in 2024) suggests that Binghamton may be enrolling more out-of-state students—who generate higher revenue per student—to keep Binghamton affordable for New Yorkers.
Unlike the surge in first-year applications, transfer applications have been flat, consistently around 4,000–4,800 per year, with the number of applications declining over time. The number of students admitted to Binghamton has also trended downward, dropping below 1,900 after 2020 and hitting 1,732 in 2023. Transfer enrollments peaked at 1,185 in 2013, but have steadily fallen to just 763 in 2024 — a nearly 36% drop in a decade. As a result, transfers play a smaller role in shaping the incoming class than they did a decade ago.
Finally, I reached out to the university’s admissions team for comment on this data. Here is what Krista Medionte-Phillips, Vice Provost of Enrollment Management, had to say about the matter:
Undergraduate enrollment objectives are carefully calibrated, taking into account a wide range of factors. We’ve seen remarkable growth in application volume, with both first-year and transfer applications increasing by 15% compared to last year.
The Admissions team, in close collaboration with campus leadership, remains focused on enrolling a highly talented incoming class. We maintain a strong commitment to providing access and opportunity for students from all backgrounds and from around the world. The Admissions office operates within the permissible legal framework, and is unable to view the race or ethnicity information of applicants.
Regarding transfer students, although transfer enrollment has declined over the past decade, we experienced a modest increase this fall. This positive trend reflects coordinated, campus-wide efforts to engage prospective transfer students and offer clear, transparent guidance on transfer pathways and opportunities. We’re excited to build on this momentum and continue to welcome transfer students.
The Need for Strict Migration
By Nicholas Aparicio
What was the greatest failure of the Biden administration?
Some might point to his support of proxy wars in Ukraine and Israel, but American participation in those types of conflicts is nothing new. Movements like “Build Back Better” and bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which he signed into law, were terrible for the deficit and inflation, but again, nothing new in Washington. The administration’s worst failure was their utter apathy for the illegal immigration influx which unfolded under their tenure, resulting in 11 million unauthorized border encounters, according to USBP. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said there wasn’t a crisis, instead calling it a “challenge,” while then Vice President Kamala Harris skirted the issue by claiming the “border was secure,” despite all of the damage which we saw daily. This was an avoidable disaster, but President Biden decided to reinstate catch & release, let illegal aliens loose into the country, paused construction on the border wall, ended the “Remain In Mexico” policy which forced asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until their claims were heard, and restricted ICE enforcement. This made a mockery of the United States, transforming citizenship into a meaningless title, and turning the country into an economic zone. Now President Trump seeks to reverse the damage. I wish to simply underscore the importance of this mission. Some may decry Trump’s enforcement of border laws, but that is incredibly ignorant and disrespects the meaning of being American. If your border is wide open, and people can cross through with bare minimum vetting without even being turned back, then there is a serious problem. The United States is not an economic zone for workers to flood into; it’s a nation with its own laws, culture, and customs. You cannot cross the border just to find work. One should seek to join this country only if they wish to work here for an extended time, and crossing the border illegally inherently violates that. Any administration who allows such mass breach of our law undermines our national identity. People may oppose this idea because they view migration as an issue of race: the predominant race in America (whites) themselves are migrants to the land, and therefore enforcement of such laws is hypocritical. Yet that could not be further from the truth. It is about American identity, not ethnic identity. Whether it’s millions of people from Latin America, India, or Europe, many who share my beliefs would hold the same position.
President Trump has successfully closed down the southern border since taking office, with CBP reporting a 93% decrease in southern border migrant encounters compared to the previous year. The success Trump has seen in closing down the border is great, but it needs to be made permanent. Completing the border wall is the first major step in permanently reducing the flow of illegal migrants. Now, the border needs to be reinforced with the might of the American military. The Southern border is vast, and traditionally, the American military was present in the West. Large land empires like Rome, China, or Russia, all had their militaries stationed along their borders to protect from outsiders like Germanic tribes, Mongolian raiders, or Siberian/Turkic tribes. Historically, our military was stationed along our frontier and border to
fight against Native Americans and Mexican bandits. Today, our military is far flung across the world, but has a limited presence at home. This is more concerning when faced with the reality that Mexican drug cartels are more powerful than ever, fueling billions of dollars in drug, human trafficking, and arms smuggling industries. The Mexican government is weak to act against them, and our border has been exploited by them. Even our ports of entry are not impermeable. Positioning our military at the Southern border, and regularly rotating them, would reinforce American safety and cut off the markets in America which the cartels rely upon.
For children who had no choice as to their migration, an exception should be made. A bipartisan law which guarantees the aforementioned permanent border security while giving asylum to mixed-status families who have worked in America for over a decade is also a fair compromise. However, the rest should be deported, especially the ones who entered under the Biden influx. The means of deportation can be debated. I agree with “the worst first” sentiment, but that only works when we have local governments handing over violators and if no quota system is in place. If a quota system is implemented, it’s easier to go after the “non-worst” rather than tracking down the aliens who committed crimes beyond their crossing. If local governments refuse to cooperate with ICE, all federal funding should be withheld, and the DOJ should be prosecuting officials. As for the non-criminal population, the easiest solution would be to federally implement E-Verify, as it would outlaw companies and businesses from hiring illegal immigrants. This would massively benefit workers who wouldn’t fear having wages undercut, and it would incentivize companies to create humane conditions, rather than having illegal migrants afraid to speak out against their poor working situations.
Then we have the case of limiting legal immigration. Vivek Ramaswamy, one of DOGE’s first heads, got into hot water early on in 2024 for wanting to expand H1B visas to foreign workers, claiming that American “culture” does not promote the best in STEM careers, valuing beauty and status over academic achievement. Be that as it may, that doesn’t mean one should sell out jobs in sectors where American citizens are struggling to be employed. If they want to compete for these jobs, they should become citizens. America is a meritocracy, but for its citizens, not for people from India or Eastern Europe. America is not a business, it’s a country. It should control the chain migration to not extend to people outside the migrant’s parents, spouse, or child, rather than an exploitative unending chain of foreigners. The H1B lottery system is also ridiculous; citizenship is not a gameshow prize; It should be a meticulous vetting process. All of this ties together to promote one message: our sovereignty as a nation is fundamentally the most important thing a president protects. Foreign countries are not the gravest threat to that, but rather the watering down of citizenship and the tolerance of illegal immigration.
Is MAGA Dead?
By Marcus Caniano
The immediate answer to this question is no, of course not.
MAGA is alive and well. Trump was elected in a grand political comeback by margins not seen from a Republican since 1988. Along with that came GOP control of Congress with much more Trump-friendly leadership compared to his last term. He has expressed almost no restraint in his rhetoric and policy, with almost the entire Republican Party fully supporting his agenda. The party is now fully MAGA, and it seems it will be for a while. However, its seeming dominance over right-wing politics has already begun to show cracks.
The future is led by the youth, and among the youth, Trump is very unpopular. He made huge gains with youth voters in the 2024 election, winning a majority of young men and improving with women. But in less than a year, he has erased most of these gains. According to a CBS poll, Trump’s support among Gen Z has dropped from 55% in February to 28% in July. His support among young men, the future of his base, has significantly dropped, with 40% saying they were better off under Biden, and half saying they think Trump is hurting the economy. It’s expected that liberal youths don’t support MAGA, but it’s another issue if right-wing conservative youths don’t support MAGA as well. It would be less of an issue if this were just a feeling of disappointment, but many young people now disavow Trump completely, feeling as though they have been betrayed. Reasons for this include aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East and Ukraine, disappointing deportation numbers, minimal restrictions on legal immigration, embracing big tech, and flip-flopping on tariffs.
Certainly, the largest and most encapsulating issue that represents a Trump betrayal is the Epstein file scandal. Most people, particularly young conservatives, are longing to know the truth and to uncover the clear corruption around it. Trump promised the release of these files, and after months of delays and excuses, he simply declared the files are a “Democrat hoax” and ought not to be released. He even later on wrote on Truth Social that he no longer wants support from followers who are unsatisfied with the Epstein question. This was a huge breach of a major promise, resulting in the biggest crack within the MAGA base so far. Young MAGA voters will not forget this, and many will certainly rescind their support of MAGA, as they now consider it hostile and/or compromised.
Young right-wing voters also have largely been influenced by famous personalities who are critical of Trump. Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson are prominent examples of this concerning the administration’s policy on Israel. While they certainly have influenced this transformation, it has mainly been led less by mainstream media and more by social media influencers, who are mostly in Gen Z or slightly older. A significant example is Nick Fuentes, who has gone from being an unknown and unpopular right-wing influencer to approaching mainstream levels. His popularity has skyrocketed since the beginning of the second Trump term, starting off as one of the only non-RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) Trump critics since the election. He consistently voices opinions right of MAGA
and more in line with what many of these younger voters desire. Nick Fuentes and political influencers similar to him are quickly becoming much more mainstream, a concept that was long thought to be impossible due to their rhetoric. Criticism of Trump up until recently was nearly exclusive to liberals and RINOS, who were consequently removed from right-wing discourse. Trump commanded a sense of respect and was almost beyond criticism. The adversity he faced from the left and the government, along with his political determination in his 2024 campaign, gave the MAGA base a belief that he was THE solution to the nation’s problems and that any criticism of him was unfounded. That protection is now fading and will quickly lead to a steady alienization of the MAGA base.
MAGA also faces a severe and clear problem that will determine its fate: leadership. As the future goes on, Trump will only get older and consequently less effective as a politician and president. Once Trump is gone, whether by death, incapacitation, or just the end of his term, a huge issue arises. Trump is the face of MAGA, and there’s no real substitute. No politician can get voters out like Trump did, and any figure that takes his place will most likely end up being just another “establishment” politician. People will feel that MAGA is no longer a rebellious movement, but just the operating mode of a Republican Party still supported by the same donors with the same interests.
Republicans may lose the 2028 election, but there will be no abrupt end to the MAGA movement. It will slowly lose its support and energy, morphing into a once again ineffective faction of the Republican Party. Aspects of it will certainly live on, but within the next few years or even decades, the right wing will be occupied by another movement. Meanwhile, Trump and his idea of Making America Great Again will be left in the past as an ineffective movement and a strange part of American history.
The Art of Hiring: A Game of Guesswork
Conventional wisdom suggests that employers know exactly how to pick the best candidates. With resumés in hand and interview questions ready, they’re depicted as the gatekeepers of excellence. But let’s be honest: the idea that employers “choose their candidates wisely” is hard to swallow, especially for anyone who’s actually been through the process. Anyone who has ever interacted with HR for long enough usually ends up coming to the conclusion that their real job is mostly to waste your time. So, are employers good at picking out talent? Well, the evidence is a little less reassuring than they’d like us to believe.
Consider an experiment carried out by Lerner & Bergman (2025). The setup was simple: 76 technical recruiters evaluated over 1,000 resumés, assessing whether they would interview candidates and predicting their chances of passing a technical interview. The candidates in which the resumés were used for this experiment had already participated in several mock interviews, so their actual performance was already known and scored. The results? Recruiters were only right 55% of the time— just a bit better than flipping a coin. Not exactly the predictive prowess we might expect from “experts” tasked with evaluating talent. When recruiters were asked to predict the likelihood of a candidate passing their technical interview, they were way off, with predictions regularly overshooting or underestimating actual performance by significant margins. This isn’t just a minor issue. When recruiters pegged a candidate’s chances of passing the technical interview at 0-5%, those candidates passed almost half the time (47%). Meanwhile, when they predicted a 95-100% chance of success, the reality was only a 64% success rate. That’s a two-letter-grade discrepancy for those keeping score. If this was a high school exam, recruiters would be failing big time.
The inconsistencies don’t stop there. Another telling sign was that the experiment also demonstrated that recruiters couldn’t even agree with each other on what makes a strong candidate. When the same resumé was evaluated by two different recruiters, they were only in agreement 64% of the time. The variation was staggering, with recruiters often disagreeing by as much as 41 percentage points on how likely a candidate was to succeed. This falls in line with the general literature. Supervisor ratings have an inter-rater reliability of around 0.52, which means that when multiple supervisors rate an employee’s performance, 52% of the variance in their ratings is attributable to true performance. With only about half of the variance in ratings reflecting an employee’s actual performance, supervisors are effectively guessing on a significant portion of their assessments(Shen et al., 2014).
This brings up an important question: do employers actually have reliable ways to evaluate a candidate’s performance? After over 100 years of research, we have some answers. One of the most common ways employers assess candidates is by looking at their education. But the truth is, education—whether measured
By Comson Cao
by your GPA or the number of years you’ve studied—doesn’t actually predict job performance very well, the correlation being 0.34 and 0.1, respectively. The same goes for years of job experience, which is only weakly correlated with performance as well—0.16. Even work sample tests, which are often thought to be good predictors, don’t fare much better—0.33.
Now, there are some selection methods that do seem to work better, like tests that measure general mental ability (GMA) and job interviews. GMA tests, for example, have a stronger correlation with job performance at 0.65 (Schmidt et al., 2016). The obvious question, then, is why employers continue to rely so heavily on education if it is such a poor predictor of job performance. The answer lies in the economics of signaling. Education shifts the costs of screening away from employers and onto employees. In other words, it is the job seeker—not the company—who bears the cost of proving their competence. Employers can freely use education as a filtering device because it is already socially mandated and widely institutionalized. Degrees function as a pre-screening mechanism, and because the costs of obtaining them are burdened by individuals, they are effectively “free” for employers. This makes education an attractive, lowcost, and socially accepted proxy for ability, even if it is empirically weak as a predictor. However, there’s another reason: the better alternative methods that can be employed are only way better on paper. The impressive predictive validities reported for tests and interviews are after statistical corrections, adjusted for factors such as test reliability and range restriction in applicant pools. In the real world, employers deal with administering imperfect tests, non-random applicant groups, and all the random situational noise that comes with human performance. Without these statistical adjustments, GMA tests correlate with job performance at closer to 0.3, and other measures fall similarly. Finally, even if employers were willing to bear the cost of administering better tests, the incentive structure would quickly erode their usefulness. A four-year degree functions as a kind of endurance test—a “war of attrition” that requires sustained effort and discipline, traits that are difficult to fake. By contrast, a single standardized test, even if valid, would invite short-term gaming. Preparing intensely for a one-day exam is far easier than demonstrating diligence over several years. In that sense, education persists not because it measures performance well, but because it credibly differentiates candidates by their willingness and ability to endure a prolonged, socially recognized filter. This ties into part of the broader debate economists have on the value of education. Economists practically have a consensus that going to college or university confers a premium (a wage boost) to the individual, but disagree why this occurs. The debate can broadly be divided into two camps: human capital purism and signaling theory. Human capital purism is the conventional view that higher education makes one more productive
and that people learn useful job-relevant skills while in college or university, so the education premium reflects one’s increase in productivity. By contrast, signaling theory argues that higher education is mostly a waste of time and confers little practical skills to those attending, but the reward comes from acquiring a degree which certifies one’s ability to employers by acting as a signal of competence. Well, human capital purists often like to critique signaling theory on the basis that employers eventually “discover” their employees’ true productivity, independent of their education. The argument from human capital purists goes something like this: if the education premium (the wage boost you get from having a degree) plateaus over time, it means employers have fully discovered their workers’ true productivity, which makes signaling theory irrelevant. In other words, after years of on-the-job performance, employers will know everything there is to know about a worker, so education no longer serves its signaling function.
However, economist Bryan Caplan in his book The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money, critiques the interpretation drawn from this literature as evidence for human capital purism. He shows how this interpretation misses a key element: even though the education premium might plateau, that doesn’t imply employers are now experts in assessing a worker’s true capabilities. Instead, it suggests that employers’ knowledge is incomplete, particularly in relation to noncognitive traits (such as conscientiousness, social skills, and work ethic). Caplan uses marriage as an analogy to explain this: After many years together, you might think you know your spouse inside and out, but then suddenly they make a surprising decision or reveal something new. This doesn’t mean the “real” person has finally emerged after years of being hidden—it just means that understanding someone fully is a much more gradual process than we like to admit. In the same way, just because the education premium plateaus doesn’t mean that employers have “discovered” the full set of attributes that make a worker valuable. Instead, it suggests that employers stop adjusting wages or making major changes because they’ve reached
the limit of what they can easily observe. The education signal remains relevant precisely because it reflects attributes, like intelligence, that continue to matter over time—even if employers don’t always adjust their compensation accordingly.
Caplan also points out a crucial oversight in the human capital purist argument: employers don’t necessarily reduce wages even after they “discover” the true productivity of their workers. Why? Because employers are generally reluctant to make drastic adjustments to compensation after hiring someone. Caplan explains that once an employer has made an initial wage offer based on an educational signal, they tend to underreact to poor performance. Rather than cutting wages or firing a worker outright, employers often take a gentler approach, offering small raises and incremental adjustments. This is a form of mercy on the employer’s part, as drastic salary cuts would damage morale and make the company seem unfair. The result? Workers often continue to benefit from their education signal long after their true abilities have been “discovered.” To further expand on Caplan’s point, most CEOs or owners of large companies don’t really know their employees. Instead, they delegate the task of oversight of employees to managers who don’t have much of an incentive themselves to see who is doing a good job and who isn’t. Once someone is hired, they won’t be fired for performing slightly below company standards.
It is also important for one to actually understand the role of education as a signal. Consider this: as wages increase throughout a career, the need for employers to differentiate between high-performing and low-performing candidates also grows. In industries with higher wages, employers face more pressure to discriminate between candidates who might seem similarly qualified on paper. At this stage, employers are not just looking for people who can do the job, but also those who can contribute to long-term organizational success. The only reason that education works as a signal is because it does, in fact, correlates with the things which it signals, which are intelligence and conscientiousness. As Caplan noted, “In most European countries studied, the education premium does not decline over time; should we really conclude European employers instantly see through their workers?” The traits that education signals also become more important over time. If intelligence and conscientiousness become more correlated with income as a person ages, which it does (Gensowski, 2018), then education also would, since it correlates with both of these. The education premium can plateau at any point any time, or not plateau at all like in much of Europe, and it would not actually prove that employers have acquired perfect knowledge of their employees.
So, next time you get turned down for a job, just remember: it’s not because you weren’t qualified—it’s because the hiring manager had to make a guess, and like most of us, they’re really good at guessing wrong. If you ever find yourself sitting in an interview, waiting for the hiring manager to unveil their wisdom like some oracle of talent, just remember: they’re probably just as clueless as you are. In fact, the real skill in job hunting isn’t impressing anyone, it’s knowing how to look like someone they might pick... on paper. Don’t stress over being “the best candidate.” Just perfect the art of looking the part—because in this game, it’s all about making someone else believe they picked you wisely, even if they didn’t.
Gang of Cliques
By Shane Rossi
It’s a common trope that within our generation, people are becoming “iPad kids” and getting glued to their screens. Whether this is just hysteria about technology or a reality, one thing is clear: people simply are not socialising with each other. And nowhere is that more true than Binghamton University. What is thought to be an experience for many to make friends and socialize with each other turns into almost an adoption program. People will join as many clubs or go to as many fraternities as possible, hoping they meet that one person who brings them into their pre-existing friend group. These people become the “floater” friend who knows everyone but is friends with no one. The fear of going up to someone and introducing yourself, even in a class, is considered terrifying. Only, it’s far worse than this. Even the simple act of saying “thank you” when someone opens the door for you, or “bless you” when you sneeze, is avoided if possible. We have not come to a university to simply do assignments. After all, you can certainly do most of your degree program on Brightspace, or even all online classes.
“Our SA Congress elects either leftists or Zionists who pretend to battle out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in our school walls.”
As a transfer student, I understand how it is to come to a university that acts as if it’s not looking for new students. I made friends because I have niche interests, and I like to smoke cigarettes, which in itself has its own community. Others may join a fraternity as a way out, and that is certainly a good option. But what you essentially have is a gang of cliques. Most fraternities and clubs are explicitly based on race or nationality. You aren’t expected to have the most outgoing personality and confidence, or to try to understand someone else. Instead, you must have a strong identity and then stick to people who share it. I remember walking across the soccer field outside my Dickinson dorm one day. In one corner was a group of Asian guys playing soccer, and in the other corner was a separate group, all white. Coming from New York City, I was surprised to see the level of self-segregation that happens on our campus. Of course, you would have the occasional cultural group or friends who are alike, but the expectation should be to meet and be around whoever was in your classes or clubs, not just those who look like you.
Even our very own student government has not escaped this problem. Our SA Congress elects either leftists or Zionists who pretend to battle out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in our school walls. How does this help the students? Our president holds town halls to explicitly support the Black Student Union and sends out emails promoting their organization. Is this prioritizing the student body? Our campus has become a hotbed of political and racial resentment instead of a place for students to learn and socialize with one another.
With the rise of things such as AirPods, the need for socialization has become increasingly less prevalent in our modern society. Even the simple act of ordering food has now been automated, with DoorDash being used to avoid all social interaction whatsoever. It’s true that these are macro-level societal problems, but it is obvious that our university suffers from it more than others. An unknown second-year student at Binghamton University wrote on Reddit, “Everyone stays in their small friend group and ignores the rest of the campus… so many people here know each other… people from the same high school especially…” In schools like Oswego, not only is the student body smaller, but there is a greater sense of community. A student who went there talked to me off the record and said, “Every student had one or two degrees of separation from every other student. At most, three. Everyone seemed familiar, even if you didn’t know them personally.” But because our student body is so large, it’s possible for you to stick with only two or three groups and basically ignore everybody else. This gives people the incentive to find others who look like themselves. It doesn’t help that virtually two-thirds of the clubs you see at UFest are based on ethnic or cultural lines.
Needless to say, this has fostered a collection of enclaves as opposed to a united student body. But it does not have to be this way. Everyone can be a part of the change they would like to see. When you go to your next class or see an acquaintance in the hallway, take the chance and have a conversation with them. You will realize there was nothing to be afraid of in the first place.
An Auditory Abomination
By Angelo DiTocco
It doesn’t take an “unc” to recognize that new technology can be scary and have adverse effects on society. This is especially true with the advent of generative AI, which has earned a reputation for stealing the hard work of real artists and recycling it into absolute slop. That’s not to mention that it has made grading a nightmare for some teachers and professors. But generative AI does have its advantages; ChatGPT is usually faster than a Google search, and it can actually dish out useful ideas sometimes. So I’m here today to rant about a far more sinister piece of technology: the Apple AirPod.
Anyone who’s known me for more than half a second knows that I am a D1 Apple hater. I have a tendency to incessantly air out my grievances with anything and everything the company does wrong, be it as significant as their price gouging or as small as the stupid “Command” key that they refuse to let go of. The European Union literally had to force them to switch to using USB-C chargers like everyone else (a rare Europe W). With all my hatred for Apple, I can still somewhat understand how users are drawn to its devices by factors such as their simplicity and their seamless integration with each other. But I still cannot comprehend for the life of me why anyone would even think to buy these pieces of trash, let alone why the majority of civilized society uses them.
It wasn’t long ago when most people felt the same way. Those of you who just got here might not remember when AirPods came out, but I remember it clear as day, as it was basically the 9/11 of technology. Apple had just gotten rid of their 3.5 mm headphone jack “to save space” and was “coincidentally” releasing their new wireless headphones at the same time. Anyone with three or more brain cells could see exactly what Apple was doing: They were deliberately removing features and forcing consumers to pay to get them back. The de facto upcharge on phones going forward was to be ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY DOLLARS. The general public was quick to criticize Apple’s business model, and I was glad that we were all on the same page.
What I failed to realize, however, was that brainwashing is a gradual process. As such, these little white affronts to intelligence slowly but surely crept their way into the mainstream. How exactly they got there is still a mystery to me, but it certainly wasn’t any improvement made to the products themselves. To this day, AirPods retain the exact same design flaws their original versions had: They sport Apple’s classic fall-outof-your-ears form factor, their battery life is still mediocre, and their price hasn’t dropped one bit.
There’s really only one new feature that separates the current AirPods from their 2016 versions, and that’s noise cancellation. But I wouldn’t call that an improvement. These newer iterations of AirPods have allowed people to go about their lives completely ignoring the outside world as if it doesn’t exist. If you ever have to ask something from one of these people, it’ll likely take two or three tries. Worse yet, these are open-back headphones, meaning the sound of whatever you’re watching
or listening to is meant to escape from the other side. So on top of their complete ignorance of society, AirTards are often leaking their brainrot to be unwillingly heard by everyone else. If there was such a crime as “auditory assault,” I sure as hell would be suing people for it.
Those are all the complaints I have about these headphones, and if it stopped there, maybe it wouldn’t be too bad. But as we all know, AirPods have built-in microphones too. This enables people to take calls from God-knows-who without even having to take their phones out of their pockets. I’m sure you’ve all been in a situation where you thought someone was talking to you, only to see the AirPod in their ear and realize they’re talking to someone else. Taking your phone out and holding it up to your ear may be cumbersome, but that is precisely the point. It signals to others, 1. “I’m talking to someone else over the phone, not to you,” and 2. “Now is not a great time to talk to me because I’m busy.” Refusal to convey this crucial information to others results in confusion and just makes you look like a schizo.
Listen, I’m not saying you have to say hello to every stranger you meet in public. I certainly don’t do that. I’m not trying to convince you to throw away your AirPods either. But you should at least try to integrate yourself into the environment that you’re in. If you’re walking across campus from class to class, you should actually be on campus, not in some little bubble with someone halfway across the world. And despite what the hustler types say, you don’t need to overlap every waking moment of the day with something “productive” like listening to something or talking to someone. Just take in your surroundings and live in the moment like we as humans were meant to. Or, if you’re not gonna follow that advice, at least do a little research and get a pair of headphones with a double-digit price tag instead.
