10 Opinions I appreciated Peer Counseling for setting me up with an article idea at Club Rush with their crazy hat theme. You’ll be seeing a “Lice Epidemic” headline shortly. -Giovanna Zavala New popularity contest: who can spell out the longest word in duct tape letters in the senior portrait.
-Bhavika Anandpura
When all the band and ASB kids got up and left my second period class 20 minutes early, I had no idea there was about to be a surprise pep rally. -Shereen Nikzad Applying to college is like asking someone out, except you’re asking multiple people out in case the ones out of your league say no. Though sometimes, if you’re lucky, they will friendzone you and put you on their waitlist. -Iris Lang (12) I don’t understand why the Nordstrom people are still dressed up for Halloween. Oh wait, that’s just the MAC ladies. -Jason Kang To submit a Praise or Folly drop your submission off in room L-104. Include your name, grade level, or job title and phone number. The Nexus will decide which submissions to print based on quality of writing and value to readers. They may be edited for space or content reasons.
T he
Nexus
Mandatory quarantine violates rights
Jacob Tao
Staff Writer With the recent spread of the Ebola virus in several regions in West Africa and a few cases reported in the United States, the government has taken strict precautions to ensure that the virus is contained as much as possible. With strong control over the situation, the Ebola crisis can be held at bay until a cure or vaccine is created. What doesn’t help is when government officials are clouded by paranoia and enact policies based on fear. On Oct. 24, Kaci Hickox, a nurse who returned from working in West Africa as an overseas healthcare worker, was placed under mandatory quarantine after experiencing a fever. Quarantine is an effective way to combat the disease, but what’s strange is that the healthcare officials decided to keep her in quarantine for 21 days after repeated Ebola tests showed up negative. Hickox was kept in a quarantine tent for several days without any books, television, or running water. Additionally, she was forced to wear medical scrubs at all times. Hickox, who was released from her quarantine tent on Oct. 27 after extensive legal battles, claims that the experience was unnecessary and inhumane. Hickox described the entire ordeal as a violation of her basic human rights. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie claimed that Hickox was symptomatic and defended the quarantine by explaining that he was protecting the people
of New Jersey from a potential risk of Ebola. Hickox criticized Christie for proclaiming her symptomatic despite not having any medical training of his own. If the domestic threat of Ebola is to be controlled, people who believe they have symptoms need to believe that the government will help them. Christie declared to the public that he didn’t trust the nurses to diagnose themselves, forcing them to be held in quarantine. Mistrust between the government and the doctors overseas will not only create tension and uncooperativeness between the two groups, but also lead Ebola patients to be less trusting too. Obama and the White House have expressed their own disapproval of the handling of Hickox’s quarantine, fearing that the quarantine will discourage more healthcare workers from traveling overseas to help combat Ebola outbreak. The United Nations and many medical organizations have also voiced their criticism of the mandatory quarantine, saying that the idea of a mandatory quarantine is both scientifically and legally unjustified. Yet fear of Ebola has led government leaders to ignore these warnings and continue along these irrational decisions. Despite the negative views from the government, Illinois, New York, and New Jersey have all announced a mandatory 21-day quarantine policy for all healthcare workers coming back from West Africa. Additionally, Florida and Virginia have started mandatory monitoring of doctors coming from West Africa. While monitoring doctors is not inherently bad, the amount paranoia over the Ebola disease results in ex-
Editor In Chief In 1983, U.S. News and World Report published its first national universities and liberal arts colleges rankings. It became the most widely read and most influential college ranking. From the very beginning, the list has been dominated by the Ivies, despite gradual changes in methodology. Harvard and Princeton have graced the No. 1 spot 16 times and 15 times, respectively. They, along with Stanford and Yale, were the top four national universities in 1983, and are the top four once again this year. It’s safe to say that students know what to expect when they skim the latest rankings. That is, until now. U.S. News released its first ever Best Global Universities Rankings in October, encompassing the top 500 institutions from 49 countries. For the many ambitious students who base their college applications on such lists, it contained more than a few surprises. U.S. News is best known for its national universities and liberal arts college rankings. This year, Princeton University and Williams College topped each list. However, in the global rankings, Princeton was dropped to 13th place while Harvard came in first. How could Harvard be the best college in the world, but not in the U.S.? U.C. Berkeley, the most prestigious
treme precautions, thus causing more harm than help. There have only been four cases of Ebola in the U.S. so far, with three out of the four patients surviving the disease. Proper medical care can prevent spreading of the disease, even after a patient has become contagious. But if fear controls the policy making of our government, then supplies and doctors required to prevent widespread outbreaks of the virus in Africa won’t be there to keep us safe from further spreading. What should have been a warm welcome for Hickox became a three-week prison sentence for helping in the fight against Ebola. The exaggerated rumors about the contagiousness of Ebola have gotten the U.S. so frightened that some of us are forgetting the human rights and liberties that we built ourselves upon. It’s true that Ebola needs extremely careful precautions, but when it comes to holding someone against her will in a cooped up tent with only basic supplies after she has passed multiple Ebola tests; it might be a time to step back and think about the situation. If we allow a fear of Ebola to cloud our thinking and lead us to rush to conclusions, then we only help the virus spread more easily than before. A government should protect human rights, not violate them, and Governor Christie’s mandatory quarantine policy is clearly violating them when the patients aren’t even infected. While the need for monitoring and preventing the spread of Ebola is necessary, lawmakers and government officials must be careful to not make rash decisions that will harm the fight against Ebola, but rather thought-out solutions.
Egg-freezing policy needs family-friendly revisions Bhavika Anandpura Staff Writer
On Oct. 14 Apple and Facebook announced that their employee insurance would now cover egg-freezing. This expensive procedure provides young women the opportunity to freeze their oocytes so that they can have children later in life. This initially seemed like a great option for women, especially with increasing job opportunities forcing women to choose between family and career. By covering the costs of egg-freezing, companies give their employees more flexibility in making life decisions. But following the announcement, criticism sprung up in editorials across the internet, with headlines like “Facebook and Apple Offer Egg-Freezing Perk So Women Never Stop Working.” They argued that this ‘benefit’ promotes an unequal work-life balance, and encourages an unhealthy career-oriented mindset. But I do not believe that was the companies’ intention or that companies control their employees’ thoughts.
Employees are perfectly capable of application; if everyone else is doing choosing a work-life balance that it, it’s not exactly optional. Companies makes them happy. This decision opens will, intentionally or not, choose applimore options for working women, and I cants who won’t need parental leave have no doubt many will utilize it. or shorter hours, so ambitious women Other responses were positive, citing will be compelled to choose career over egg-freezing insurance as a step forward family to remain competitive. in balancing the gender gap. While it is Most businesses already make work a step in the right direction, we should and parenthood incompatible. A study reevaluate the repercussions before ap- conducted by Harvard Business Replauding such a deciview showed that sion as a monumental nearly 50 percent advancement. In an It seems that in most comof women ages 41attempt to breach the earning more panies women must choose 55 gap between males than $100,000 were and females, the either career or family. childless—only companies have wid11-14 percent optened the one between ed out of having a work and family. family by choice. It seems that in most With increased accessibility to pro- companies women must choose either cedures that postpone parenthood, more career or family; covering the cost of women will understandably choose to egg-freezing reaffirms this. take advantage of them. This, however, While egg-freezing is a great choice places young parents at a disadvantage for women who want to have children as they have to compete for positions later, it does not do much to bridge the with people who have more time for gender gap by itself. If instead it was their jobs. It’ll become like the optional coupled by parent-friendly policies, letter of recommendation on a college perhaps it would be more effective in
U.S. News releases improved college ranking Catie Fan
Nov 21, 2014
public institution in the U.S., came in third, another surprise seeing as Berkeley ranked 20th on the domestic list. Similarly, UCLA ranked eighth globally, but 23rd domestically. These are just a few of the many oddities that had students confused. The answer to the seemingly topsy-turvy rankings lies in methodology. For the first edition of domestic rankings in 1983, U.S. News asked college presidents to rate peer schools based upon reputation—hardly a quantitative assessment. Now, academic reputation is combined with other data, but still accounts for nearly a quarter of the evaluation. And while U.S. News’s domestic rankings does now factor in faculty resources and graduation and retention rates, it also weighs alumni donations, which is almost completely irrelevant to a university’s quality of education, and strangely, student selectivity—a paradox that is misleading many students and parents. A study done by UCLA professor Patricia McDonough found that when making decisions about matriculation, high-achieving students were highly likely to find rankings “very important.” Furthermore, according to a report by the Center for College Affordability, a selective private institution falling one spot in the rankings results in a predicted increase of the school’s rate of admittance of applicants by almost half a
percentage point and a decrease in yield rate, or the number of students who actually attend after being accepted. In other words, the higher a school ranks, the more competitive students apply, allowing the school to become more selective. This makes it illogical to weigh a college’s overall strength on selectivity in a rankings list, as the list itself determines selectivity. The annual rankings become a never-ending cycle in which the same universities are more or less locked in the same rank year after year. These domestic rankings have for years perpetuated the competitiveness among high school seniors to get into the top schools by—perhaps unintentionally—leading ambitious students and parents to factor in only prestige and selectivity when applying to college. Fortunately, the premier global ranking is a step away from tradition. Its formula is by no means perfect, but it offers a more objective, fresh perspective in its evaluation, which is why the results may have surprised readers. For its global analysis, U.S. News updated its methodology and drew data on various aspects of university research, including global and regional reputations, scholarly publications, citations and impact, international collaboration, and awards of doctoral degrees. There is a new emphasis on faculty productivity.
Allyson Wonderland
Notably absent from the new formula are undergraduate admissions selectivity and alumni donations. One of the greatest strengths of this new approach is that it gives greater recognition to public universities with high research profiles, which is why schools such as UC Berkeley and UCLA have spiked to the top. The global rankings allow typically lower-ranked universities to climb the figurative ladder. It exposes students to schools with actual influence and research opportunities instead of only wealth and prestige. The global ranking has a lot of potential to be a high school senior’s best friend. But right now, despite its improvements, it’s still lacking a few key components. If data on an institution’s research prowess could be combined with data on tangible results—such as average salary after schooling, student experience, etc.—then perhaps students would have a more accurate perception of what schools they want to apply to. Of course, no student should decide on the colleges he or she will apply to solely based on rankings. There are countless other quantitative and qualitative factors that must be taken into account and cannot be encompassed by a simple top 100 list. But rankings, especially ones like U.S. News’s global ranking, can be useful tools for students, if taken with a grain of salt.
by Allyson Xie
advancing working women’s rights. Some companies have integrated work and family life, encouraging a family-friendly workplace. The offices of Campbell’s Soup Company, for example, contain lactation rooms for mothers to peacefully nurse their newborns. There is also an on-site kindergarten program for children of the employees. Google offers on-site daycare and an 18-week paid parental leave. These perks do more to close the gender gap than egg-freezing insurance. In a world of advanced technology that brings work home, it is becoming extremely difficult to separate the two. Smartphones ensure that work never stops, and almost always there is some way to work remotely. Rather than put one off for the other, companies like Campbell’s and Google provide a model to integrate work and parenting. Ultimately, providing egg-freezing insurance is a good idea, but it needs to be coupled with young-parent-friendly benefits in order to be effective. In such an advanced world, having a family and a job shouldn’t be a luxury.
Lack of state funds forces tuition hikes, harms students Andrew Kim
Opinions Editor Recently, the University of California proposed an increase in tuition by as much as five percent every year. This would end the tuition freeze instituted three years ago by Gov. Jerry Brown, who in exchange, ensured an annual 4 percent increase in funding for state schools. If such a proposal were to pass, the impact on students would harm graduating student’ financial standing. Already, on average, a graduating UC senior will have accumulated around $20,000 in student debt, and this number is only increasing. The average student debt has increased by 14.1 percent in the last 14 years. An annual five percent increase in tuition will only worsen this problem. But the events leading to this proposal are in fact much more important to look at then the proposal itself. State funding for the UC system is simply not on par with what it used to be. Because a large amount of funding currently comes from tuition along with other sources, the four percent in increased funding from the state does not amount to much and according to UC President Jane Napolitano, only results in a 1.7 percent increase in the total UC budget—less than the current rate of inflation. By this standard, the UC system actually receives less funding every year. Even then, the four percent came with a condition. Gov. Brown asked for fewer freshman admissions and more community college transfers. But such changes would do very little. One out of three new college students were already transfer students and the number has barely changed. Not only were Brown’s wishes already fulfilled, diminishing freshman admissions would force such students to go elsewhere for their education. Students who are accepted into UC’s have most likely been accepted to other colleges as well. And while higher tuition prices would also drive some students away, there are always others who would take their place. But lowering admissions rates lessens the role UC’s play as four-year universities. In addition, the four percent increase is still insufficient and does not meet the funding levels from pre-recession years. Despite a $140 million increase last year in funding, the UC system is still $460 million short of its 2007 levels. The lack of state funding has already had an impact on students and their tuition. Currently, on average, students pay 60 percent of their tuition while the state pays 40 percent. However, just 10 years ago the numbers were reversed. In the same time period, the average tuition price has more than doubled from $6,000 to more than $12,000. Despite this lack of funding, the UC system has also continuously enrolled more and more students each year. Since the recession, the system has taken 7,000 more in-state students. All of this leads to a demand for more resources, teachers, and general supplies, which all cost money. But state funding is unable to keep up with the growing demand. Unless a sudden influx of state funding is seen, this tuition hike, while hard hitting on students’ pockets, will be necessary. But this situation is not the result of a stingy UC system. It’s a result of an increasing demand for higher education and a state government unable to meet it.