The Benefits of Internships

The main purpose of college or secondary education is to prepare students for careers after they graduate. Within the study of each  major, there are courses and assignments that provide an understanding of what the future may hold in those respective career paths. While we may  agree that collge or secondary education does fulfill its purpose of information, we cannnot overlook the benefits of more hands-on experience that comes with the privledge on an internship. The experience that internships provide help secure employment, which cannot be duplicated in assignments, and they simulate real experiences while leaving room for error.

According to research from the CollegePlus.org, students who graduated with internships were more successful finding employment. Their research reports state that in 2008 employers offered jobs to nearly 70 percent of their interns, which is a significant jump from 57 percent in 2001. Another benefit of internships, that classrooms lack, is the hands-on experience. For a nursing student, a full day of clinical experience cannot be established in a lecture hall because their are no patients, no emergencies, and a college campus is not parallel to an acutal hospital. In an internship, a student will not feel burdened by the pressures of the real responsibliilties. Because the intern and the employer are aware that the student is here for experience purposes, mishaps are easily forgiven. In some cases they are beneficial because it is preparation for real life misfortunes in their career path.

There are numberous benefits that result from having actual hands-on experience before prior to being employed. Students that complete interships have experience beyond classroom walls, they have a clear perception on how errors can be prevented in the real workplace, and they have a higher chance of finding employment.

~Courtney Godfrey

Are Internships Worth It?

Many colleges require an internship or practicum course as a requirement for graduation because the benefits derived from completing these courses do not exist in a traditional classroom setting. However, the actual value of a college internship is debatable. Courtney argues that internships provide invaluable experience with many benefits. While it is true that they are beneficial to some students, every internship experience is different. Instead,  some students may find that it is just an annoying
major requirement where they are treated as executive assistants rather
than interns, making a rewarding and productive experience difficult to attain.

With the pressures of studying, exams, work, and extracurricular activities, requiring a student to complete an internship may not be beneficial to them. Students may feel obligated and pressured to acquire an internship. They are not intrinsically motivated, which hinders student performance. Furthermore, students are not placed in positions in organizations where their talents can be utilized.  Interns are executive assistants - getting coffee, running errands, and making copies instead of learning from their mentors. Bosses look at students as free labor instead of invaluable assets to their companies. And despite the statistics, having an internship does not guarantee employment after graduation.

In spite of these issues, I agree that internships can be rewarding experiences. They develop interpersonal skills, attain networking opportunities, and learn how to solve real-world problems in the workplace.  Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the student to research internship opportunities and find the best one for them. Part of the internship experience is learning how to be flexible. If students find themselves in an unfortunate situation, they should think positively and make the most out of a bad situation.

Willena Rogers

Classification and Public Policy

Would classifying individuals help or hurt society?
© 2013 Pixabay - Public Domain Images

One of our country’s mantras is that “all men are created equal,” yet political wars and cultural differences have made us isolated and disparate individuals. This increasing isolation of cultures leads to inappropriately classifying people into groups. Could adopting a policy at the state level that would prohibit classifying people into groups be a good idea?

To classify something is to place it in a group or category. This group shares common characteristics either physically or inherently. For example, a beach ball may be placed in the same category as a soccer ball – they not only share physical attributes, but are also used for similar purposes, such as athletic activities. Although placing inanimate objects into categories is easy, it is ill-fitted to apply these techniques to human beings. Despite being a singular species, human beings are varied and complex. Attempting to classify them into groups leads to the proliferation of stereotypes and generalizations. Adopting a policy to prevent this would inhibit the unfair treatment of others. 

In addition, classifying people is inherently wrong. It suggests that all people are not getting equal respect or protection under the law. We shouldn’t need laws that prohibit this, but having laws that protect these rights is an unfortunate necessity. Similar policies already exist today, namely the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. We are all the same and should not be treated differently, regardless of any of the aforementioned differences. One group of people is not inferior to another and shouldn’t feel so.


Willena Rogers

It Depends on the Classification

In her essay, Willena claims that “classifying people is inherently wrong.” However, careful consideration shows that she provides insufficient evidence to support her argument. Comparing humans to objects is like the old cliché--comparing apples to oranges. The question is not whether classifying people into groups is a good or bad idea, but rather what classifications justify that individual being placed into a group? Labeling people by anything other than sex and nationality is flawed.

America is the only country that separates an individual by skin tone. If this is what Willena was implying, then she does have a valid point about “stereotypes and generalizations.” Distinguishing people by race, color and ethnicity contradicts the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It gives employers and colleges the opportunity to hire, accept, or deny a person based on these characteristics, hence discriminating because of these attributes. Also, being able to classify people by these traits negates the declaration that “all men are created equal.”

I do not support grouping people by race, color, or ethnicity; however, I do believe that grouping people by national origin is warranted. For example, Americans and Asians are raised speaking different languages. Furthermore, these two groups share different origins, traditions, and religions. Classifying these people by nationality does not “suggest that all people are not getting equal respect,” but instead actually gives them an identity. When I visit other countries, they view me as an “American.” They have no interest in whether I am black or white. Although the law prohibits discrimination, the evidence is on college and job applications. Until this flaw is corrected, we will be forever branded.

Lemuel A. Way

Why the need for a New Stadium?



Towards the end of 2009, Atlanta Falcons’ owner Arthur Blank began mentioning the “need” to build a new home for his up and coming team. The idea of a new stadium sounded good at first, but as the details continue to unfold, Falcons fans and city residents are beginning to see that that “good” may not be in their best interest. Sure, it will create temporary jobs. And eventually it will bring revenue to the city. But it does not make sense. The Falcons do not need another stadium because the facts show that it would not be about the fan experience, but more about the money in the owners’ pockets.

In 2008, the Dome was renovated. The building was painted inside and out, new and refurbished chairs were installed, and both monitors were enlarged. Why the need for a new stadium? Attendance is always low. The Dome is seldom more than 75% full. At times, it is barely 50% full. A new stadium with higher ticket prices will only decrease attendance. Why the need for a new stadium? The Georgia World Congress Center has made reference to Personal Seat Licenses (PSL). A PSL is a one-time fee that the owner of a seat will have to pay in addition to the season ticket price of their seat. The three most recent built football stadiums’ PSLs range from $1,000-$150,000. There are multiple stories about people who have held seats for over 20 years and are unable to renew them because of this license implementation.

Although I would love to have a new stadium, there is no need for one. Increased season ticket prices and PSLs will only push the real fans, like me, out into the streets. In addition, city residents will have to endure another tax increase.

Lemuel A. Way

 

Owner Profits Profit the City

© Dana Rothstein | Dreamstime.com

Lemuel is quite correct that a new stadium would mean increased ticket prices and that one primary purpose of a new stadium is to increase owner profits. However, an objective cost-benefit assessment must also consider the potential resulting increase in taxes collected.

Most manufacturing and sales analysts agree that selling a fewer number of high-margin items is preferable to selling a greater number of low-margin items because less energy and fewer resources are expended for equal or greater profit. A new stadium allows the team owner to increase the cost of both single-game and season tickets. But because the stadium is funded by tax dollars, the owner's overall expense per game increases very little. The owner can afford to sell fewer tickets because the profit margin on each sale is higher. From a tax collection standpoint, this means more taxable revenue offset by fewer tax credits, which means that the tax authority collects more business income tax dollars. Depending on the owner's incorporation structure, the state could stand to collect higher personal income taxes as well.

In addition, a higher ticket price means a higher sales tax collected per ticket. Say, for example, that a current ticket costs sixty dollars. At a five percent rate, the city collects three dollars per ticket in taxes. If ticket prices increase to, say, eighty dollars, the tax collected is four dollars per ticket. Ticket sales can fall up to twenty-five percent without decreasing the overall sales tax collected. If sales fall by only twenty percent, the city stands to collect significant additional sales tax dollars.

Evaluating the matter from a purely economic perspective, the potential tax revenue increase alone is enough to justify serious consideration of a new stadium.

Maggie Worth

Scapegoating Facebook

Technology can only dictate the nature of friendship if we allow it to do so. 
Photo credit: © Svetlana Tikhonova | Dreamstime.com

While I, too, lament the decline of classical friendship, Deresiewicz’s attempt to blame Facebook is unwarranted, hyperbolic, and symptomatic of a society bound and determined to blame something – anything – outside itself for its failings. Yes, we as a society have distorted and, thereby, devalued, the concept of friendship. Yes, we have created for ourselves an illusion of plentiful adoration and near-universal acceptance. But, we have done these things. Facebook and other social media outlets are merely tools, ways of facilitating humankind’s historically present, but increasingly pronounced desires to be loved, popular, and part of something larger than self. Facebook is not the cause of relationship deterioration and to declare it so is merely to find another way of avoiding responsibility for personal choices.

As with any tool, Facebook can be dangerous if used unwisely. Facebook gives users the option of setting levels of friendship and of controlling which messages go to which groups, thus virtually simulating small group settings and providing the ability to control what one shares with whom and how one does so. Yet many users are too lazy to bother with differential settings. Facebook does not compel one to accept any friendship request. Many users are simply too indifferent, too meek, or too desirous of “popularity” to turn down such requests. Facebook does not prevent one from having coffee with a dear friend or picking up the phone. Many users just use it as an excuse to avoid the effort of true interpersonal contact. Fault lies not with the tool, but rather with the individual using the tool.

Facebook has not destroyed friendship or intimacy. It has merely provided people the ability to do so themselves. And society has grasped the opportunity with frightening eagerness.

Maggie Worth

Social Connections Causing A Disconnect

Forget those 500 Facebook "friends." When it comes to social circles, relationships

need occasional face-to-face contact to keep them working.

Photograph by: Yuri Kadobnov , AFP/Getty Images

The popularity of social mediums has altered the normative values and personal connections of historical friendships. These values and connections are now distorted within our modern-day relationships. The practices of classical friendships has ceased since the evolving of social networks. Dereseiwicz’s argument does not attempt to avoid or dismiss the responsibilities of social network users; but, instead, validate Facebook as the principal factor in the demise of virtuous friendships.

The ideology behind Dereseiwicz’s argument identifies fundamental elements of social circles that have been lost by the emergence of social mediums, primarily Facebook. As Dereseiwicz’s states, “the most disturbing thing about Facebook is the extent to which people are willing — are eager — to conduct their private lives in public”. Agreeably so, that lost sense of privacy eliminates a chief component in the quality of friendships. In today’s society, it is easier for one to skip the formalities and simply post an impersonal greeting on another person’s Facebook wall. It is easier for one to become aware of another’s well-being by simply reading an updated Facebook status rather than making a phone call. Yes, one can arguably say that Facebook does not prevent us from grabbing coffee with a friend or dialing a number. However, Facebook inhibits us from practicing those conventions of a classical friendship by granting us with a medium that has allowed us to become content with insufficiently communicating with those we classify as friends.

Although one may argue that Facebook has not destroyed friendships, it has created distortion in the communication between individuals. It is one tool that has shaped the means of our social interactions and devalued our quality of friendships.

Ashley Durant