Professors work hard; show them the money

Editorial

An apple a day might keep the doctor away, but it won't pay professors' bills. This is a problem, as University of North Florida professors receive fewer apples from admiring students and even less money from the university.

North Florida recently ranked the lowest of all 11 Florida public universities in its average salary rate, according to a study compiled by UNF computing professor William Klostermeyer.

The study offers a grim look at the thanks and support the university gives to its most crucial component. Without its professors, UNF would be nothing more than buildings and nature - far from noteworthy in the state's largest city by land area.

Instead, the university is home to award-winning professors, including those taking the next step in tracking weather, rooting out racial prejudice in Jacksonville and providing students with adequate opportunities for research.

Yet despite their contributions to enhance the education of people in Jacksonville, professors at UNF receive, on average, $59,466 annually - more than $10,000 less than the state annual average of $71,994.

At that rate, professors who are offering Jacksonville new technology in bio-energy make nearly the same as jobs that only require high school diplomas.

Assembly supervisors in North Florida prepare work schedules, assign work and oversee the work product in factories and plants. They make just $2,000 less than UNF professors who perform prized research while also instructing classes.

Professors could drop their eight or 10 additional years of schooling, forget about helping students achieve, take back the long hours of research, and would still get meager appreciation by the state.

Neither university President John Delaney nor UNF students want this to happen, yet the low annual salary does not reflect their attitudes.

Delaney announced in his "State of the University" address Sept. 29, 2006 the ultimate goal for UNF is to become home to about 25,000 students - a 40 percent increase over the current 15,500 enrollment.

With an increase in students comes an increase in professors, who as of now would be taking the lowest paying jobs in Florida. What would attract professors to UNF when they know they could make more money at any of the other 10 public universities?

Among this realization is Delaney's earlier promise to facilitate further research, improve the academic environment, and aggressively add to the faculty. The results of the salary study made Klostermeyer afraid that Delaney's enthusiastic focus on growth would not be possible.

The university needs to address this problem, not only to reach their ultimate goal in growth, but also to give the professors at UNF the acclamation they deserve - with money, not apples.

PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

Proposed bill will help finance graduate school

Editorial

Undergraduate and graduate degrees are good to have, but without measures like the proposed Sure Futures Postgraduate Scholarship Program, obtaining a good job might seem far from a sure thing.

The Florida House of Representatives has proposed a new bill that will help graduate students find jobs and leave graduate school debt-free. If passed, interested employers have the ability to donate funds to state universities and support students through graduate school. In return, they'll get to recruit the best and brightest students.

It's a win-win situation. Students won't have to worry about the pressures associated with finding jobs after receiving their graduate degrees, and employers know they're getting students they've already invested in.

In fact, it's the students who might reap more benefits from the deal. Not only will they not have to worry about steep tuition increases, but they also won't have to think about additional university fees or buying books.

The only catch to receiving the scholarship. Students must remain with their employers for at least four years after graduating. If former students covered under the Sure Futures program choose to resign, they will be required to pay back part of the scholarship money in the form of a low-interest loan.

The opportunity is something most students wouldn't pass up and it might even encourage more people to attend graduate school. What if being a good student doesn't necessarily correlate into being a successful entrepreneur or stockbroker? Employers will get people who enjoy school and know how to make A's, but the performance might not always transfer into the real world.

They'll get good students, receive tax breaks, and have the option of investing in the university of their choice or dispersing their money to several schools. If passed, the bill will do nothing but help students continue their educations and find better careers at thriving companies.

The Sure Futures program is the first effort Florida has made to help students interested in pursuing higher education. Although it's not connected with the Florida Bright Futures Scholarships, it is similar. Along with other undergraduate funding proposals, including the use of Bright Futures for summer tuition and tax exemptions from textbooks bought in campus bookstores, bills will collectively make it easier for students to afford college.

Companies willing to donate money to the program represents the economy's readiness for students with graduate degrees. And because students will not request as many governmentally funded loans and grants, the government will be millions of dollars closer to recovering from its own debt. Graduate students will receive jobs and employers get choices - all parties will unquestionably benefit.

PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

Unshining the moon: The case against alcohol

Staff Opinion

By Ace Stryker
PRODUCTION MANAGER

My choice not to drink is a popular topic of conversation among my friends. Every time we go out, there's a good chance it'll come up in some form. I'm fully aware I'm in the minority on this issue, especially on a college campus, but that hasn't made my decision any harder to stick to. For inquiring minds and the general public's consideration, here's my personal case against alcohol. I don't expect our average reader to agree with this, but I hope at the very least it will give you something to think about.

Essentially, I feel the same way about drinking as I do about Cher's music. I know it's there and I understand it's not going anywhere, but I've never had any interest in it. Sure, there are millions of fans out there who happily flock to the store and dish out money for more of it. Sure, they swear by it and tell you there isn't much that makes them happier than a good evening with it. They might have been raised with it and don't see anything wrong with it, and that's fine. I can't hold that against them - all of us are, after all, products of our own upbringing to some extent. But to me there's no value in it. It's obnoxious and potentially very hazardous to your well-being. If I had to spend every Friday and Saturday night for the rest of my life with it, I'd probably check out early.

Now that we're clear on where I stand on alcohol (and Cher's music), let's look at a few reasons this writer chooses not to drink.

- It's expensive. I've seen friends run up tabs of $100 or more in a single night. I can't think of any other activity short of skydiving or a Billy Joel concert that will cost you that much for one evening's activity.

- It's unhealthy. Beyond hangovers, it'll ruin your liver, impair your brain development and give you cancer. According to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, moderate and high consumption kills about 80,000 people a year - but low, "harmless" consumption is involved in the deaths of another 60,000.

- It makes you look like an idiot. No explanation necessary - this, admittedly, isn't a problem once you get drunk yourself and act like an idiot, but the sober people around you can see it and it isn't pretty.

- It's ruined more lives than any drug. Given its popularity, between health risks, financial drain, dependency problems and legal issues, I'm not sure you could point at any single substance that's done more damage to a larger group of people than alcohol.

- And the biggest reason of all: It's a crutch. There was a time before alcohol - say, junior high - when you could go out on the weekends and have a great time with friends with absolutely no need for alcohol. Remember that? But there seems to be this switch people hit once they turn 21 (or let's be realistic, a lot earlier for some) at which point drinking is automatically connected with having a good time. "Hey, we're going out this weekend? I'll get us a 12-pack!"

It becomes habitual to the point that a night out without alcohol doesn't even appeal to some anymore. That's the biggest shame of all. I'm a big proponent of the idea that all you need for a good time is good friends. Other than that, everything is incidental - and the idea that alcohol now spells fun for some genuinely makes me sad.

The arguments for drinking I hear, on the other hand, generally follow in one of three veins: "It's fun," "it's classy," or "lighten up and just do it." I defy anyone to argue a rational positive case for alcohol - but if you can come up with one, I'd be very interested it.

I don't expect my argument to incite anyone to change. But I hope I've at least given you a worthwhile perspective different from the American mainstream. I invite you to consider something for yourself you might have simply accepted as a cultural norm until now, and see how skewed the balance is of its actual pros and cons.

Contact Ace Stryker at uspinnak@unf.edu -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

MTV turns cold shoulder to music, favors tacky shows

Staff Opinion

By Jamie Williams
STAFF WRITER

"I want my MTV!"

Such was the popular slogan for an advertising campaign made long ago by cable-based network MTV, short for Music Television. The same could be said now - but with a different connotation in mind.

Turn on MTV and look. Maybe you'll see any one of a handful of cheesy dating programs like "NEXT," "Parental Control" or "Date My Mom." Maybe it's a show about two underage people getting married on "Engaged and Underage." Or possibly an overview of the lives of an Alabama high school football team on "Two-A-Days." Or even worse, a repetitive competition among people who say jokes about one another's mother on "Yo Momma." Maybe it's even girls turning 16 and getting unnecessary birthday celebrations on "My Super Sweet 16."

But wait! Isn't MTV supposed to be about music? I thought so.

Who honestly wants to watch the lives of a high school football team from the sticks in Alabama? Or spoiled, bratty girls with rich parents getting ridiculously lavish celebrations and gifts just for turning 16 years old?

How about watching people recite jokes about one another's "momma"? Or any of a cornucopia of tacky dating shows? Honestly, there are better things we can do with our time.

Sure, shows like "The Hills," "Laguna Beach: the Real Orange County" and "The Real World" are entertaining, but why are shows like these now the bulk of MTV's programming? MTV is painting a biased picture of a reality that isn't really there for its legions of faithful viewers. What exactly do these shows have to do with music? Shouldn't Music Television include music?

Since its inception at 12:01 a.m. Aug. 1, 1981, MTV has been many things: controversial, a trendsetter and an unstoppable force in the entertainment industry. But here we are, more than a quarter of a century later, and what has changed the most from MTV is MTV itself.

It's been 20 long years since MTV first stopped playing entirely music video-based programming on its channel. Now 20 years later, music videos are nearly extinct from the network's programming.

And that's sad. MTV changed the face of music indefinitely when it first broadcast moving video coinciding with pop music songs. The music video has become an art form unique to its own, another great outlet of expression for many artists. It's a way to reach new audiences, expand fan bases and gain more exposure. And now, even more than before, music videos are truly great.

Music videos have consistently improved due to technological advancements yet MTV has flocked away from them for the most part. Why? Artists pay top dollar nowadays to have top directors direct their videos and celebrities to appear in them. And for what: limited airplay, if at all?

To catch a music video (or even a portion) on MTV now, you either have to wake up pretty early, catch a 20-second clip during the credits for a show, or watch them in a condensed form on Total Request Live, which might play more than a minute of the video if you're lucky.

OK, so MTV has changed and it will continue to do so. But why so drastically? Where are the good old days of turning on the tube almost anytime and catching your favorite artists' music videos? I want my MTV, but that doesn't appear to be a wish that'll be granted anytime soon. It's a nice thought, though.

Contact Jamie Williams at uspinnak@unf.edu -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

President Bush needs new strategy, agenda to get job done in Iraq

Student Opinion

By Jessica Medina
JUNIOR, COMMUNICATIONS

The United States House of Representatives recently approved a nonbinding resolution rejecting President Bush's new Iraq strategy - a plan that includes sending a surge of troops to Iraq.

The resolution is being used to send a clear message to the president saying the majority no longer supports him.

Bush has told us for almost four years we are winning in Iraq. Then, in December, the Iraq Study Group released a report saying things are not going well. Finally, he admitted we are not winning, as he so adamantly had been telling us.

We have yet to find the proper solution to fixing the problems in Iraq. But you should know this: What we started in Iraq is not something that can be easily fixed. The new strategy won't get us out of the mess we are in; it will only make the Iraqis rely on us more.

The flaws of the strategy are apparent. Part of the strategy entails letting Iraqis govern themselves. This could be a major problem, considering they lack proper weapons.

The Iraqis need our army because they can't hold off the sectarian violence by themselves. How can you expect them to when they are part of the division? The new strategy doesn't provide a path to creating trust between these two sides.

Oil protection is a concern for both Iraq and the United States. The majority of Iraq's income comes from oil, and we will both lose if we're not there to protect it. According to the Energy Information Administration, we depend on an average of 565,000 barrels a month from Iraq.

Bush doesn't want this war to end. After all, when we leave is there any way of knowing whether we will get Iraq's oil?

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, if we increase the amount of troops in Iraq, many lives might end. Or if we pull out our troops, we leave ourselves vulnerable to attacks on oil supplies. Whatever hand we choose, it won't change violent cycle.

It is unfair to offer the Iraqis a solution if we barely have an understanding of their culture. Peace cannot be something thrown at a group of people. It is something that has to be wanted by everyone, or it will never last.

Contact Jessica Medina at uspinnak@unf.edu -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE