9 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/24/12 5:41am)
What’s the most expensive part of going to college? You may be surprised to learn it’s not tuition, room and board or textbooks.
As any economist will tell you, the correct answer is opportunity cost. While tuition may cost a pretty penny, the wages you could’ve earned had you worked a full time job rather than attended school will far outweigh the cost of tuition.
This forces the question, what is a college degree really worth? Is it still worth it to go to college? And if it is still worth it, at what price will it not be? Or is college such a valuable experience that there is no cost we’re not willing to pay?
For many years, college was only for the upper class. The extremely wealthy would send their children to one of the few sources of higher education to learn history and philosophy and Latin and anything else a member of the upper class elite would need to know. Then, after World War II, the GI Bill was passed and America subsidized college educations for returning veterans, thus making it possible for members of the middle class to attain a college degree. Since then, the rate of attendance at four year universities has gone through the roof as the demand for higher education increased. For example, 94 percent of my graduating class from Mahwah High School went on to a four-year university.
So what is the true value of a college education now? Is it merely to give you a crushing advantage over 6 percent of the workforce who opted not to go to college? Years ago, it was almost impossible to find someone with a college degree unable to find a job. It was a mark of distinction, something only the truly elite attained. Now, when everyone and their mother has a college degree, it is not uncommon to struggle to find a job after graduation.
Furthermore, the price of college has been ever-increasing for the last few decades. Lofty tuition prices and a devious textbook market have furthered the inflation, ensuring that many students graduate with an overwhelming amount of debt.
In many ways, education is a lot like the housing market. People during the ’90s made lavish purchases because the value of homes in America had been on the rise for a few years. Therefore, it was a reasonable investment to buy a house, even an unaffordable house, because even if you couldn’t make your payments anymore, your house had increased in value, and you could sell it at a profit. We inflated the market until the bubble popped. People today view education the same way. Even if unaffordable, it’s still a necessary expense because the belief is, people need a degree to get a decent job.
I’m not arguing that no one should go to college. To be sure, there are benefits, both during and after higher education, and I for one have clearly bought into them. However, if a student cannot afford tuition, I am arguing that they should seriously weigh the pros and cons of pursuing higher education. A degree is no longer a winning lottery ticket waiting to be cashed. The current market isn’t what it was in the ’80s and ’90s and a college degree does not ensure a job with a lofty salary and benefits. So, graduating seniors should look at the current market, and think long and hard before they decide to take on a mountain of debt, just to get a degree with no career outlook. They need to decide whether or not it’s a good economic investment for them, rather than just blindly writing checks or signing loan agreements.
There has to be a price we’re not willing to pay. Tuition prices are at all-time highs because we’ve allowed anyone with a driver’s license to qualify for a student loan. Perhaps this is the price we’re not willing to pay.
(04/10/12 2:57am)
The value system this country places on age is funny. If it weren’t so sad, it’d be laughable.
At 19 years old, I can do a lot of things. I can go to war and die for my country (possibly forcefully if a draft were to ever occur … again). I can vote in elections. I can buy a pack of cigarettes. I can get married and start a family. I can work in most fields. I can decide where I want to go to school and what I want to study.
Just about the only thing I can’t do at 19 is drink a beer. Apparently, I’m only mature enough to get hitched, choose the leaders of our country or bomb our enemies into submission.
First of all, the very premise of a strict drinking age is ridiculous. To think some magical transformation occurs on the eve of your 21st birthday is about as far-fetched as a fairytale. At 20 years and 364 days, you’re immature, too naive to make wise decisions about alcohol. But when the clock strikes midnight (that line is actually out of a fairytale!), you become a sage, sensible enough to rip a shot. People mature at different rates, depending on their family, community and personality. Who’s to say a 35-year-old drug addict is more mature than a 20-year-old honor student?
Let’s take a step back in time. Before 1984, states were free to set their own drinking age. Many chose 18, after the passage of the 26th Amendment, which made the voting age 18. In 1982, when drunk driving was becoming a problem in America, President Reagan set up a commission to find the cause. The commission came back with 39 recommendations, one of which proposed raising the national drinking age to 21. By 1984, blaming society’s problems on minorities or immigrants was so 100 years ago. So our very own Senator Frank Lautenberg wrote the “National Minimum Drinking Age Act.” The act essentially told states if they didn’t raise their legal drinking age to 21, they would lose their highway revenue.
Groups like the NYRA began challenging the legality of the act, claiming it violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the 10th Amendment of the state’s right to jurisdiction in areas not explicitly guaranteed to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. When people began suing, the Supreme Court responded by saying Congress could withhold revenues as long as “they promote the general welfare.” Essentially, the court is saying Washington knows better than you, and that acts of Congress can blatantly violate our Constitution, so long as they promote the general welfare in their eyes. Thanks again, democracy.
Twenty-one simply isn’t working. College students have engaged in dangerous, underground binge-drinking in unprecedented rates. Trying to create an abstinent environment has only served to legitimize fake I.D.’s, putting money in the hands of criminals. Lawmakers haven’t curbed underage drinking. They’ve simply forced minors to become more resourceful in getting their alcohol. Rather than promoting immature behavior, wouldn’t it make more sense to engage in a serious discussion about how to best prepare our young people to be responsible drinkers?
I once read a story about a young man in a bar, back when the drinking age was 18. He had a little too much that night, passed out, and stopped breathing. Because he was in an open, public place, the response was immediate. He went to the hospital, and fortunately, lived. I’m forced to wonder if that same young man would’ve survived had he been drinking in a locked dorm room or at a friend’s house whose parents weren’t home.
The drinking age is dreadful social policy and an appalling law. It’s dangerous, irresponsible, and it’s simply not working. But, I suppose I can always enjoy the other rights I’m deemed mature enough for. I’ll go smoke a pack or two, buy a home, go into debt, get married, have a kid and follow it all up by dying for my country. Like I said, if it weren’t so sad, it’d be laughable.
(03/20/12 1:30am)
I don’t know how many college students will find this article relevant. But now watching my younger brother and sister go through the process, I feel compelled to write about it. I know how much you’d all prefer to read my thoughts on the political and economic landscape of the last week.
I’m talking of course about the college application process. I remember this time very well. Coming home from school every day and frantically searching through the mail for letters from various schools. Hoping to see the coveted big and thick envelopes that ensured acceptance even before tearing it open. The disappointment of a regular-sized enveloped that always seemed to contain the phrases, “We regret to inform you … each year we must reject more qualified students … very competitive class.”
I got really used to those phrases. As a senior in high school, I applied to 11 schools., and I was rejected or waitlisted at eight of them. I still cringe when I see an application for anything.
Going to a “great” school seemed to have been the plan for me since birth. My mother and father always had me in the best schools, pushed me to succeed in my studies and encouraged me to join extracurricular. I worked really hard and I felt like I had put my best foot forward with the applications. I had the grades and the test scores. I played football and wrote for the newspaper. And I met with teachers to ensure that my essays were up to par. I felt like I had seized the moment.
And then I got rejected. A lot.
It hurt and I let it get to me. I became ill. I wondered why this was happening to me. I questioned whether I still wanted to even go to college in the fall. I felt like I had wasted the last four years. I became spiteful of other applicants, of admissions counselors and of the process as a whole. I was filled with disappointment and I had no idea where I was heading or how my story would unfold.
And then something amazing happened. It all worked out fine.
So that’s my message to anyone going through a process where rejection is a possibility, whether it be to a college, internship or job. Know that there is always light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how dark it is halfway through. Know that we learn more from our failures than our successes, and it’s okay to fall down, get dirty and break something. And most of all, in the words of Conan O’Brien, “Know that your mistakes are your own unique way of getting to where you need to be.”
So don’t become too disheartened if your letter is thin and small. You’ll most definitely survive. Life goes on. And you may even prosper because of the decision. In many cases, some of the worst things to happen to us are often blessings in disguise.
Open those mailboxes with confidence. As I realize more and more, college is what you make of it. And if there’s ever a testament to the inadequacy of the selection process, Michael Jordan watched two players get picked before him.
(03/11/12 10:08pm)
Any playoff team in the AFC can rejoice. The Jets, as only the Jets can do, have officially declared that they will not be in the running for a championship for at least the next three years. No, they did not officially make this declaration, but by resigning quarterback Mark Sanchez to a three-year deal with $20 million in guarantees, they might as well have.
This move seems so forced, so hasty, so typical Jets. Just last summer they gave legal-troubled receiver Santonio Holmes a five-year deal and made him team captain. Holmes has been a constant off-the-field problem — from possession of marijuana, to fights in clubs, to refusing to turn off his iPod on a plane and being escorted off by the police. He became such a nuisance that the well-respected (and coincidently, Super Bowl winning) team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, essentially gave him away to the Jets for a mere fifth-round pick. And this past season, in a must-win game for the Jets, Holmes got in an argument with Wayne Hunter and was benched for the rest of the game. His lack of leadership and credibility were questioned all year, and this was one of the many reasons the Jets missed the playoffs for the first time since 2008.
However, the lost season wasn’t all Holmes’ fault. Sanchez surely deserves most of that credit. After a dismal rookie year, where he posted a 63 quarterback rating and threw 20 interceptions, the Jets claimed it was only his rookie season and he would improve his play as he matured. In his sophomore season, Sanchez was asked to do slightly more than turn around and hand the ball off 40 times a game and watch his defense win games. And he responded by posting another mediocre season. Still, fans believed this was the quarterback of the future. They pointed to his playoff record and back-to-back AFC championship appearances. They said he would mature, his play would improve, and one day, he would prove Rex Ryan right and win a Super Bowl.
And in this last season, Sanchez was asked to throw more than he ever had. And it wasn’t just going to be quick slants, and digs, and screens and other routes most 90-year-old women could complete. He wouldn’t just rely on the legs of his running back or the strength of his defense. For the first time in his professional career, Marky-Mark would actually have to play quarterback. And this time, people weren’t going to be impressed with wins over the Colt’s backups or the Buffalo Bills. And he responded by crumbling at the end of the season and missing the playoffs. The crux came in the last game against the Dolphins, who had nothing to play for, when Sanchez threw three picks, lost control of his huddle, and sealed the Jets’ fate. A season barred by inconsistent play and subpar decision making ended in disappointment.
After the game, and throughout the offseason, multiple players have called Sanchez out. They say the organization coddles him, that he’s not challenged in practice, that he doesn’t work hard because he knows his job is guaranteed. Many argued the Jets should pursue Peyton Manning, or a quarterback that would at least test Sanchez in practice. But by signing him to this deal, the Jets are trying to show they are behind Mark for better or worse.
This is clearly “statement” money. Rather than allow Sanchez to go into the season with his future uncertain, the Jets wanted to show that everyone, from the locker room to the front office, is behind him. Only the Jets would give a coddled player who has underperformed a contract extension.
Patriots fans, rejoice.
(02/21/12 2:19am)
The new birth control mandate has caused uproar from both sides of the spectrum. Church officials argue that employers should not be required to cover birth control products. The other side contends that women should be covered to promote maternal and child health.
I’m not going to comment on either side of this social debate. However, the economic debate seems to be fairly one-sided.
This isn’t an argument about spirituality, fairness or women’s rights. The debate should be focused on costs, and why anyone in this country should be forced to cover contraceptives as “insurance.”
Insurance at the heart is meant to cover large, unexpected expenses. In exchange for a premium, insurers agree to protect you if your house burns down or if you get into a car accident. Risk-averse consumers are happy to pay a premium on their home, even though they know the chances of it burning down are extremely small, because it’s worth it to ensure they have a home if that tragedy were to ever occur. Both the insurers and the consumer benefit from their arrangement.
However, there’s a good reason your health insurance company doesn’t charge an additional $50, and then agrees to cover Band-Aids. Small, regular and predictable expenses are never covered by insurers, and for good reason. The only result would be less competition in the market for band aids and thus higher prices for consumers. Furthermore, you’d be required to fill out a ton of paperwork every time you wanted a Band-Aid. It’s better for insurers to cover unstable expenses and let the private market handle the predictable ones.
The government argues this mandate allows women to get access to birth control products. Was their some sort of ban on access to these products before? I can get birth control, just like I can get Band-Aids, now because I have a few bucks in my wallet and supplier willing to trade with me.
The focus of this discussion shouldn’t be about access, but insurance and costs. Free pills and condoms sound great, but somebody has to pay the tab. Perhaps it seems your employer is picking up the check, but to cover his increased expenses, he may raise the price of his products or services, or pay you less in salary. Either way, the money has to come from somewhere, and if you follow it enough, you’ll see the consumer always ends up paying.
At a time of fiery debate about public policy and social welfare, let’s turn the focus from religious fanatics and feminists groups to sensible economists. All of these discussions start with money. Let’s make sure this debate ends with it, too.
(01/31/12 4:06am)
Some three years ago, I was sitting in the auditorium of my high school watching the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Many students had fought to ensure we would be able to watch the first African-American President in American history get sworn in. I was younger then, only midway through my junior year of high school. I was just starting to develop my appreciation for politics, and 2008 was really the first election I participated in. Unfortunately, I couldn’t vote yet, but I was able to watch as the primaries unfolded and the race heated up.
I wasn’t sure who I particularly liked in the election. Growing up in a conservative household, I’d always considered myself something of a Republican, but after eight years of failed policy in the Bush administration, it was difficult to support the same ideals that got us into such a big mess.
Still, I was wary to support Barack Obama. A young, ideological Democrat, Obama had a very limited service on the national level. His political inexperience and leftist voting tendencies made me at least question if he could handle the pressure of being the face of the nation. In many ways, I was somewhat happy I couldn’t vote in 2008.
In his inaugural speech, Obama projected an optimistic tone, matched by his charisma and coherency. He spoke with conviction, comparing his new administration to classic stories within our nation’s history. He spoke of a bright future for America, made promises to the people, and led a surge to restore responsibility in Washington. About half way through the speech I leaned over to one of my friends and said, “If he can lead as well as he can speak, we’re in for a good four years.”
Unfortunately, as Obama proved once again last week during his State of the Union address, talking about positive change and actually instilling positive change are two wildly different things.
In the speech, Obama talked about “the American within our reach,” a romantic term to describe a land that leads the world in education and personal prosperity. He pulled from our country’s history, touching upon World War II and the Great Depression, as pivotal situations America has gotten through. He spoke about bring manufacturing back, financial regulation and education. And each line was wonderfully crafted, inspirational, and enthusiastic.
But that’s where my praise ends.
The unemployment rate is still dastardly high. The economy is still stagnant. The country still faces a debt crisis that threatens to destroy us from within. We’re still spending more than we take in. We still have 900 bases in 130 countries. And we’ve just announced that the Fed has destroyed 95 percent of the purchasing power of the dollar since 1913.
Ronald Reagan earned the moniker “The Great Communicator” for his public speaking skills. But equally as good was his ability to lead. Being the president isn’t just about being at home in front of a microphone. It’s about maintaining a good relationship with congress. It’s about being respected around the international arena. It’s about passing sensible legislation that solves the myriad of problems plaguing our country today.
This election has a much different feel for me than 2008 did. I’m older, hopefully wiser, and at 19, I can actually cast a vote. I don’t know who is going to win, but I hope whoever does places precedent on doing rather than saying. Presidents are never remembered for what they say, but rather what they do. Because as we all know, actions will always speak louder than words.
(01/24/12 5:07am)
It’s a troubling thought. a censored web. The most transformative innovation of the last 30 years blocking access to content. Could SOPA really do all that?
SOPA expands the government’s ability to fight online trafficking of copyrighted property and counterfeit goods. SOPA intends to protect the intellectual property rights of content creators, an admirable goal. Intellectual property has been a staple of the American economy since our country’s inception. It has led to the creation of numerous jobs and its innovations have created a more competitive marketplace. Furthermore, protecting intellectual property ensures profits go to innovators, rather than other websites stealing content.
However it is not the goals, but the unintended consequences of the act that have people worried. The law would enable courts to order internet companies, online payment processors, and online advertising networks to block the access of sites merely suspected of allowing the trade of pirated goods.
The fear is that by putting so much power into the court’s hands, by letting them decide what constitutes a rogue site, many legitimate website could be blacked out. In a society that promote free speech and civil liberties above all else, it’s concerning to watch our legislators give judges the authority to arbitrarily stop the flow of information.
This idea of act first and ask questions later is a direct violation of our First Amendment rights. The courts have repeatedly ruled that prior restraint, which is censoring material before it is published, is unconstitutional. Other than in matters affecting national security, it is better for the content to be published and available to society, then censored if need be. And while I do think it is morally wrong and illegal, I do not think it is a threat to our national security to pirate episodes of “How I Met Your Mother.”
Many tech companies, search engines and advertising agencies have spoken out against the bill. “The Internet is the most powerful tool we have for creating a more open and connected world. We can’t let poorly thought out laws get in the way of the Internet’s development,” Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post. Google also showed its disapproval of the act by blacking out its famous logo.
This bill seems very much a battle between two familiar foes — music and movie producers versus tech websites. And while the general populous seems to side with tech websites, they still may have something very troubling to worry about. Those websites, including Facebook, Google and Yahoo, spent $14.2 million in 2010 on lobbyists. On the other side of the debate, the Entertainment Industry, including Time Warner, Disney and Comcast spent $185.5 million in 2010 on lobbyists. That stark contrast in funds has many worried about not only SOPA, but future conflicts between these two groups.
SOPA may be well intentioned, and there’s no debate that piracy is an issue that needs reconciling. But limiting free speech and putting more power in the hands of copyright holders is clearly not the answer. The dissemination of information and ideas is at the crux of what the internet is all about. SOPA undermines these intentions. Fortunately, the House Judiciary Committee postponed plans to draft the bill. However, they remain committed to finding a solution to online piracy.
(01/17/12 3:59am)
My small town of Mahwah has a few things of note. We have two baseball fields up the road from my house and a locally-owned farm across the street. A few gas stations, a couple places to get bagels or coffee in the morning, and of course, like any town in N.J., plenty of “N.Y. Pizza” and diners. What we don’t have is crime. Let me rephrase that. We don’t have a lot of crime. Of course, any town has some crime. Some people speed, roll through reds, get into accidents. Every now and then, someone gets into an accident or an underage party where minors are drinking gets broken up. These things are not crimes as much as they are disturbances. Most are unintentional, many do not violate my feeling of safety, and almost all cannot be prevented — no matter how many cops are on the payroll.
It strikes me as odd then, that N.J. has the highest paid police in the country, and my own Bergen County has the highest paid cops in the highest paid state. The median salary for the state, meaning half make more half make less, was $90,672. Over 30 percent made six figures. Most of them came from Bergen County, which boasted a median salary of $109,700. The largest median pay for a town came in at $134,132 in Rochelle Park, where 19 cops patrol a 1 square mile borough.
While rich, suburban counties had the highest paid cops, poor, urban cities found disparagingly less in their pay checks. Newark, the state’s largest city, had a median salary of $90,160. Camden, usually considered one of the most violent cities in the country, was at $79,656. The difference in crime rate between these suburban areas and larger cities is astonishing. The crime rate is usually about nine times higher, while the violent crime rate is over 100 times higher.
And salary is just the tip of the iceberg in overvaluing our cops. A police officer making $100,000 per year may cost a town twice that when benefits and pension payments are considered. Overtime adds to the problem, by allowing officers to make extra for attending court hearings, working holidays, or covering for a sick officer. Depending upon location, officers around the state will bring in and additional $5,000 to $10,000 per year. Additionally, due to a 2000 law, police officers can retire after 20 years on the force regardless of age. After 20 years, retiring officers get at least 50 percent of their base salary but no health benefits. After 25 years, they get at least 65 percent and health benefits. Perhaps in 2000, this was somewhat acceptable. But during this economic climate, it’s simply unaffordable. Where else, in any job in any field, can you retire before 50 and still collect more than half of your salary?
After years of high property taxes and the ongoing recession, many residents are beginning to question if they can afford paying such a high salary simply to write parking tickets. However, police are backed by a strong union that wields a tremendous amount of political influence. They have deep pockets, and campaign checks speak a powerful message in government.
It’s tough to determine what a fair rate of pay is for an officer, for the same reason we struggle with teacher salaries- there are no statistics to prove they are doing a good job. Does a good crime rate of strong test scores necessarily indicate good performance, or rather smart students or obedient citizens?
So it comes down to a simple PR game — who can make people believe they deserve the salary? And it is in this fact cops have a strong advantage. People consider the risk of dying on the job, and can’t bring themselves to attack the very people who protect us.
However, the buck has to stop here. We cannot continue to allow cops to steamroll over elected officials in Trenton, and win every benefit debate or budget disagreement. Six figures in salary and a pension plan before 50 are simply unaffordable. And at a time when everyone is suffering, isn’t it only fair police officers in the highest paid county, in the highest paid state, share some of that burden?
Many times when I drive home on a late night, I can make out the thin sketch of a police car parked in the lot of the baseball field just up the road from my house. The field comes right after a bend, where the speed slows from 40 to 25, making it prime real estate to nail unsuspecting drivers.
A few weeks ago, late at night, I saw the cop handing a ticket to a guy he pulled over. “That sucks,” my friend in the passenger seat said. And while he thought about how bad it would be to get pulled over after 1 in the morning, all I could think about was his six figure salary, the endless stream of benefits and overtime, and the idea that I’d start paying this guy’s pension at 49 until I retire somewhere in my 60s.
“You don’t even know the half of it,” I responded as I turned onto my street.
(09/22/11 2:22am)
Last Sunday, the Cowboys were in a must-win situation.
The previous week, they lost a disappointing game to the Jets, and their starting quarterback, Tony Romo, blew the game after fumbling at the one-yard line and then throwing an awful interception. Now playing at San Francisco, the Cowboys were playing a lesser opponent and needed to come up victorious to even their record at 1-1.
Trailing 24-14 early in the fourth and with an injured Romo, the game looked bleak. Romo led them on an 80-yard drive for a touchdown. On the next drive, they converted a field goal forcing overtime. In OT, Romo threw a strike to little-known wide receiver Jesse Holley for a 78-yard completion, setting up the game-winning field goal.
There’s a reason you’ve probably never heard Holley’s name until now: A few years ago, he was working security and selling cell phones in North Carolina. He was a former basketball and football player, but after being cut by the Cincinatti Bengals and the BC Lions of the Canadian League, he was ready to give up his dream and move on with his life. Then, he saw a career-changing show pitch.
Former Cowboy Michael Irvin had an idea for a show called “4th and Long,” where six wide receivers and six cornerbacks would compete for a shot as the 80th man on the Cowboy roster in 2009. Irvin thinned the competition out by pushing the players harder than they would ever be pushed in the NFL. The concept was simple — whoever survives the torture has earned his shot to make the team.
In one such instance, Irvin put all the contestants at the bottom of the Cotton Bowl and told them to run up and down the stairs until someone quits. Holley wanted it more than any other contestant and was the 80th man in 2009. He was cut in 2009, but was kept on the practice squad. In 2010, he was cut again, but remained a practice squad player. In 2011, after a few cuts at WR, Holley made the team, and was given a chance to start Sunday when Dez Bryant couldn’t go. And of course, it was Holley who was on the receiving end of a 78-yard completion that won the game in overtime.
“Man, that’s an SS,” Irvin texted Holley after the game.
“What’s that?” asked Holley.
“A season-saver.”
Think about it. Three years ago, this guy was selling cell phones. Two years ago, he was running steps for an attempt to be a special teams player. Last year, he was on the practice squad. On Sunday, the reality star saved the Cowboy’s season.