7 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/08/19 4:24pm)
By Sumayah Medlin
Staff Writer
The School of Business Center for Innovation and Ethics welcomed Martin Rees, a leading astrophysicist and cosmologist, to present his lecture on the prospects for humanity in the Mayo Concert Hall on April 29 at 6:30 p.m.
Interim Dean of the School of Business and economics professor Bozena Leven welcomed Rees to the stage. While introducing Rees, she emphasized that human nature has remained a constant over time, even since the writing of Greek mythology.
“We are the same species driven by similar needs and emotions,” she said.
Rees is an Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom and former director of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University. His lecture was based on his book, “On the Future: Prospects for Humanity,” which Princeton University Press described as, “a provocative and inspiring look at the future of humanity and science.”
He described his deep interest in the evolution of science and the technological risks it could have, such as the use of artificial intelligence and the potential to prevent further warming of the earth.
Rees gave three predictions for guests to ponder — first, he said that the world will get more crowded, mostly as a result of excessive reproduction and a lack of habitable land. The next prediction he gave was that extinction rates will continue to rise.
“We’re destroying the book of life before we read it,” Rees said.
The third prediction was that the world will get warmer via climate change. While climate change is an issue that is constantly in the public eye, Rees said that people are not committed to taking action in the issue.
“It’s not under-discussed, but under-acted upon,” Rees said.
He also noted that if no action takes place soon, climate change may become irreversible.
On the topic of climate change, Rees said that he is both a pessimist and an optimist. He argued that climate change could be reversible only if people act upon it, and that no action is the result of political and ethical failures. He insisted that there is too little panic and that science should be more exposed to the public.
“We’re all on this crowded earth together,” he said.
Rees went on to say that climate change is an issue that should be important to all citizens on Earth and not just scientists. According to Rees, the most effective and easiest way to combat change is to find cleaner energy.
“We need to be evangelists for clean energy and technology,” he said.
On the topic of technology — robots and artificial intelligence specifically — Rees said that he is unsure which technology will dominate since it is advancing so fast. However, due to the current rate of technology, he proposed that scientists will understand how life began on Earth in about 20 years.
Rees acknowledged that advancements in technology can be quite scary, as one of the concerns about the emergence of robots is how human-like artificial intelligence will be. However, he said that some inventors like Ray Kurzweil, the principal inventor of the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, believes that humans can transcend biology by merging with robots.
He believes that soon, human brains will be able to connect to the internet, similar to Google Cloud, and thinking will be both biological and non-biological, a belief that Rees alluded to by saying technological advancements will supersede Darwinian evolution.
“We should think of ourselves as a transitional stage and not even a halfway stage,” Rees said.
In the faculty portion of the lecture, moderated by professor of law, ethics and innovation Kevin H. Michels, the founding director of the School of Business Center for Innovation and Ethics, interactive multimedia professor Christopher Ault said that it is both intriguing and terrifying that his kids will live in a much more virtual world. However, he is afraid of the appropriation of technology, such as its use to manipulate speeches by politicians.
He has seen videos “where people are completely and convincingly manipulating the words coming out of the mouths of politicians and celebrities making people say something that they never said, something that’s often countered to something that they’d naturally say," he said. "They’re terrifying.”
As for the question of whether technology will replace mankind, professor of marketing and interdisciplinary business Susanna Monseau said that in every industrial evolution, more jobs have been created than lost.
She also noted that humans' abilities will be greater than robots in terms of aspects like curating museums and caring for the elderly. Monseau said it is up to politicians to make the distinction between jobs for robots and jobs for people while continuing to honor advancements in technology.
“There’s always going to be things that humans can do better than machines,” Monseau said.
(04/10/19 6:00pm)
By Sumayah Medlin
Staff Writer
College President Kathryn Foster invited students and staff to a discussion regarding the Fiscal Year 2020 budget. It was held in the Education Building Room 212 on April 2 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
For the first time in College history, the budget was made accessible to the public via an open forum, according to Foster. Though the budget is not complete, Foster described the discussion as an opportunity for student and faculty input.
Foster acknowledged the financial pressure on colleges to make tuition less expensive, and to reduce the amount of student debt. The book, “Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education” by Nathan D. Grawe, highlights the pressures colleges and universities are under because of high tuition costs as college becomes less and less affordable, she explained.
The College’s tuition is one of the highest among the four year public colleges in New Jersey, according to Foster. This results in high debt –– an average of $37,000 per student.
While Foster acknowledged that tuition has been increasing, she stressed that there is still a demand for higher education and that college is still worth the money.
The FY19 fiscal budget started July 1, and ends June 30, meaning that as of Foster’s presentation, the total revenues and expenditures are subject to change. The FY2020 budget is yet to be complete, and the presentation also served as an opportunity for suggestions and other input.
Foster put the FY20 budget in context by expressing the specific circumstances that account for the budget. She said that some of the many areas the budget covers includes an increase in financial aid, a tuition discount from 13 to 14.5 percent, a $340 million debt, increased demand for mental health services, upgraded housing, diversity and inclusivity and stagnant or declining state funding.
Foster divided the presentation into four parts — budget context, premises and principles, building the FY20 budget and the future set-up of the FY 2020 budget.
Some of the premises and principles for Foster were to be transparent and invite input from the public, make choices for the future fiscal-year budget and to align choices with institutional priorities. These priorities include student success, financial sustainability and the College’s national reputation, according to Foster.
One of the goals is to minimize the percentage of the operating budget that is used to pay off past debt. Twelve percent is currently reserved to pay back debt, and the goal is to get it to 10 percent or lower. The budget is divided into the operating, auxiliary, reserves, endowment and full time employment. The operating budget is comprised of undergraduate and graduate enrollment, net tuition, state appropriations and fringe benefits appropriations. In the past five years, the College’s tuition has gone up 13.6 percent, the undergraduate enrollment has increased by 4.95 percent and graduate enrollment decreased by 10.8 percent.
The FY19 operating budget is $188 million. As of Foster’s presentation, the 2020 operating budget is not available.
Part of the budget is based on an assumption that the state will give the College a certain amount of money. However, Foster explained that because the College is small, it is harder to get as much money as larger schools do, such as Rutgers University.
Foster implied that if the College had received more funding from the state, then maybe it would be more financially able to fulfill other student and faculty requests.
Assistant Campus Architect Linda Strange asked if the College knows why it did not receive the funding it requested from the state. Foster explained that there are three conditions that determine how much funding schools get — the number of degrees completed, the amount of degrees completed by African-American and Latino students and the number of enrollments eligible for financial aid.
Foster called state funding “a political process.” Even if the College gets a higher percentage of degrees completed than a larger school, the larger school is still more likely to get more funding.
According to Foster as of now, the revenue totaled at $250.3 million in 2019, with tuition and fees being the most accountable at 46 percent, and the College Foundation support being the least accountable at one percent.
The 2019 expenditures were at $242 million, with compensation being the highest expenditure at 61 percent, and IT hardware and software and library acquisitions being the least accountable at one percent each.
The FY20 budget is based on givens and assumptions, Foster explained. For example, an assumption is the number of incoming freshman expected, and a given is that compensation is up $4.2 million over the FY19 budget at $147.3 million.
The FY20 total revenue is expected to be $256,200,828 and its expenditures are anticipated to be $258,064,270. In other words, there is a projected deficit of about $2 million. Similar to the FY19 budget, most of the revenue comes from tuition, with tuition being on a steady incline for the past five years, and most of the expenditures go toward compensation.
Foster told the audience that her budget wish list is primarily based off of student concerns, which includes faculty concerns in high-demand areas such as math and computer science, web developers, graduate education, campus security, mental health support, first year experiences and advising. However, as she stated, there are certain levers that she can pull to stay on budget and satisfy the concerns in these areas, such as potentially raising tuition or doing an employee headcount.
Foster concluded by listing the next steps for finalizing the budget; she wants to refine assumptions so that the school can stay on budget.
Wilbert Casaine, executive director of financial aid and student success, noticed that in the budget, there was no funding reserved for transfer students.
Foster responded by saying that since the College has such high retention rates, there is not much room for transfers to come in and take up space but that that decision might have negative consequences down the line.
“We may be missing opportunities for transfers,” she said. “I think because of the demographics, that five years from now, we’re going to be sorry that we didn’t go after transfers big now.”
The next steps for the budget also include meeting enrollment goals, leveraging vacancies, enhancing fundraising outcomes and building relations with state funders and advocates.
Foster reassured attendees that the FY20 budget was made with the school’s future in mind.
“It’s a challenging budget, but we will get this done,” she said. “Then we will move toward having a much longer reigned vision on budgeting, so that every year we’re not doing the same thing. We have a big picture.”
(04/03/19 8:00pm)
By Sumayah Medlin
Staff Writer
As part of the Politics Forum Series, Professor Alexander Garlick of the political science department presented his lecture on the effect of lobbying groups on policy processes, which was held on March 26 in the Social Sciences Building Room 223.
The lecture, “What do Groups Want?,” focused on how lobbying groups affect the policy process in an effort to inform citizens. The talk consisted of a sample of the research in his upcoming book, “The Menu,” which has yet to be released. His title was inspired by an old Washington, D.C. saying, “If you’re not at the table, you’re probably on the menu.” In his presentation, Garlick promised to reveal how the menu gets created.
At the start of his lecture, Garlick — who formerly worked on Capitol Hill as a congressional fellow for the American Political Science Association — presented an infamous edited picture of former House Speaker John Boehner wearing a NASCAR suit with patches symbolizing his biggest donors, such as AT&T and the Walt Disney Company. The photoshopped picture was presumably inspired by former non-partisan Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura’s suggestion that politicians should wear NASCAR suits when they campaign, according to USNews.com.
“‘They (could) have their sponsors, or donors, on big patches. Then we can learn as citizens who owns (which) candidate,’” according to USNews.com.
Garlick explained that businesses and organizations donate to politicians or to a certain political party, which almost guarantees that the values of the party or politicians and their donors will align.
Garlick believed that this is the reason why it is so difficult to get certain programs into effect, such as the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, which he said would decrease economic inequality. Political and policy implications including polarization, inequality and mass participation decide how far a bill gets in the legislative process.
“It doesn’t matter what the public supports if the legislators never get to vote on it,” Garlick said.
According to Garlick, lobbying influences politicians’ agendas. They take lobbyists’ views into account when deciding which issues are considered, particularly for passage. There are two types of lobbying — positive, which pushes for a bill’s passing, and negative, which pushes for its rejection. The majority of lobbying is negative and business lobbying is more negative than non-business lobbying. According to Garlick, businesses engage in negative lobbying because they prefer less government interference.
Along with engaging in more negative lobbying, Garlick’s research predicts that some business-lobbyers will tend to support Republican policies. Garlick found these predictions to be true in his research.
For instance, general businesses in Colorado engage in negative lobbying against Republican bills, except when the bill was proposed by another business, which was more guaranteed to serve their particular interest. Garlick also found that when businesses engage in positive lobbying, the bill is usually a Republican bill.
According to Garlick, “business support can particularly help Republican bills during Democrat control.”
A major takeaway is that organizations and businesses have sway in the legislative process. If an organization or a business does not support a bill, it is more difficult for it to get passed by the governor, especially if the bill does not have the support of both businesses and organizations and vice versa.
While the research does say that businesses tend to lobby for Republican bills when they engage in positive lobbying, it does not necessarily mean that businesses are inherently Republican or always side with the Republican party.
Due to the two-party system, it is possible that businesses and organizations do not always agree with one party — they may have certain interests that may cause their support to waver.
According to Garlick, citizens should look out for behind-the-scenes lobbying so that they can be more informed.
“These groups have more of an impact on the state level than they do on the federal level, because fewer people are paying attention,” he said.
Major groups affect politics by deciding what legislators get to vote on, according to Garlick. Knowing this information gives voters an idea of the people to whom their representatives are more likely to pander, as well as why a bill that will objectively help people may not pass. Referring back to the old Washington, D.C. saying, the information gives voters an idea of who is seated at the metaphorical table.
(03/01/19 1:40am)
By Sumayah Medlin
Staff Writer
The new science-fiction comedy series, “Weird City,” premiered on Feb. 13 on YouTube Red, with the first two of six episodes free without a subscription.
The show was created by Charlie Sanders and Oscar-winner Jordan Peele, who first received recognition for his “Key & Peele” comedy skits, which are reflected in the show’s humor.
The series is an anthology, as each episode has its own plot, but the show’s setting — the city of Weird — is a fixed element that frames the plot of each episode.
The first episode, “The One,” stars Dylan O’Brien of “Teen Wolf” and the “Maze Runner” series, along with Ed O’Neill of “Modern Family.”
In the episode, O’Brien’s character, Stu Maxsome, is a new resident of an area of Weird known as The Haves, having previously lived on the opposite side of the literal line that divides the city, in The Have-Nots. The Have-Nots closely resembles our society, but with a few futuristic elements, such as levitating food carts. The Haves is much more imaginative, with apps that exist inside your head, as well as a matchmaking system called The One That’s The One that forcibly assigns every resident a soulmate at birth. This dating system is the basis of the first episode.
Stu, having been born in the Have-Nots, was not assigned a soulmate at birth and he has to date around instead. He answers a questionnaire that resembles those random Buzzfeed quizzes. The answers determine who his perfect match is. To his surprise, he is paired with O’Neill’s character, Burt. The match is strange, considering the 45-year age difference between the two and also the fact that both are seemingly heterosexual.
I have to admit at first I could not get past the age gap. Before the official release, I had just realized that I might have to see a 27-year-old O’Brien kiss a 72-year-old man. And lo and behold, nearing the end of the episode, I did. I cannot say that I completely got over the age difference, but the gap is part of the humor of the pairing.
One scene, in which Stu is consoling the adult but childlike son of Burt, is clearly meant to evoke laughter of its audience. The faux serious tone of such a ridiculous scene was a happy reminder that this was from the mind of Peele.
Though the age gap in “The One” is somewhat alarming, it is a factor that accounts for the intentional weirdness of the match. Two similarly aged people getting paired is not as strange as two characters from different generations.
What I like so much about the first episode is that there’s a large focus on the society itself. The city is more weird than the characters. It’s strange that this flawless system paired two straight guys together.
In the second episode, the weirdness of the city gets overshadowed by how bizarre the main character is.
Michael Cera and Rosario Dawson star in the second episode, “A Family,” as Tawny and Delt respectively. Tawny is an odd guy who pretends to be an addict so that he can be a part of a community. He’s strangely obsessed with these worms that seem to give him powers, and eventually he ends up replacing Delt, as the lead instructor at a gym. He gives so much money to the gym in subscription fees that Delt’s coworker excuses him for being really annoying to other customers.
For a show supposedly focused on the strangeness of a society, I think showing the disparities between The Haves and The Have-Nots is most effective. The weirdness of Tawny was a bit of a turnoff, and was not appealing enough to me to make me want to pay to watch the remaining four episodes. His character was a distraction from the larger, more interesting overall plot.
Woven in are some undeniable elements of the overall society, such as the chip in Tawny’s wrists that allows for him to easily “max out,” which is code for the gym ripping him off. However, the strangeness of that is easily overruled by how odd Tawny is. Tawny is weird, and not in a way that is explained by him growing up in The Haves. Compared with the other residents, I’d say he’s too weird.
While “Weird City” is intriguing, it may be a bit too bizarre for some people to venture over the line for.
(08/29/18 7:43pm)
By Sumayah Medlin
Staff Writer
Aug. 17, 2018 will go down in history as the day “To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before,” which was based on a bestselling trilogy, was released on Netflix. That was the day our hearts were filled with hope for a Peter Kavinsky of our own, and also the day our eyes were blessed with something new to binge watch. The film’s debut also secures 2018 as the year of the romantic comedy.
Lara Jean, the protagonist in the film, is a timid high school student with a crush on her older sister’s boyfriend, Josh. She is too shy to admit her feelings for him and keeps secret love letters that she never sent to any of her childhood crushes, Josh included. But those letters don’t stay secret for long. Lara Jean’s little sister, Kitty, decides to send them out to each boy she liked, which forces Lara Jean to break out of her shell and confront her own emotions.
In 2018 alone, we were given “The Kissing Booth,” “Crazy Rich Asians,” “To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before” and more titles. Two out of those three films feature a mainly Asian-American cast –– a feat as Hollywood strives for more diverse casts.
As time goes on, Hollywood is finally starting to diversify. Minorities have been able to land more big time roles this year, paving the way for others as well. Other ethnicities and races might not even get the luxury of playing a supportive character, so a movie like “To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before,” which featured a mixed Asian-American family, makes great progress in the struggle for representation. The film may be diverse, but that is not what makes it a great movie to watch.
“To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before” gives us hope that even if we may have never had a boyfriend, it’s not because we’re undesirable –– it’s just that we haven’t yet met our Peter Kavinsky, who will be the one to tell us we were never second best.
(02/20/18 3:50am)
By Sumayah Medlin
Correspondent
Ever since I saw the movie, “I, Tonya”, I’ve been obsessed figure skating — particularly the triple axel jump. The movie, which came out just before this year’s Winter Olympics, chronicles the victories and mishaps of Tonya Harding, the first American woman to land the triple axel jump in competition and the second in the world, in 1991.
What distinguishes the axel jump from all other figure skating jumps is that it is the only forward jump, meaning that the skater is moving forward rather than backwards in the air. It takes a while to distinguish between the axel and many similar jumps because the jump happens quickly. In most backward jumps, the athlete is skating forward and then turns backward abruptly.
The forward motion of the axel makes the jump more difficult because it adds a half turn, making the triple axel three and a half rotations in total. In contrast, the triple Lutz has three rotations.
On Feb. 11, Mirai Nagasu made history when she became the first female American Olympian to successfully complete the triple axel jump at this year’s Winter Olympics. Only two other women before Nagasu have completed the jump during any Olympic games — Japanese figure skaters Midori Ito in 1992 and Mao Asada in 2010.
Following Nagasu’s historic jump, I began to reflect on previous women’s triple axels, and how each jump’s speed, height and audience reaction varied.
At 2015 European Figure Skating Championships, Elizaveta Tuktamysheva became the first woman to land four triple jumps in a short program. I hate to value her jump less than other athletes’. I do like her routine and how peaceful it is, but I think her triple axel was slow and I didn’t have that big of a reaction when she landed it in comparison to other triple axels I have seen.
I also regret criticizing Rika Kihira, because her impressive jump happened when she was only 14 years old during the 2016 ISU Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating. Her age aside, her jump did not get the height that I would prefer.
At 2002 Skate America, Yukari Nakano’s jump made her the first woman to land the triple axel in 10 years. Her fast jump did not get much height compared to others. Her jump did not take up that much space, which made it seem small, but she did get more height than Rika’s 2016 triple axel.
Following Yukari’s performance, Ludmila Nelidina performed a triple axel of her own at 2002 Skate America. I don’t have any complaints about the height or the speed, but I think she looked stiff, which makes her jump not as fluid or graceful as it had the potential to be. However, her landing was very stable compared to others.
Mao’s triple axel in Sochi, Russia during the 2014 Winter Olympics and Mirai’s triple axel in PyeongChang, South Korea this year are both astonishing due to their swiftness and gracefulness. I simply cannot favor one over the other — they are equally amazing.
Tonya Harding’s routine at the 1991 U.S. Figure Skating Championships is my absolute favorite of any triple axel performance. Tonya’s routines were always fun and dance-like, which is sometimes absent in figure skating. She knows how to engage a crowd, especially when she executed the triple axel swiftly and smoothly. Her amazing reaction to successfully completing the jump also makes her jump stand out that much more.
Midori Ito’s jump at the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Canada is equally as remarkable because of her height and movement in the air. She seems to move across the rink in seconds with the force of her jump, and continues to make it look graceful.
Overall, all the triple axels mentioned are amazing, even the ones that I am not particularly fond of. I may not be an expert on figure skating, but I am eager to see more triple axels from future skaters.
(01/29/18 11:55pm)
By Sumayah Medlin
Staff Writer
With the success of the ABC hit show “Black-ish,” a spinoff was inevitable. “Grown-ish” is one of the few spinoffs that began before its predecessor “Black-ish” ended.
This shows how the entertainment industry is running out of original ideas and clinging to preexisting shows, like “Full House,” “Gilmore Girls” and “Will and Grace” for the sake of nostalgia.
“Grown-ish” is reminiscent of “A Different World,” a spinoff of “The Cosby Show” that followed Denise Huxtable’s journey at a historically black college.
“Grown-ish” details the experiences of Zoey Johnson, a black college student and supporting character in “Black-ish,” while “Black-ish” details the experiences of a suburban upper-middle class black family. Though both “Black-ish” and “Grown-ish” appear on separate networks, have different casts and have different settings that determine each show’s plot, the two shows have the same general premise.
In “Black-ish,” the main character helps the viewer see what it means and feels to be black in society, while in “Grown-ish,” the main character is helping the viewer understand what it’s like to be a college student in the 21st century.
Andre Johnson grew up struggling financially on “Black-ish” and still tries to emphasize the importance of hard work and gratitude, even though Andre and his wife both end up with well-paying jobs.
His kids, including Zoey, had a different upbringing. Zoey grew up spoiled, so when she goes to college and is away from home for the first time, she discovers that she won’t get everything she wants, and that being 18 years old doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s grown up.
So far, “Grown-ish” has all the factors to be successful. I fully intended to enjoy “Grown-ish” as a fan of “Black-ish,” but I only enjoyed the show at certain moments. The show just doesn’t click that well for me.
While I love Yara Shahidi, who played Zoey on “Black-ish,” I realize now that she’s not that great of an actress without the “Black-ish” cast performing alongside her. Many tweeted that Zoey isn’t sorely missed on “Black-ish” now that she is away at college.
“Grown-ish” will still most likely gain the support of many “Black-ish” fans, even though it moved to Freeform.
It will win over the young adult watchers on Freeform who enjoyed similar shows like “Pretty Little Liars,” “The Bold Type” and “The Fosters.” It will also attract people who want to see more diverse protagonists on television shows.
Shahidi is black and Iranian. There are other black and Latina actors, and the characters are also diverse in their personalities and sexualities, but I fear that the show prioritized diversity over acting ability when casting. Most of the actors are inexperienced, or just haven’t yet gained recognition for past roles. The most captivating performance was from Luka Sabbat, and he hasn’t even acted before.
The script doesn’t enhance the show either. Dialogue between high school and college-aged kids is difficult to make sound natural, and “Grown-ish” does an awkward, unconvincing job. Some of the slang sounds like it was taken from Urban Dictionary rather than from actual college students.
While the show is relatable to a certain extent, it reminds me of a cheesy ’90s show, and that doesn’t work in 2018. While the narration in “Black-ish” is funny, Yara’s monotone narration on “Grown-ish” comes off as preachy.
The one thing I do appreciate about “Grown-ish” is how the story handles conflict. Issues tend to last more than one episode, such as Zoey’s introduction to Adderall.
“Grown-ish” is good, but not great. Zoey doesn’t have the same charisma that her father has, and the acting and script are questionable, but as others have pointed out, only a few episodes have aired. Maybe over time, the show will improve.