Is gender equality in college that important?

According to NPR, colleges are favoring male applicants ahead of female candidates, in order to keep schools from becoming overwhelmingly female. Other than being a seemingly blatant violation of Title IX, I can’t quite figure out if this is good or bad.

So I took a look at both sides:

Gender balance on a college campus is not a bad thing. It’s been a long standing argument for Affirmative Action that diversity enhances the learning experience, and it’s true. Guys see things differently than us ladies and hearing their perspective can really change the way we think. As a graduate of an all-girls high school, I can honestly say that having males in the college classroom was a welcomed change and a truly eye-opening experience. And even what happens outside of the classroom – including dating – is an important part of college life and growing up.

And let’s not pretend we don’t see the obvious perk here. With colleges accepting more male students there will be less competition on the hunt for a boyfriend. You may be just as romantically-challenged, but at least there are less girls around to point that out. Can’t hate that.

But on the other hand, what is the problem with having a majority of female students on the college campus? It’s not our fault that we woman are more intelligent than guys. And you don’t see many people trying to fix the wage gap that exists between us! Acceptance should be based on merit, not on gender. Favoring male candidates is a numbers game that seems unnecessary.  Besides, some say marriage only works if the woman is smarter than her husband. For the sake of the relationship, shouldn’t we just leave those boys at home?

What do you think? Should colleges discriminate against women in order to maintain the gender balance? Or should colleges let things run it’s natural course, which obviously ends with women taking over the world?

When making my decision between drinking a glass of red or white wine, I usually pick vodka. But sometimes that is simply not an option. So my thought process usually goes something like this:

Who doesn’t drink a glass of ice-cold vodka at dinner time? Strange. Wine it is then. But the only people who drink white wine are those trashy housewives in Atlanta and Kirsten from the O.C. We all remember those infamous words before she sent herself off to rehab, “I may like my Chardonnay, but I won’t end up alone! And that’s more than I can say for you!” Wow, that was a train wreck. Better opt for a glass of red. But I’m trying to meet some boys tonight and I don’t think purple teeth are going to work to my advantage. Plus, I’m trying to maintain a glowing smile so I can one day become rich and famous for my million-dollar smile. So I better stick to white wine.

That entire inner monologue could have been avoided had I know this fun fact: White wine is actually worse for your teeth than red.  White wine is high in acid, and that can wear away tooth enamel and intensify the stains left by the double espresso you slammed at the library the night before.

Ub40 was so, so right: Red red wine, you make me (and my teeth) feel so fine. You keep me rocking all of the time….

So for all of you winos who drink soda through a straw and religiously brush your teeth before and after every meal, your best bet is to skip the 2-Buck-Chuck Sauvignon Blanc and order a bottle of red. Or just chug some Listerine. That should do the trick.

Watch out, grams. That game could kill you!

Swine flu is ruining everything. I can’t eat, I can’t sleep, I can’t kiss without thinking I’m going to contract the disease of the pigs. And now, apparently, I can’t play beer pong.

Officials at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (yeah, I’ve never heard of that place either) have reported 21 cases of swine flu that they have cleverly traced back to a game of beer pong. One single game! But is anyone really surprised? What can’t you contract from a game of beer pong?

The first time I swore off beer pong was during an outbreak of mono at my school. I thought I was being proactive about warding off the disease. That is until I came back from Spring Break in Cancun and was immediately rushed to the hospital with an extreme case of mono paired with dehydration and probably a little bit of alcohol poisoning. So, much for that.

Next, it was oral herpes. If you play beer pong, you will get oral herpes, and DIE. Fantastic. I spent half the party staring at people’s mouths and strategically placing myself a team ahead of the dude with the suspicious lip sore. I was like the Nancy Drew of STDs. No one likes that girl.

Swine flu, mono and a multitude of STDs later, I’m beginning to wonder if my love of the game is worth it.  If you’re going to contract the kissing disease, it might as well be the result of a great makeout session, not a game of beer pong. Especially if you lose.

Am I right or am I right?

And I guess I could say the same for STDs, but I’d rather just avoid them altogether, thank you.

I think the world is trying to tell me something: Beer pong is the game of the devil. To be honest, I’m not even that good. Flip cup is more my thang. I think I will be respectfully declining any pong tournament invitations from here on out and stick to my favorite drinking game: pouring myself some vodka…and drinking it.

When I heard this morning that Barack Obama had been awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, I was pretty much speechless.  I’m not entirely sure how to react to this announcement.

On one hand, I’m undeniably an Obama supporter—even if I don’t have a graphic tee with his face emblazoned on it like most of my friends do. I read Dreams from my Father, voted for him (twice), and watched the election results breathlessly last year while furiously checking FiveThirtyEight every ten seconds. I love his eloquence, his poise, and everything he represents: the return of intellectualism to the White House and the possibility of improved race relations across the country. Plus, he graduated from my alma mater, even if he hates talking about it. And his wife is pretty kickass.

On the other hand… when I saw this SNL sketch last week, I couldn’t laugh because I was too busy cringing. I agree with most of the points that the Saturday Night Live crew is making: Obama’s rhetoric has rarely been matched by decisive action. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still dragging on, healthcare is still a mess, and the recession hasn’t exactly ended, despite what some media outlets are saying. (Also, the sketch itself was just horrifically unfunny. SNL kind of blows this season… but I digress.)

Other Nobel Peace Prize laureates—Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, even Al Gore—achieved specific things that unarguably changed the world for the better before they got their awards. Obama, though, is almost more of a symbol than an actual agent of change—at least so far. If nothing else, this award seems incredibly premature. Why not wait until he’s at least been president for an entire term, after he’s actually had enough time to make good on his promises?

I’m also hesitant about congratulating Obama because this honor can only fuel the awful, hateful things that his enemies say about him. Republican pundits are already snidely responding to the award by calling it a “joke,” and I’m sure that crazy, right-wing internet commentators everywhere are also having a field day with it. The Nobel Committee has accidentally done something that will only widen the political gulf between red and blue by increasing the opposition to Obama, which will make it even more difficult for him to actually achieve any of his goals.

I wish I could be proud of my president right now, but there are just too many problems that come along with him getting the Peace Prize. At least I can count on him delivering a beautiful acceptance speech.

What do you think—does Obama deserve the Nobel?

This money's all mine now, bank!

When I got to college, my parents and I debated between giving me a credit card or a debit card. With my propensity for shopping and dining out, my parents had enough foresight to realize I’d be $20 million in debt by the end of the first semester with a credit card at my fingertips. Debit card it was. But that didn’t come without its own share of problems.

Before I discovered the wonders of online banking, I was always petrified to use my debit card when I feared my funds were nearing depletion. The curse of the overdraft fee haunted my nightmares. There’s nothing worse than overspending by 30 cents and being charged $30 for your mistake. Then being charged another $30 for the automatic withdrawal from the bank to cover the overdraft.

WTF? How do they expect you to pay off the charge of overdrawing when having no money was the very thing that put you in this place to begin with?

But all of this may be coming to end. And hopefully, on my tight budget, it will be sooner rather than later. There is proposed legislation on the table that will force banks to ask the customer whether or not they would like the “protection” of the overdraft program instead of automatically enrolling debit card users in this plan. (Basically, we will have the option of being able to withdraw more money than we have in the account [with a fee] or only use what we got [without a fee].)

I love how they think the overdraft fees they impose on me are protecting me. Protecting me from what? The humiliation of getting my card rejected when I’m trying to purchase a box of tampons? Well, they’re right. I would be embarrassed. But that’s why I always go through the self-check out aisle when I’m buying feminine products. But in all honesty, I’d rather be turned down and tampon-less than $30 in the hole. Not even the Tampax Pearl is worth that much.

So, fingers crossed on this one.  Assuming all goes well with this bill, you can now purchase that 30-pack of beer/late night take-out/economy size bottle of Midol without fear…and use that extra $30 you saved from those overdrafts for something more important.

Like the perfect fall dress.

If you’ve read any news blogs or even watched a televised newscast in the last week and a half, chances are that you’ve heard the tragic story of Annie Le, the Yale grad student who disappeared ten days ago. Her body was found hidden inside a wall at the building where she worked last Sunday—which was to have been her wedding day. Now a lab technician named Raymond Clark has been charged with Annie’s murder.

This whole saga has been unbelievably upsetting and awful, and our hearts go out to Annie’s family and her fiancé. It’s also spurred a lot of interesting discussion about safety on college campuses—and why the media is curiously fascinated by crimes that occur on Ivy League campuses.

Slate editor Jack Shafer observes that the New York Times has written five stories about Annie’s case so far, while the Boston Globe has run at least six. A quick search shows that CNN.com has a whopping 14 stories about the murder. The media frenzy has been so… well, frenzied that an NBC producer was trampled when journalists and camera-people rushed to speak to a New Haven police spokesman on Tuesday.

This isn’t surprising—as Shafer also notes, “The press has long thrived on Harvard and Yale murder.” Any crime or scandal that happens at one of those two schools is basically guaranteed to be exhaustively analyzed by major media outlets—think of the 1998 murder of Yale senior Suzanne Jovin or even the 2006 plagiarism accusations lobbed at Harvard student Kaavya Viswanathan.

But the same rule doesn’t apply to state schools and small colleges, where criminal incidents have to be pretty major to get national coverage. Why? Well, simply put, elite newspapers and magazines care about what’s happening at elite universities. And less erudite periodicals (read: trashy tabloids) love to sink their teeth into stories that prove bad things can happen even at America’s snootiest, most prestigious schools.

There are tons of problems with this model—it promotes the idea that students at schools with lower acceptance rates somehow matter more than everyone else, and it heaps unwarranted scrutiny on people who definitely have bigger things to worry about.

Even so, maybe the continual coverage of Annie’s death will lead to some good if it spurs female college students to start making a greater effort to stay safe. Yes, Annie was probably killed by someone who knew her inside of a supposedly secure building, but what happened to her can still serve as a reminder that all of us regularly engage in risky behavior: going out and getting too drunk, taking public transportation or walking home late at night, even forgetting to lock the door or leaving the window open if your room is on a low floor. Ironically enough, in February, Annie wrote a piece entitled “Crime and Safety in New Haven” for a Yale magazine. We’d all do well to try following her advice.

"Dude, we totally should have done the 10 year plan."

God, am I lucky to still be in college.  And no, I’m not just talking about the amazing carefree, party animal, parent-less lifestyle of mine (life literally does not. get. better).  I’m talking about the luxury of not having to deal with the real world in a currently not-so-great world.

As if graduating and moving on to becoming an adult and a real person (ew) isn’t bad enough, struggling to get a job doesn’t make it all any more appealing.  Nothing sucks more than going for an interview and then waiting to hear back…only to realize there is a great chance you won’t. Ever. At all. Just imagine how the class of 2009 feels, as fewer than a fifth of the graduating seniors have job offers. A fifth!!  The frustration and aggravation is awful, and people are being forced to completely alter their original life plans.

As a result, graduates are looking for alternatives to work, such as volunteering and participating in public service programs (applications for the Peace Corps were up by 16 percent this spring over last year!) and even going abroad to find other options. Others are expecting to attend graduate or professional school.

Even the lucky ones who do actually get offers aren’t so lucky.  Jobs for new college grads are paying less than in previous years.

It’s times and statistics like these that make me love my 2 hour art history class, which used to be quite a difficult task considering the prof is more interested in hearing his own voice than saying anything marginally interesting to us students. But I’ll take that over being a jobless grad any day.

Ugh. College, don’t ever leave me!

The week the White House launched a website called Reality Check, obviously aimed at the younger “internet set” to voice its side of the story on Obama’s healthcare reform and answer some of the questions that have arisen. This is one of those issues that I’ve heard about all. over. the place. But the sad truth is, I haven’t been listening much, and either have a lot of other people our age. It suddenly occurred to me that I have heard an awful lot about what our parents and grandparents think on the issue, but next to nothing on it from girls like me.

Are you all like me and just not paying attention, or is it just that we aren’t talking it out?

Well here’s your chance, ladies. If you don’t know what’s going on, it’s time to get informed. If you do, well, duke it out. I want to know what you all think.

But first, we all gotta know what’s up. If you’ve been a little lax in your news watching (like me) or if you just love legalese, here’s the official barackobama.com PDF on the healthcare reform plan. Now, if you weren’t patient enough to wade through all of that (because who is?), I’ve slogged through a lot of the recent news on both sides and here’s the gist:

On the “pro” side: The Obama plan addresses some of the big problems with healthcare right now – the high costs, the hoops doctors and patients have to jump through, the big money insurance companies make at the public’s expense and the way that the poor get the worst level of healthcare (if they’re lucky enough to get any at all). The Obama plan, it seems, would create an option where the government would help subsidize certain qualifying insurance plans to make them more affordable for everyone, particularly low-income people who can’t afford insurance now.

There have been a number of assurances that the new program would be strictly voluntary, particularly aimed at those without healthcare now. And there are plenty of modern countries, like the UK, that have government run healthcare systems, which many argue are more effective than our own. Even in the US, many note, government-run systems like Medicare do a better job of providing care than private HMOs, which could be a strong point for a bureaucratically based system, as well as the heavier regulations that would come along with government control.

Perhaps the biggest point on the the “pro” list is the basic fact that our current system just isn’t working. Community hospitals have had a hard time in the last few years, with many going bankrupt and being replaced by for-profit facilities that do much less for lower-income groups. Many healthcare workers have lost jobs and both the cost of procedures and the amount of time it takes to get them approved and covered has only gone up.

On the “con” side: The details are still a little sketchy on how exactly things would work with the plan due in large part to the fact that the program actually only exists in the form of several different drafts, leaving a lot of important facets to the reform left to be nailed down.

Some say that the system for funding the $1 trillion program (a major expenditure in still difficult economic times) would probably backfire and end up with the middle-class footing most of the bill. It also seems likely that those who can already afford healthcare would hold onto their superior plans, with many doctors catering to them, leaving those with the government subsidized plan with mediocre coverage and facilities once again.

There are also many who balk at the level of government control that would be involved, even suggesting that certain healthcare rights might be lost in the program, and no one wants that. Despite assurance that no one will be forced to use the government plan, there’s a big question about how government subsidized insurance can co-exist with a for-profit plan. The government plan would almost necessarily undercut the current insurance companies (otherwise, it’s existence would be pointless), potentially causing the for-profit companies to fail and ultimately pushing everyone into the subsidized insurance - in direct opposition with what they seem to be trying to do.

Finally, one of the big beefs about the current bill is that it has been put together very quickly and is intended to be pushed through in just weeks with very little concrete information out there about what exactly the whole affair is about.

Obviously there’s still a lot of questions up in the air right now and the Obama administration has been criticized from both sides about how poorly the information about the new bill has been distributed. Maybe the new website will help, but it looks like many of the major news sources have already cast their vote against the effort. Still, with the current healthcare system taking some hard hits, it’s obvious something needs to be done.

So what do you think ladies? Am I getting it all wrong? Is the new healthcare reform a good idea? The best of a bunch of bad ideas? Or just a bad idea altogether?

When you’re wearing high heels, the last thing you want to do is walk a long distance from your parking space to the store. Well, frankly, the last thing you want to do is walk at all, which is kind of impossible. But the city of Seoul in South Korea is all over this one with its Women Friendly Seoul Project, a plan to turn the city in a more heel-friendly place. Sounds pretty awesome, huh?

The city plans to paint close to 5,000 public parking spaces pink to reserve them for women. Other measures are being taken as well to improve the overall quality of life for women in the city. The program will pave streets to make them more high-heel friendly, improve lighting, build additional women’s public restrooms, create safe parks for women, add more public day-care centers, and expand an already-existing women’s taxi service. By 2010, the city’s transformation into a so-called women-friendly haven will be complete.

While these improvements may help reduce the frustration of everyday inconveniences for women in Seoul, they will probably not foster gender equality, which is a hot-button issue in South Korea that the government has had limited success in addressing. In fact, these efforts just might undermine women’s attempts to compete in a male-dominated society.

Improving lighting in public spaces, building more public restrooms, and creating more public day-care centers are undoubtedly necessary services in Seoul; they have to do with public safety and improving conditions so that women can work. However, the issue of the pink parking spaces doesn’t sit very well with me. As much as I’m sure we would all love to have parking preference close to the store, why should we lose our dignity to do it? Creating these parking spaces reinforces the notion that women are second-class citizens in need of a boost in society. And, really, do the city officials in Seoul think that parking spaces painted pink will elevate women in a male-dominated culture?

What women in South Korea need are opportunities. They need more choices for childcare and other aid that will allow women to enter and stay in the labor market. They need real help that doesn’t put women down in the process. But this issue doesn’t just end at Seoul’s city limits; if governments around the world are going to launch initiatives to help women, they need to be more substantial than a painting project.

If you thought we were out of the woods with swine flu when summer began, you’re sadly mistaken. Health officials predict that come the fall, the H1N1 virus will begin to spread once again. Residential colleges are expected to be hit particularly hard, as dorms make the perfect breeding grounds for the spread of illness. (Lots of people with not-so-clean living habits? Hellooooo, disease!) But don’t start freaking out and sterilizing your possessions just yet; colleges are aware of the situation and are taking steps to help keep their students healthy.

To put it crudely: everyone chill the f*ck out. They got this.

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control decided to include 19 to 24 year-olds in the first-priority group for the swine flu vaccine, due out in October. This age group has seen many of the worst cases of swine flu, and the college experience of living, studying, and socializing together makes students even more susceptible to the virus. If you thought your roommate was impossible to live with before, wait until he or she gets sick. You’d have to have an immune system of steel not to catch whatever she’s got.

The vaccine, however, is not a fail-safe way of combating the spread of swine flu. When students do get sick, they will have to be isolated from other students for a week. This poses a problem for schools that simply don’t have enough room to accommodate sick students. Harvard University plans to expand its infirmary’s capacity to 35 beds, but that may not be enough if swine flu spreads throughout the school.

A worst-case scenario would involve canceling classes (yay!) and closing down campus dining halls (yay or nay, depending on your school). Should that occur, Skidmore College is prepared to distribute Meals, Ready to Eat (relatively speakng, of course) to sick students. We can only hope that ready-to-eat meatloaf will not become a reality, but at least you won’t go hungry should the dining hall close down!

Ideally, school officials would like for family or friends to pick up ill students. If worse really came to worst, students with swine flu would go home to recover, which, unfortunately, wouldn’t mean a homework-free vacay.  Skidmore and other colleges plan to provide online learning tools to help students keep up with their work if they are forced to leave campus. Sucks for them, but with video lectures and online notes, this could be heavenly for those students who steer clear of the Swine.

School and health officials don’t want you to panic about swine flu. Truthfully, there is nothing to panic over, anyway. This isn’t going to be the 1918 flu pandemic all over again. We won’t see mass deaths as a result of this outbreak. Unless you count the battle royale that will ensue for the last mealoaf MRE…