Dean David V. Powers:
Recently, there have been talks around the idea of splitting the Communications Department and Journalism Department for reasons of funding. Cuts in this program are being proposed around the basis of saving money as the economy continues to maintain negative impacts surrounding the educational system. However, I think that this leads to some serious repercussions that need to be critically addressed and evaluated. Additionally, I think that cuts would ultimately be better served in other departments.
Surrounding the idea of why the split would be a negative decision are several very strong reasons. First, the idea of dependancy within this department is critical to support the mission of 'educating the whole person'. Here, it is quite obvious that the two departments fundamentally need one another to allow for successful fundamental education. A student cannot learn how to effectively communicate unless they are to understand the mediums on which to communicate (which journalism allows for). The opposite is true as well, a journalism student cannot effectively communicate their message unless that fundamentally understand the idea of messaging and audience. Thus, the two are so adherently intertwined I cannot see how any possible benefit could be derived off of this plan. Second, because these two mediums are so fundamentally intertwined, it seems as though it would be counter-productive to split the two departments due to the fact that the same types of curriculum that the other department offers would have to be reintegrated into the new department. This will cause increases in program costs due to staffing as well as new program and curriculum development. Third, as tuition increases are already on the rise and the economy continues to dwindle cutting education (which has the potential to stimulate the economy) is also not the solution. This is a time when education needs to be developed rather than held back. In this, it is important to set the example.
There are other compromises that can be made which cannot fundamentally effect the quality of education. First, instead of increasing new student enrollment at record amounts, it is important to rethink this position. However, questions still remain, without increasing the rate of new student enrollment we are also loosing valuable tuition yet at the same time increased enrollment leads to increased demands in programs. Perhaps, this issue is both instigating and hindering the problem of funding. Perhaps, the best way to address this issue is to consolidate some of the majors that are perhaps not receiving as much growth and allow that particular field to be a specialization within the given major. This would account for any classes that aren't being filled to their appropriate capacity as well as lead to more power and specialization behind one discipline. However, the remember that the departments are fundamentally intertwined so it is important not to cause more problems by leading up to their separation.
The media quite obviously fundamentally fuels our knowledge of the world around us. It is a powerful tool not only for the growth of a nation, but also the growth of the individual. To be an effective citizen, it is imperative that there is an adherent understanding of how our media systems work so we can be and become active citizens as well as consumers.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Rising Tuition - Rising Problems
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2011260737_studentstrike05m.html?syndication=rss&prmid=obinsite;
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget10/highlights/education.pdf
When traveling to places like Europe, most Europeans cannot even believe that we pay for our education in the first place. As if paying for it wasn't enough, we are now during a recession seeing unprecidented hikes in the rate of tuition. I stand at total agreement with one of the statements made in the article, simply put that"our view is that it has a negative impact on education and is counterproductive," Arkans said. In this, one would think that possibly the worst time to raise tuition is during a recession, especially with such dramatic hikes. First, many children who perhaps come from wealthy families but whose family will not help them pay for tuition will suffer the greatest. Second, those who already have trouble affording it will run into even more problems and possibly be priced out of schooling options.
Though I am no policy maker, I definitely believe that education in times like these need to be stressed. Education is imperative to help decrease unemployment rates and thus, stimulate the economy and consumer spending. Yet, none of this is even remotely possibly as students are burdened with hoards of debt after they graduate and simply focus on repaying their accruing debt as opposed to stimulating the economy, small business, etc. Whatever the proper solution is, we cannot turn youth off to the idea and support of strong educational systems. Personally, I believe that these policies are only giving way to a bundle of problems that will only grow in the future.
Another idea to help this situation is to perhaps cap university expansion. It seems as though today institutions are expanding just for the sake of expanding, however, expansions should really fluctuate based on demand rather than growth for growth. This seems to be a good way to keep universities competitive and possibly stabilizing tuition.
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget10/highlights/education.pdf
When traveling to places like Europe, most Europeans cannot even believe that we pay for our education in the first place. As if paying for it wasn't enough, we are now during a recession seeing unprecidented hikes in the rate of tuition. I stand at total agreement with one of the statements made in the article, simply put that"our view is that it has a negative impact on education and is counterproductive," Arkans said. In this, one would think that possibly the worst time to raise tuition is during a recession, especially with such dramatic hikes. First, many children who perhaps come from wealthy families but whose family will not help them pay for tuition will suffer the greatest. Second, those who already have trouble affording it will run into even more problems and possibly be priced out of schooling options.
Though I am no policy maker, I definitely believe that education in times like these need to be stressed. Education is imperative to help decrease unemployment rates and thus, stimulate the economy and consumer spending. Yet, none of this is even remotely possibly as students are burdened with hoards of debt after they graduate and simply focus on repaying their accruing debt as opposed to stimulating the economy, small business, etc. Whatever the proper solution is, we cannot turn youth off to the idea and support of strong educational systems. Personally, I believe that these policies are only giving way to a bundle of problems that will only grow in the future.
Another idea to help this situation is to perhaps cap university expansion. It seems as though today institutions are expanding just for the sake of expanding, however, expansions should really fluctuate based on demand rather than growth for growth. This seems to be a good way to keep universities competitive and possibly stabilizing tuition.
Dear Manager...
A waiter at a local restaurant was rude to you and your guests.
(The following is actually a true story…)
Dear Manager of Coastal Kitchen,
I am writing today in regards to a problem that I encountered last Friday regarding a situation surrounding the meal and how that particular situation was handled. I have been a long time patron of your restaurant. In fact, in all of my other experiences except for this one, I have truly enjoyed the atmosphere, food and experience that your restaurant offers. So much so, that when my boyfriends parents came into town to visit from Utah we collectively suggested that are party of 10 dine together at your 15th avenue location.
While we truly enjoyed our appetizers, a problem occurred during the time that we finished our appetizers and were waiting on our food. As my boyfriends mother was drinking her water, she noticed something strange towards the bottom of her glass. As she begin to essentially ‘fish it out’, she discovered that it was a large unidentified pill capsule that was resting at the bottom of her beverage she had been consuming for some time. Accordingly, we showed the waitress and instead of bringing the manager to us, she fetched the pill from us to show the manager. Upon her return, she offered no explanation and instead said simply that she saw another table crushing ‘vitamins’ and putting them into pill form. Of which, must have stuck to the bottom of a pitcher and fell into one of the glasses. Mortified, we quickly dismissed the situation. When the bill arrived we were offered no compensation. In fact, the waitress carried on as if the situation never happened.
Looking back on the situation, even immediately after we left we realized how serious the situation was. Understandably so, we were very upset and wished that we had taken more action at the time of the incident. Today, I am taking my initiative to act on something that I find to be very serious as a pill containing any type of unidentified medicine is a very serious matter. My family and myself have now all vowed to never return to the location. However, to possibly remedy the situation we would just simply like an apology.
With this, something so simple – you could restore confidence in us as customers. I attend the local university who services a great deal of customers and would love it if I felt confident in supporting your business to the community once more. Additionally, as my boyfriend and I used to dine their multiple times a month, that is valuable revenue that could possibly be restored in your business.
From here, as stated earlier. I would really appreciate an apology we never received. Again, myself and my boyfriend really love your food and I would love regain confidence in your services once more so we can begin to enjoy the experience of your restaurant that we once loved.
I appreciate your consideration and thank you for your attention.
-Kirsten
(The following is actually a true story…)
Dear Manager of Coastal Kitchen,
I am writing today in regards to a problem that I encountered last Friday regarding a situation surrounding the meal and how that particular situation was handled. I have been a long time patron of your restaurant. In fact, in all of my other experiences except for this one, I have truly enjoyed the atmosphere, food and experience that your restaurant offers. So much so, that when my boyfriends parents came into town to visit from Utah we collectively suggested that are party of 10 dine together at your 15th avenue location.
While we truly enjoyed our appetizers, a problem occurred during the time that we finished our appetizers and were waiting on our food. As my boyfriends mother was drinking her water, she noticed something strange towards the bottom of her glass. As she begin to essentially ‘fish it out’, she discovered that it was a large unidentified pill capsule that was resting at the bottom of her beverage she had been consuming for some time. Accordingly, we showed the waitress and instead of bringing the manager to us, she fetched the pill from us to show the manager. Upon her return, she offered no explanation and instead said simply that she saw another table crushing ‘vitamins’ and putting them into pill form. Of which, must have stuck to the bottom of a pitcher and fell into one of the glasses. Mortified, we quickly dismissed the situation. When the bill arrived we were offered no compensation. In fact, the waitress carried on as if the situation never happened.
Looking back on the situation, even immediately after we left we realized how serious the situation was. Understandably so, we were very upset and wished that we had taken more action at the time of the incident. Today, I am taking my initiative to act on something that I find to be very serious as a pill containing any type of unidentified medicine is a very serious matter. My family and myself have now all vowed to never return to the location. However, to possibly remedy the situation we would just simply like an apology.
With this, something so simple – you could restore confidence in us as customers. I attend the local university who services a great deal of customers and would love it if I felt confident in supporting your business to the community once more. Additionally, as my boyfriend and I used to dine their multiple times a month, that is valuable revenue that could possibly be restored in your business.
From here, as stated earlier. I would really appreciate an apology we never received. Again, myself and my boyfriend really love your food and I would love regain confidence in your services once more so we can begin to enjoy the experience of your restaurant that we once loved.
I appreciate your consideration and thank you for your attention.
-Kirsten
Monday, March 8, 2010
Consumers Right to Knowledge - Weekly Writing 8
Since genetically-modified (GM/GMO) crops came onto the market, there’s been a lot of debate about whether foods containing ingredients from GM crops should be labeled. Some people believe it’s a right-to-know issue. There has been a great deal of debate in recent years surrounding the issues of consumer’s right to knowledge especially in relation to the food that they are consuming. Something considered so inherently important has been placed in the spotlight due to recent developments through the progression of genetic modification. Here, there is a very inherent conflict of interest that rests as to what procedures should be implemented as well as the issues of who is responsible to implement such procedures. In such an important issue surrounding this idea of consumer rights, one question remains: Do consumers ultimately have the right to know everything that is in their food?
Within this issue, there are two very strong options that remain at each end of the spectrum with relation as to whether or not Genetically Modified (GM) food should be labeled or whether or not is poses inherent health risks and thus there is no need to label the food at all. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups are demanding that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods. On this side of the argument, consumer groups claim that with regards to GM foods that are either: a) too new to understand the long term effects surrounding genetic modification on both the environment and human body b) effects have already been apparent in environment and thus, should be known.
On the other side of the argument sits the United States government as well as biotech powerhouse, Monsanto. Both these parties claim that mandatory food labels are simply not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. According to Monsanto’s website, “the Food and Drug Administration oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled.” Accordingly, Monsanto claims that by requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws as well as consumer confidence. Additionally, ensuring that such labeling is accurate would also put a huge burden on regulatory agencies. Their solution to those who care? Simply buy organic and avoid such products.
However, here, questions remain as to whether or not labeling GM products would create more benefits than none at all. However, I think that everyone has the inherent right to knowledge about their food as well as where it came from. Here, these claims are not unfounded. Today, the organic industry in the United State is estimated at $23 billion, so there is obviously a want to know what is in the food. Additionally, the ideas surrounding their not being enough knowledge around the effects of GM crops seems to remain relevant as testing for these products have only been around for a few decades.
One noticeable flaw in the argument surrounding the opposition was when they claimed that it “hurts consumer confidence”. Here, it is very obvious that though they don’t blatantly say it, it is indicative that they are simply concerned about losing money. If consumers were as confident in the lack of side-effects as Monsanto was, then inherently there should be no concern about lack in consumer confidence, right? It is clear here, that money is the first priority over the consumer’s right to know exactly what is in their food. It is imperative that we act now to take a stand against something so inherently important to our well being, something that gives us life.
While it is always hard to battle the monopolies of the world, it is important that we as consumers do what we can to be as knowledgeable of the things we are consuming as we can. One good point Monsanto did make is that yes, consumers should buy organic or at farmers markets. However, majority of Americans still can probably not afford the high premiums that eating organic requires. Much of the time high cost to products reflects the high cost of consumption. It is necessary to keep fighting for consumer awareness as well as the issues surrounding consumers’ right to knowledge. It is our duty to continue to raise awareness and keep fighting even the largest of opponents to at least have the right to choose.
Within this issue, there are two very strong options that remain at each end of the spectrum with relation as to whether or not Genetically Modified (GM) food should be labeled or whether or not is poses inherent health risks and thus there is no need to label the food at all. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups are demanding that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods. On this side of the argument, consumer groups claim that with regards to GM foods that are either: a) too new to understand the long term effects surrounding genetic modification on both the environment and human body b) effects have already been apparent in environment and thus, should be known.
On the other side of the argument sits the United States government as well as biotech powerhouse, Monsanto. Both these parties claim that mandatory food labels are simply not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. According to Monsanto’s website, “the Food and Drug Administration oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled.” Accordingly, Monsanto claims that by requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws as well as consumer confidence. Additionally, ensuring that such labeling is accurate would also put a huge burden on regulatory agencies. Their solution to those who care? Simply buy organic and avoid such products.
However, here, questions remain as to whether or not labeling GM products would create more benefits than none at all. However, I think that everyone has the inherent right to knowledge about their food as well as where it came from. Here, these claims are not unfounded. Today, the organic industry in the United State is estimated at $23 billion, so there is obviously a want to know what is in the food. Additionally, the ideas surrounding their not being enough knowledge around the effects of GM crops seems to remain relevant as testing for these products have only been around for a few decades.
One noticeable flaw in the argument surrounding the opposition was when they claimed that it “hurts consumer confidence”. Here, it is very obvious that though they don’t blatantly say it, it is indicative that they are simply concerned about losing money. If consumers were as confident in the lack of side-effects as Monsanto was, then inherently there should be no concern about lack in consumer confidence, right? It is clear here, that money is the first priority over the consumer’s right to know exactly what is in their food. It is imperative that we act now to take a stand against something so inherently important to our well being, something that gives us life.
While it is always hard to battle the monopolies of the world, it is important that we as consumers do what we can to be as knowledgeable of the things we are consuming as we can. One good point Monsanto did make is that yes, consumers should buy organic or at farmers markets. However, majority of Americans still can probably not afford the high premiums that eating organic requires. Much of the time high cost to products reflects the high cost of consumption. It is necessary to keep fighting for consumer awareness as well as the issues surrounding consumers’ right to knowledge. It is our duty to continue to raise awareness and keep fighting even the largest of opponents to at least have the right to choose.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Onion - Loveless Marriage Act
The Onion: New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other
The always hilarious 'fake' news outlet The Onion never fails to make you laugh while providing sly undertones of impeccable social commentary in the process. In this particular feature, it highlighted the annulment of loveless couples' marriages on the premise that if they don't love one another, they should not be together - outwardly mocking claims regarding the authenticity of a gay marriage. It highlighted the idea that a marriage should be between a man and a woman who, 'love one another' and without that love, there is just no basis for having a marriage.
What this feature does is in a way highlight the absurdity of our claims against gay marriage. In that, is we define marriage as a man and a woman who are in love, then that too is an absurd definition of what marriage is and so would nullify a probably good majority of marriages across the country. Here too, there was mention made of the idea that some people get married for financial purpose while others get married on the basis of citizenship, etc. Here, we again begin to realize how absurd the definition of what constitutes a marriage really is.
Marriage then, is perhaps undefinable. It cannot just be a man and woman who are in love, because there are a lot of people of can and do get married without this being the premise. If the idea of 'love' is a qualification then that really speaks to the idea of gay marriage and allowing that type of definition to be expanded. Ultimately, it is clear that even our definition of marriage is skewed and may individuals that are married don't even fit the criteria. Therefore, if we are already practicing under an institution that is not well defined then perhaps the who institution itself is skewed.
The always hilarious 'fake' news outlet The Onion never fails to make you laugh while providing sly undertones of impeccable social commentary in the process. In this particular feature, it highlighted the annulment of loveless couples' marriages on the premise that if they don't love one another, they should not be together - outwardly mocking claims regarding the authenticity of a gay marriage. It highlighted the idea that a marriage should be between a man and a woman who, 'love one another' and without that love, there is just no basis for having a marriage.
What this feature does is in a way highlight the absurdity of our claims against gay marriage. In that, is we define marriage as a man and a woman who are in love, then that too is an absurd definition of what marriage is and so would nullify a probably good majority of marriages across the country. Here too, there was mention made of the idea that some people get married for financial purpose while others get married on the basis of citizenship, etc. Here, we again begin to realize how absurd the definition of what constitutes a marriage really is.
Marriage then, is perhaps undefinable. It cannot just be a man and woman who are in love, because there are a lot of people of can and do get married without this being the premise. If the idea of 'love' is a qualification then that really speaks to the idea of gay marriage and allowing that type of definition to be expanded. Ultimately, it is clear that even our definition of marriage is skewed and may individuals that are married don't even fit the criteria. Therefore, if we are already practicing under an institution that is not well defined then perhaps the who institution itself is skewed.
Causation - Against Teen Drivers
http://www.adcouncil.org/newsDetail.aspx?id=263
While in this campaign the cause seems to remain fairly stable throughout with a very clear message: Don't be a reckless driver. Ways in which teens (their target demographic) demonstrate this type of behavior are demonstrated by their colorful advertisements to poke fun at the teens who appear reckless though speeding, texting, goofing around, etc. This campaign seeks campaign against any teen that could, perhaps, appear reckless and are therefore tapping the sources closest to those teens (friends)to attempt to try to stop it.
The general causation is pretty obvious in that the effects of reckless driving are seriously dangerous, if not fatal. One thing that is interesting is that the idea of fatality seems to be emphasized even over general physical harm to emphasize the severity of the given situation. Still the campaign sends a very clear message as to causation: if you are driving recklessly, you will probably most likely get hurt.
Though the causation is clear, the effect is also emphasized if not a little too much (emphasizing death). However, it is understandable because for a campaign of this kind (especially when targeting the youth demographic) it is important to make a concerted point. Here, reckless driving can cause the individual possible harm to himself or others. Additionally, they draw a nice idea surrounding the idea of relationship and how you as a passenger are not so much in it together - that not everyone feels comfortable in the car. Also, there is a very clear difference in maturity level of teenagers and the the idea of investment in relationships.
Within this, they do a great job at giving sufficient evidence to support their claim. According to the article, "on average, more than 300,000 teens are injured in car crashes each year, nearly 8,000 are involved in fatal crashes and more than 3,500 are killed. Research also shows that teen drivers are involved in more than five times as many fatal crashes as adults. Young drivers are more likely to speed, run red lights, make illegal turns and die in an SUV rollover." Thus, they are making a claim and showing concrete evidence as to why it is necessary to give these types of campaigns relevancy.
That is not the only cause and effect that is presented in this campaign. The other, is more positive. It sends the clear message that if you, as a friend, of a reckless driver take responsibility to speak up you could save not only your life but that of anyone else in the car. Here again, the campaign provides supporting evidence, "Research conducted by the Ad Council shows that teen drivers are more likely to listen to their friends than the adults in their lives. In a survey conducted in 2007, 8 in 10 teens said that when a friend speaks up, they will listen because they don't want to damage the friendship, be labeled a bad driver or cause harm to their friends." In this effect, we see a solution offered to a problem and acknowledge that there are positive ways to fix what could have been a very negative outcome.
While in this campaign the cause seems to remain fairly stable throughout with a very clear message: Don't be a reckless driver. Ways in which teens (their target demographic) demonstrate this type of behavior are demonstrated by their colorful advertisements to poke fun at the teens who appear reckless though speeding, texting, goofing around, etc. This campaign seeks campaign against any teen that could, perhaps, appear reckless and are therefore tapping the sources closest to those teens (friends)to attempt to try to stop it.
The general causation is pretty obvious in that the effects of reckless driving are seriously dangerous, if not fatal. One thing that is interesting is that the idea of fatality seems to be emphasized even over general physical harm to emphasize the severity of the given situation. Still the campaign sends a very clear message as to causation: if you are driving recklessly, you will probably most likely get hurt.
Though the causation is clear, the effect is also emphasized if not a little too much (emphasizing death). However, it is understandable because for a campaign of this kind (especially when targeting the youth demographic) it is important to make a concerted point. Here, reckless driving can cause the individual possible harm to himself or others. Additionally, they draw a nice idea surrounding the idea of relationship and how you as a passenger are not so much in it together - that not everyone feels comfortable in the car. Also, there is a very clear difference in maturity level of teenagers and the the idea of investment in relationships.
Within this, they do a great job at giving sufficient evidence to support their claim. According to the article, "on average, more than 300,000 teens are injured in car crashes each year, nearly 8,000 are involved in fatal crashes and more than 3,500 are killed. Research also shows that teen drivers are involved in more than five times as many fatal crashes as adults. Young drivers are more likely to speed, run red lights, make illegal turns and die in an SUV rollover." Thus, they are making a claim and showing concrete evidence as to why it is necessary to give these types of campaigns relevancy.
That is not the only cause and effect that is presented in this campaign. The other, is more positive. It sends the clear message that if you, as a friend, of a reckless driver take responsibility to speak up you could save not only your life but that of anyone else in the car. Here again, the campaign provides supporting evidence, "Research conducted by the Ad Council shows that teen drivers are more likely to listen to their friends than the adults in their lives. In a survey conducted in 2007, 8 in 10 teens said that when a friend speaks up, they will listen because they don't want to damage the friendship, be labeled a bad driver or cause harm to their friends." In this effect, we see a solution offered to a problem and acknowledge that there are positive ways to fix what could have been a very negative outcome.
Causation
Mom and Dad:
Upon my senior year of high school, I faced one of the greatest decisions I would ever have to make in my life. The decision that stood before me was vast, unprecedented and unclear: which college would I go to? When it comes to making major life decisions, I definitely don’t hesitate when considering myself a procrastinator. It is not that I simply don’t want to take initiative, but rather, I am intimidated by making the wrong decision and living in a world of regret. I should be thankful that my life thus far has presented me with too many options rather than not enough, but that does not deter me from trembling in fear at the thought of committing without being able to test the waters first.
That is the type of person I am. Even when boating every summer on the expanses of Lake Chelan in Eastern Washington, I am the person who will acclimate myself slowly down the latter before I take a leap of faith and jump right in. I suppose this decision was no different. Toward the end of it all, I had to make a decision: do I attend the University of Washington as I thought I would be my entire life or do I take a leap and attend a private university that I hadn’t really known or understood to well.
I think that it is relatively obvious to determine where I ended up, however, that was my leap. To this deal, I am still to always wonder how things would have been if I was to make the decision to go to the UW. Today, I am constantly impressed and surprised with the quality of my education; the fact that I am able to attend classes with highly motivated students. Class sizes are manageable, and often time’s teachers make you account for your lack of attendance. Ultimately, today, I feel that I am more motivated and have been able to network with a lifetime of connections – from professors and business professions alike. If anything, I think that it probably the most important thing that I am able to walk away with. I can honestly say that I can walk away with the confidence of my character and a better, more intimate understanding of the world around me.
However, in the back of my mind is your voice that was so determined to see me become a Husky. All my friends did it, so why didn’t I follow in the same path? However, today, after reflecting back four years later, I can see that our experiences were entirely different. Though I am walking away with grades, knowledge and experience in business, my friends walk away with scores of social memories before they even begin to reference school. However, I went to school to learn and though over the past few years, I have always been slightly jealous of the social aspects my friends concentrate on in their student experience, I can honestly say, I have made the right choice.
I have had some amazing social experiences, but looking back, my best experiences are though academics and I have been able to accomplish that. So, though my experiences are different – Seattle University is well worth the extra money for the wealth of knowledge and real world experience that I have gained. We made the right choice, and I can't thank you enough.
-Kirsten
Upon my senior year of high school, I faced one of the greatest decisions I would ever have to make in my life. The decision that stood before me was vast, unprecedented and unclear: which college would I go to? When it comes to making major life decisions, I definitely don’t hesitate when considering myself a procrastinator. It is not that I simply don’t want to take initiative, but rather, I am intimidated by making the wrong decision and living in a world of regret. I should be thankful that my life thus far has presented me with too many options rather than not enough, but that does not deter me from trembling in fear at the thought of committing without being able to test the waters first.
That is the type of person I am. Even when boating every summer on the expanses of Lake Chelan in Eastern Washington, I am the person who will acclimate myself slowly down the latter before I take a leap of faith and jump right in. I suppose this decision was no different. Toward the end of it all, I had to make a decision: do I attend the University of Washington as I thought I would be my entire life or do I take a leap and attend a private university that I hadn’t really known or understood to well.
I think that it is relatively obvious to determine where I ended up, however, that was my leap. To this deal, I am still to always wonder how things would have been if I was to make the decision to go to the UW. Today, I am constantly impressed and surprised with the quality of my education; the fact that I am able to attend classes with highly motivated students. Class sizes are manageable, and often time’s teachers make you account for your lack of attendance. Ultimately, today, I feel that I am more motivated and have been able to network with a lifetime of connections – from professors and business professions alike. If anything, I think that it probably the most important thing that I am able to walk away with. I can honestly say that I can walk away with the confidence of my character and a better, more intimate understanding of the world around me.
However, in the back of my mind is your voice that was so determined to see me become a Husky. All my friends did it, so why didn’t I follow in the same path? However, today, after reflecting back four years later, I can see that our experiences were entirely different. Though I am walking away with grades, knowledge and experience in business, my friends walk away with scores of social memories before they even begin to reference school. However, I went to school to learn and though over the past few years, I have always been slightly jealous of the social aspects my friends concentrate on in their student experience, I can honestly say, I have made the right choice.
I have had some amazing social experiences, but looking back, my best experiences are though academics and I have been able to accomplish that. So, though my experiences are different – Seattle University is well worth the extra money for the wealth of knowledge and real world experience that I have gained. We made the right choice, and I can't thank you enough.
-Kirsten
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)