Courtesy of telegraph.co.uk

In an age when there are consistently high expectations for the United States’ fiscal and social role in the world, it is paramount that the superpower meticulously reevaluate its education system.

Compared to ones in China, Korea, and Finland, American schools demonstrate an alarming inferiority in math, reading, and science, scoring several places below its rivals, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Programme for International Student Assessment. Considering the US’ exorbitant spending on education reform -— devoting over $800 billion annually to education programs — it is perturbing that there is little noticeable progress.

So how do we fix the system?

American schools are failing because they fundamentally constrict students into a learning model centered on cognitive growth. Ideally, schools should encourage a structure in which curriculums are focused on real-world problems rather than purely disciplinary matters. It is essential that teachers, leaders, and administrators all focus on the development of youth -— development that transcends proficiency in rudimentary scholastic departments and extends to values in other areas of life.

This idea of experiential learning can be applied beyond our public school systems to those of our universities. This past year, UR formed a committee to evaluate experiential learning and their subsequent report on the issue has tremendous potential. There is no better way to learn than by doing and we fully support the idea of experiential learning, as well as the ideas outlined in the SA’s response to this report.

Education is the most important thing we do at UR and we hope the College chooses to make a credible commitment to value the right kind of education -— experiential learning.

Courtesy of cnn.com

A pertinent yet relatively unrecognized problem of the 21st century is overpopulation. While we squander our time debating North Korea’s nuclear development, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, petty political conflicts over the budget, we fail to recognize the biggest problem that will, by far, have the most significant impact on our livelihood. How can we control overpopulation? The Chinese government has already attempted to do so by implementing a meager law to restrict childbirth, and several other countries have followed suit, but this is clearly ineffective. China’s population growth rate hasn’t decreased by a considerable amount since the implementation of this law. As the world of medicine grows at an exponential rate, with new discoveries that revolutionize how we cure the sick, a severe drawback that has already taken effect.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), immunization currently averts 2-3 million deaths a year, among all age groups from diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and measles. The CDC’s primary mission is global immunization, which I fully support, but doing so has serious implications. What happens when that mission is accomplished? Currently, one billion people lack access to health care systems, over 8 million children under the age of five die from malnutrition and preventable diseases every year, 600,000 people die from typhoid annually, and tuberculosis kills 1.3 million people each year. It’s important to note that these tragedies occur in less developed countries. In more developed countries, these diseases and ailments occur at a much less frequent rate than in Third World countries due to better access to health care and medicine, causing a surge in population. Once improved health care and medicine reach a sustainable level in poorer regions, the population in those regions will boom, following the patterns of already developed countries. Another consequence of preventing or curing diseases is an increase in life expectancy. Over the years, the average life expectancy for people residing in First World countries has skyrocketed. With a rapidly increasing elderly population, the total population swells.

Now, I’m 100% for curing diseases and breaking new ground in medicine and technology, but we must consider the consequences of doing so. If we insist of curing every human of his or her diseases, especially genetic diseases or predisposed disorders, we have to consider if it’s worth it to propagate those genes to future generations. As Darwin claims, evolution is survival of the fittest. Those who are at disadvantages to survive filter out to let stronger generations thrive, and curing people of all diseases not only adds to the current population, but elongates the survival of poor genes. We must consider the future of our planet and humanity. Will we have a planet with enough resources to satiate the living standards of First World societies with premium health care and medicine, not to mention the other requirements for living standards?

Yang is a member of the class of 2016.

Courtesy of msn.com

In the wake of the recent bombings in Boston, it seems like most Americans are up in arms looking for a way to grieve and find closure. There have been two common controversial responses to the attack: either you hate everyone who you think is responsible (Arabs and North Koreans) or you think that Americans who mourn for Boston ought to mourn for casualties of American drones instead. While both of these responses are understandable, they’re not helping the situation, nor are they fair to the victims.

At the risk of sounding juvenile, my response to the situation is that it sucks. It sucks that people everywhere — on every continent — are capable of horrible things. It sucks that human lives were lost. It sucks that human lives are lost daily. But now isn’t the time for us to grieve competitively. It seems like everyone is so eager to claim that their grief is the worst grief, which, if you think about it, is ridiculous. Human life is human life. Nobody should ever have the audacity to claim that their tragedy is the worst tragedy of all time. Sure, the genocide in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo was bad, but the Holocaust was the worst genocide of all time, right? Or sure the Boston bombing was a tragedy, but way more people are killed in drone strikes, right? Wrong — everyone involved suffers. Their suffering isn’t less than ours and our suffering won’t be ended by killing innocent civilians. An eye for an eye and what not.

There is a place and time for politics, and that time could very well be right now but there is a fine line between arguing politics and devaluing the suffering of anyone anywhere. Instead of calling the American mourners hypocrites because they fund drone strikes of thousands, let’s try and show them how much grief they share with families in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Instead of claiming that all Arabs and North Koreans should be obliterated, let’s say that anyone who squanders human life should face consequences for their actions. Instead of posting angry rants to Facebook, tweeting xenophobically, or reblogging the most graphic and violent pictures we can find, how about we engage in some sensitive and constructive discourse. Here .. I’ll get us started.

The bombing in Boston was a tragedy, and we hope the victims’ families are coping with their loss. US-sanctioned drones cause tragedies daily, and we hope the victims’ families are coping with their loss. It’s about time we, as a global community, start valuing human life and quit squandering resources on making killing more efficient. Also, we should make it impossible for people to kill other people unless they’re face to face — let’s quit dehumanizing the people we’re killing. I say we because our money is funding the death of others, just like other countries’ taxes are funding the death of our soldiers.

Now it’s your turn — what can you add to this conversation?

Meghji is a member of the class of 2015.

Courtesy of orgsync.com

Well, would you look at that! Finals are coming up. I guess it’s time for everyone to grab their coffees and stake out their spot in the library. However, as we all know, sometimes studying for finals is the last thing we actually end up doing. I mean, there’s always something about this time of year that makes you want to catch up on some shut-eye, inspires endless Facebook checks to see if the world is still turning without your presence, or finally pushes you to start that TV series you never felt motivated to begin. That’s right. This time of year is when procrastination reaches an all-time high. After all, who wants to voluntarily put their life on hold for a week? I sure don’t. In my world, an open Facebook and YouTube browser are necessary for, well, effective studying. Nevertheless, since your professor is not one who accepts the “I was busy” excuse when it comes to grading your exam, it’s wise to have strategies to keep such “busyness” at a minimum. Here are three such strategies to help you begin your anti-procrastinating campaign.

A good way to stay on track is to change your studying from solitary to group. So take down your door barricade, wait the necessary minutes as you adjust to the piercing sunlight, and find some friends to study with. Also, make sure these friends won’t be more of a hindrance than a help. We all know that there are certain people who, if we try to study with them, will end up talking about the relevance of “The Lion King “in alien invasion theories. As interesting as this discussion may sound, this is not productive. To prevent such happenings, make sure you choose study partners who are fun to work with, yet focused on the task at hand. Even if you don’t study well with others, working in an environment where everyone is devoted to studying fosters the mindset you need to concentrate better.

Besides group studying, keeping track of your “to-do” list is always a good idea. Often, goals put on paper seem much less stressful than goals just left to free-float in your brain. Also, you can make your list in whatever way suits your style. Personally, I’m a fan of writing out my list in pencil on paper or Post-it notes. I feel that this is a much more tangible way to keep track of my studying and see how far I am progressing. Plus, using a list can simply make you feel better about getting things done. There is a surprising amount of satisfaction gained from erasing items off your list or even performing the grand gesture of tearing the finished note to shreds (after all, it had it coming).

As a final suggestion, plan your procrastination. “What?!?” you may be thinking “But procrastination is exactly what I don’t want!” Calm down. Despite how much any of us would like to disagree, none of us are robots. Every now and then, you need to provide your brain with a chance to wind down and relax. In fact, constant studying is not as nearly effective as taking a mental break every 60 minutes or so. This break time actually increases how well the information you study is retained in your brain. However, this selective procrastination doesn’t mean checking Brad Pitt’s Twitter feed or posting “Finals are killing me!” statuses. Plan to do something active that will allow your brain to keep chugging along without necessarily thinking about studying. Taking time to talk with friends, play Frisbee, or just go to the gym are all decent options. So be responsible and plan out when you will procrastinate. By doing so, you will be less inclined to take unplanned study breaks and you will retain more of the information that you’ll need for your exam.

Staying focused is hard. Especially when studying for finals. Still, victory is not impossible for those who are determined. Yes, it will be difficult. Yes, you will mess up. But if you commit to following these outlined suggestions, you’d be surprised how little a role procrastination will play in your life. So, as you prepare for your week of hitting the books, begin your anti-procrastination campaign now. Go on out and find your focused study group, write out a realistic to-do list, and plan some quality study breaks. And please, stay off Facebook. You’ll thank me later.

Powell is a member of the class of 2016.

Alex Kurland, Staff Illustrator

In celebration of Earth Day, UR’s Grassroots has traditionally organized an annual “EarthFest” to raise awareness and encourage students to be more environmentally conscious.

This year’s theme is entitled, “Project 365: What Can You Do Everyday?” Incorporating a more uplifting message compared to those used in past years, EarthFest 2013 exemplifies the feel-good environmentalism that has propelled the laziness we see in today’s quest to go green.

Rather than questioning the scientific premises of their actions, student groups have, instead, used the veil of “science” while claiming the moral high ground. Daring to question the efficacy of municipal solid waste recycling amongst campus groups is not only unfashionable, but heresy.

Earlier this week, EarthFest hosted a Zero-Waste Dinner without once engaging in a discussion on the science and economics of waste. Implicit in the message of this event is a supposed landfill crisis, but this imagined crisis is far from becoming a reality. Though the number of landfills has decreased, the National Solid Waste Management Association has noted that landfill capacity has vastly increased relative to demand. The fact that disposal costs have failed to keep up with inflation is evidence that a crisis in landfills does not exist. What’s more, the event failed to answer the question of waste. Is waste inherently bad? What deems one activity wasteful and another not? Does pointing to the lack of trash or the increase in recycling evidence a decrease in emissions? Are the incentives to minimize waste intact? This is certainly the case if we look at packaging. The historical thickness and weight of grocery bags, trash bags, milk jugs, and aluminum cans have drastically decreased. Indeed, the incentive to reduce waste is strong.

“Local Foods Week” perpetuates similar misinformation. Locavores consistently ignore productivity differences in location of production and the benefits of specialization and comparative advantage. Regarding  travel expenses, the transportation of food accounts for just 4 percent of its lifetime emissions, while the production of food accounts for the majority of its emissions. Local food is trendy, but this is no excuse for shortsightedness.

What’s even more troubling is the rhetoric used by environmental activists both on and off-campus — it’s far from innocent. The message being preached by environmentalists is that people are the disease. You need not look further than the work of Bill McKibben to see the true sentiments of the environmental movement. We pollute, we waste, we destroy, and therefore, we are the problem. For example, despite lifting millions around the world from starvation, the agricultural advancements made during the Green Revolution continue to be frowned upon by modern environmental activists. Ironically, the high-yielding seeds and practices developed from the Green Revolution have likely saved thousands of acres of forests from being cleared.

More recently, Greenpeace’s protest of “golden rice” — a genetically-modified product that produces beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin A) — is perpetuating 1 to 2 million annual deaths from vitamin A deficiency. Where are the sources of opposition against genetically modified (GM) foods coming from, given  the minimal evidence illustrating the harm of GM foods on our health and the environment. For a group that uses “science” to support its actions, this is highly ironic to say the least.

Relegating serious environmental issues to “feel-good” activism is a slap in the face for those interested in finding real solutions to our environmental problems.

Still, there are many things to be optimistic about. Malnutrition is at an all-time low; access to clean water and sanitation is at an all-time high; and global life expectancy has continued to rise. Almost every measure of human well-being has improved and so has environmental quality.

“Expression Walls” and “Zero-Waste Dinners” are certainly en vogue, but let’s not use this as a replacement for rigorous scientific inquiry.

Yuwono is a member of the class of 2014.

City Year hires young people from the ages of 17 to 24 because City Year’s founders truly believe that young people from all different educational, social, economic, and cultural backgrounds can change the world together in a diverse corp. This way, corp members can learn from each other and best help the students they serve. City Year corps members are recent high school graduates and some may have a Masters degree.

City Year corps members work as tutors, mentors, and leaders in some of the most under served schools in the country. They focus on what is known as the ABC’s: Attendance, Behavior and Course work, specifically in Mathematics and English.

City Year works in public schools with students between third and ninth grade. Their reason for focusing on this grade range of student is “to provide a continuum of care and to saturate feeder patterns so that students who need help receive multiple years of interventions and support. Our Long-Term Impact strategy will ensure students have an opportunity to improve their performance that couldn’t be achieved by focusing on a single grade or single intervention alone,” according to City Year’s website.

Some people assume that serving with an organization like City Year means that you want to become a teacher or go into education. This is not always true, and City Year alumni go into various professional fields, are education and non-profit professions, being among the most common. Other think people choose to do this program just because they want a gap year program.

As a confirmed corps member for 2013-14, I can say this is not why I will be serving with City Year. I chose to do City Year, because I believe in everything that it stands for. I believe that although we may not necessarily be able to fix the policy cracks and holes and hundred of other issues that plague the American education system, we can do our best to help make sure less students fall through those holes and cracks and are able to stay on track to graduate on time and in the end have brighter futures — for them and those to follow. And I want to be part of the people willing to help guide them there.

Along with serving for a great cause there are many benefits that you receive as a corps member with City Year. You receive a living stipend based on the cost of living for where you serve, basic health insurance, your uniform, and other great benefits. Upon completing 1,700 service hours you are eligible for a $5,550 educational scholarship. City Year also has a partnership with several universities and colleges around the country that offer tuition discounts of some kind to City Year alumni. These schools includes the Warner School of Education right here at UR.

There is still time to apply to City Year to serve for the 2013-14 school, the final deadline is Tuesday, April 30. To learn more about City Year, all that they do, start your application, and “make better happen,” go to cityyear.org today.

Watson is a member of the class of 2013 and the City Year Campus Recruitment Ambassador.

We may try to attribute these problems to the media or politics, but many of them draw fuel from our own misgivings and misunderstandings.

Think about it. How do we react when we meet someone who looks different from us or worships differently? If we want to achieve peace and understanding, are we willing to take that first step and reach out beyond religious boundaries?

This past weekend, through the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence and the Interfaith Chapel, I had the honor of bringing together 100 students and community members to explore these ideas at our Interfaith Banquet. Though most of them had never met each other before, they possessed a quality that made that meaningless: They were eager to understand each other.

I have to admit, a few days before the event, I was nervous that our guests would not feel comfortable approaching people of other faiths. But only a few minutes after the program began, a Catholic student excitedly tapped me on the shoulder and exclaimed, “I want to meet more Muslims!”

The openness and sense of community I felt that night was heartwarming, to say the least. As Joshua Stanton, our guest speaker, facilitated dialogue activities, the room didn’t seem to be filled with people who two hours earlier had been strangers; rather, it seemed to be a gathering of friends sharing laughs, stories, and ideas.

In this environment where differences were accepted and faith was not a taboo topic of discussion, people were excited to seek out and befriend those who seemed unlike them, those who they were most curious about.

Sometimes, when religious conflict is discussed, people suggest that the best solution is to do away with religion entirely. But is religion really the issue? Through the Interfaith Banquet and events like it, I have realized that the problem actually lies in how we approach religious differences. When we dehumanize those who we think are not like us, we justify conflict, oppression, and even wars. If we instead draw on our shared humanity, we can then proudly say, “Yes, we are different, and that is beautiful.”

Bawany is a member of the class of 2015 and a “Davis Project for Peace” grant recipient.

Each charity supports a worthy cause, and each event reflects a valiant effort to do something meaningful, but it takes more than simply attending an event to be a true benefactor of a cause. It takes more than doing a bit of fundraising and then checking it off an imaginary list of required good deeds.

This is not to say, by any means, that attending such events isn’t worthwhile. I myself have been to three Relay for Life events — and every year, I’ve made a luminaria bag for my cousin Bradley. Every year I’ve made an account and raised money in his memory.

For me, it’s the sentiment behind the event that matters, not the perceived benefits of the event itself. According to CharityNavigator, almost 20 percent of my minimal financial contribution to Relay is used by the American Cancer Society in further fundraising efforts rather than direct programming. I know that my once-a-year effort doesn’t really constitute a meaningful contribution to the cause.

I also attended the YellowJackets’ concert. But I would have attended the concert regardless of whether or not the proceeds from my ticket were benefitting Friedreich’s ataxia research.

What constitutes a meaningful contribution then? Consistency. Getting behind a cause and sticking with it. Leading an initiative, taking a stance, and following through.

That takes passion and a long-term commitment. It’s easy to get behind someone else’s cause (even blindly) and follow along. It’s much more difficult to take an initiative and become a true advocate.

Again, that’s not to say attending other events isn’t worthwhile — it’s necessary if another person’s cause is to be successful. For instance, the students who organized the Yellowjackets concert clearly made a long-term, impassioned commitment to their support and advocacy for Friedreich’s ataxia, needed all those audience members and ticket purchases. I know I’m glad that I was able to support them in their endeavor, but I certainly can’t take much credit for supporting the cause. A one-time contribution doesn’t justify that.

Admittedly, not all of us can — or should — dedicate our lives completely to furthering a cause. We can’t all be Martin Luther King and become the face of the Civil Rights Movement. We can’t all be Jody Williams and receive the Nobel Peace Prize for banning landmines. But we can do more than attend one-time events that “fulfill” a “good-deed quota.”

It’s wonderful and necessary that so many people are willing to spend time and money at events like the YellowJackets’ Concert for a Cure, Relay for Life, and the AHA walk, among others, in support of causes and organizations they feel to be worthwhile.

Still, it’s important to consider the greater impact we could have if every person dedicated him or herself to a cause, upheld a stance, and consistently followed through.

Remus is a member of the class of 2016.