photo belongs to examiner.com




The New York Times had an article about whether private colleges are easier graders or not. A study was done and it showed an average GPA of 3.0 at public schools and 3.3 at private schools. The author argued that many of the students are "over-represented" in many fields because of the less strict grading. From experience, I have attended two private colleges, I have noticed that my grades were a lot higher at the private schools. I don't know why that is but I noticed that there weren't many assignments and the professors were very lax with grading. 


Many students said that the private schools were so focused on money that that was all they cared about but if you look at the profiles of some of the professors, they usually hire the cream of the crop. These professors are not ones to mess around and they do not care about the money you give the school. It will always be a mystery why students do better at private schools.

                                   image owned by The New York Times

In the Los Angeles Times, there was an article on the janitor strike in Century City. The companies in the Century Plaza Towers decided to lay off 16 janitors because they felt the need to cut costs. Usually when companies begin to lay off employees due to the economy or any other valid reason, they start at the lowest paying jobs. The reason for this in my opinion is that they need the people they pay the most to generate revenue for the company and the extra help they get they don’t always need. They probably ended up keeping a few janitors or hiring new ones with lower pay. This is a logical thing for a company to do when struggling financially.

The article goes on to say that the protesters began to attack JP Morgan Chase since they own the building. Their beef should not be with the bank because they don’t run the companies. These are private companies that have their human resources department. Chase just owns the buildings and collects rent and utilities from these various companies.

The frustration of the fired employees is completely understandable because everyone wants to support themselves and their families. However, tough times call for tough measures and we may not agree or feel that it was fair to be laid off but these companies have to cut somewhere and if you have a job that they don’t necessarily need, then why not cut you? It’s like a couple who lost their job and has to let go of the house-cleaner or the gardener. Can you imagine how the house-cleaner would feel if she had to lose a paycheck that she either depended on or needed?

If they feel they were let go unjustly or unfairly then they should file a class action lawsuit against each company. In my opinion, they may lose the lawsuit because their argument is not strong. These companies didn’t fire them because they felt like it they fired them because they needed to save some money and couldn’t afford to have them anymore. The meat of the company are those that are paid the most. Anyone would be scared of losing a job. That is half of America’s fear in this economy but maybe they should just accept it and move on.

Are children left behind?

                                                        This photo belongs to The Vineyard Gazette

Many are familiar with the No Child Left Behind Act that George W. Bush proposed in 2001. The Act sets high standards for students and makes all schools give assessment tests in order to receive funding from the government. The standards are set by state which probably makes the goals a little harder to reach since the state will look into the schools a little deeper. 


More than 24 billion dollars has been used for funding since 2001. That is a 40.1% increase over the years which shows that children are actually meeting the standards. This is in fact true, studies show nine year olds with the highest scores since 1971 and improvements between African American, Hispanic, and white children. The gap between them has significantly sealed.


I recently came across an editorial on this subject, and the anonymous author went on a rant about how the federal government was taking advantage of this act by using a so-called "crude and uneven measure" to judge. He argues that the measures they would take actually left children behind and weren't very proficient. 


I do have to agree with him in a way because as I was doing my research, I saw that schools in the Los Angeles Unified District did not take into consideration the standardized tests where student slipped and slid over the years. If they looked into these scores, they would see that children were doing very well since the district keeps every record of this. It is very important that all schools keep this data so they can use it when arguing a case against the government.


The author argues that schools should be judged by how much growth is seen and not by how proficient each individual is. I think it should be equally looked at. The government can't go around giving money to schools just because they get bigger. That's a common thing that happens in California because there are so many people here. I know that bigger schools need more money but maybe money isn't their issue. I do think the government needs to put a cap on how many students are allowed at each school because there is an overpopulation issue not only in schools but in Los Angeles. 


The author also mentioned that schools don't get enough recognition for raising low level academic students to higher but come on now this is the federal government! They don't care what specifically you're doing or the schools are doing they just want to make sure their money is going to the right people who will use it the right way. I don't think you should plan on them looking at the great things the school does for the students. They want the facts, they want the numbers, they want to see improvement, more importantly they want to see where there money will be spent.