The College Dilemma: A Changing Reality

Forget March Madness! It's College Madness for all the fourth quarter seniors in my school district; ever since the April 1st notification deadline, everyone wants to know who got into their first choice school, who was placed on the dreaded wait-list, who got a scholarship, who is majoring in Psychology, History, Chemistry... In my home, college is the primary topic of conversation, and I have my own answered questions about my personal situation. The one I just can't shake is "what does a college education even mean for a future in society?"

During the generations of my parents and grandparents, college was definitely not as important as it is marketed to be today. More often than not, people went to trade school or skipped college entirely, finding stable careers despite only having a 12th grade education (at best). My grandfather was among the few who went to technical college. He became an engineer and had a long and prosperous career. My grandmother, however, never went to college, and instead focused on her chosen life as a stay-at-home mother.

My parents' generation picked up on schooling in order to have a better life than their parents did. Both my mom and dad attended their only-choice school, the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. My father went on to graduate school for Architecture and my mother recently earned her Master's degree, working now as an employment coach for underprivileged young adults.

The generations before me whisper of success stories as far as the eye can see (or the ear can hear). In my family, it's clear to me that higher education has bettered all of our lives. Yet I'm no longer convinced that going to college is the instant way to ensure a better life than my parents' generation. The rising cost and competition in admissions are making college a different struggle than it was in the past. But because this "Harvard example" of success is slowly becoming the American standard, what will happen to those who choose not to attend college, or cannot?

I mean, it's a genuine concern; the cost of all of the schools to which I applied is around $60,000 per year, a shockingly steep price for a pursuit with a "terrible return on investment", as my mother says. And what if an American citizen's true calling lies in careers that don't require much higher education? What if they choose to work as a plumber or a construction worker (some of which have higher starting salaries than a recent law school graduate)? Will the educated look down on them as the bottom of the social pyramid?

With the rate things are going, I think the social pyramid will invert somewhat in regards to careers and higher education. The fact of the matter is, students and families won't be able to put up with $200,000 of loans at the age of 22. College graduates won't furrow their brows at the kid who decides to join the military or go to trade school instead of jumping into a 4-year college. And attending a certain college over another won't mean what it used to. Something's gotta give. And it will.

Understanding Interpersonal Relationships

A typical familial relationship between my father, my big sister, and me.

I've spent half of my school year posting about instances of interesting interpersonal relationships in the news, in history, and in literature, but I've only recently realized that I have never written a post about the topic itself. Maybe this is only happening now because lately I've been in a very meta mood, but regardless...voilà!

Interpersonal relationships, in their simplest form, involve the social connections made between people; these obviously include romantic and family relationships, but also some that might be missed, like the relationship between a teacher and a student, a pastor and his congregation, several families of neighbors, a pair of identical twins, or the President and the people of the United States. Sociology, psychology, and anthropology all make use of an understanding of interpersonal relationships in their research and practice. This field of thinking is limited to an undefined number of people, but generally transitions to international relations when concerning populations of people, nations, and MNCs/NGOs.

However, a few aspects remain the same when considering relationships on the people-to-people and nation-to-nation level: dominance, submissiveness, interdependence, and vulnerability. Essentially, there is usually, but not always, someone who is more prevalent in the relationship, someone who listens to and obeys the dominant person or group, a reliance on each other, and a feeling of weakness without the relationship that helps to sustain it.

Such relationships can be harmonious as with a couple that has been married happily for 50+ years or two life-long friends. On the contrary, they can be tense, as between two colleagues competing for the same promotion forced to work together. They can be necessary, like when a group of nations allies together against destruction by another force (think WWI). Or they can even be dangerous, as is the relationship between a drug dealer and their clients.

Using these universal tools of analysis for interpersonal relationships and even international relations, it is possible to analyze the people and nations in the books we read, the movies we watch, the news we hear, and in our own lives. Applying a more scientific approach even makes it possible to quantify that which seems to be beyond rational comprehension. It's all a part of the analytic approach to people and to life.

The Gay Gene and What It All Means

It's a growing trend in my household: every mention of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual classmate is met with a falter as my parents inquire as to whether news of the homosexuality of my friends surprises me. I consistently reply with, "of course not", but I often forget the novelty of liberty to be gay; when my parents were teenagers, hardly anyone was out of the closet. Homosexuality was repressed and seen as foreign, uncomfortable, or even slightly repulsive. The times certainly have changed, and only some have changed with them. I admire adults like my parents and even my grandmother, who are clearly unable to view homosexuality as "any old thing", but try their damnedest to be as accepting as possible. In any case, homosexuality certainly is a hot topic right now.

Generally, the issue among people with traditional (and often religious) values is that homosexuality is morally wrong because it's not transcribed in *insert religious text here*. This causes people to try to simplify the issue by determining a justification for the immorality so that "them crazy liberal folk" will finally see the error of their ways in accepting such behavior. Thus the argument foments into whether homosexuality is a decision or something you're born with. Choice or gene, essentially.

Now it's pretty apparent that viewing homosexuality as a choice is a dangerous mode of thinking; it's for this reason that there are reprogramming clinics and "pray the gay away" camps for LGB teens, as well as rampant hate crimes against homosexuals. One need only look at the comments section on any popular YouTube video to find alarming use of anti-gay language in a nonsensical context to see evidence of the anti-gay sentiment among those who believe homosexuality is a choice.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe homosexuality is genetic, that it is an inevitability and should be accepted because it's not something that's about to just disappear. Among this crowd, there is heavy support for gays, with pro-gay cries echoing just as loud as those that are anti-gay. Basically, the whole issue is a noisy, reverberating mess.

What many may not realize, however, is that viewing homosexuality as being linked to genetics is also a dangerous mode of thinking. Recently, I've read several articles about scientist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health, who in 1993, announced that he'd isolated the "gay gene" on the q28 allele of the X chromosome in males. While his results were never able to be repeated, and he was later accused of fabricating them, this supposed discovery brought forth a new wave of talk about homosexuality. What arose from this was the shocking quote from prominent gay community members saying that viewing homosexuality as genetic is also detrimental because it makes people both pity those who "suffer" from it (in the same way we pity someone born with a physical disability) and makes the people with traditional values desire gene therapy to modify future children to prevent this "unnatural mutation".

Everything considered, my solution, and the mode of thinking that I most often employ in regarding this issue, is to stop trying to justify homosexuality. By trying to figure out why, we lose the ability to see individual people; in this way, justification, whether pro- or anti-gay, is dehumanizing. It doesn't matter why people are attracted to one sex or another, only that homosexuality is a reality in our world and that it's not going away, no matter how much we try to break it down.

Thoughts? Opinions? Post them below!

Pass the Tofurky

Being a pescetarian (like a vegetarian, but with fish included in my diet), Thanksgiving isn't exactly my ideal holiday. While I love mashed potatoes, green bean casserole, and bringing the whole family together to appreciate the good fortune in our lives, I despise fielding unending questions from my grandma about why I choose not to eat turkey on this holiday. Even on days that aren't centered on the slaughter and consumption of other creatures, people constantly inquire about my motives for limiting my diet. It's evident to me that people treat me differently once they discover my eating habits; once they know, their voices fill with both awe at my self-control and doubt about my sanity.

Food is no longer just a means for survival; it is so intrinsically and uniquely cultural and so temporal that people see it as an extension of themselves. Sharing a meal, like many people do on Thanksgiving, has implications beyond those created in the production and consumption of the food that arrives on the table. That being said, people become very sensitive about food, seeing any refusal to partake in the prepared meal as a personal insult, and guarding family recipes with their lives. This puts vegetarians, vegans, or anyone who chooses to limit their diet (those with medical dietary restrictions are looked upon differently, a point to be examined another time) in a difficult spot, living in a world of indiscriminate eaters.

Well, why do I choose to limit what I eat? I have a wide range of reasons, including but not limited to animal welfare, energy inefficiency, religious belief, negative effects on ecology and health, and dislike for the taste of meat. But I do not encourage others to pursue veganism, vegetarianism, or even pescetarianism. In fact, I would argue against it if it would cause any discomfort, familial fracture, feeling of loss of culture, or desire for meat. The point is that I feel none of those things, despite my limited diet, and that's why it works for me.

My message to the people who raise an eyebrow at my diet is similar to that of author Jonathan Safran Foer in his book Eating Animals (a fantastic read!): people should not try to confine themselves within the labels of "vegetarian", "vegan", or even "carnivore" (yes, "carnivore" is a label too). What every single person should try to achieve, regardless of their opinions on eating animal products, is to become a conscious consumer.

All too often, people view eating as all-or-nothing; either you're a meat-eater or you're a vegetarian. In reality, making situation-specific choices is the best decision and is considerably more rational than blindly limiting (or un-limiting) your diet. Maybe you choose to eat beef but cut out chicken and turkey because of the amount of cruelty in their production. Maybe you choose to eat chicken only once a week, maybe you choose to eat only kosher meat. The most important thing is to be conscious of the cost of your food (in ecology, culture, and cruelty) and to make sustainable choices from that point.

In what way do you choose to eat and why? Let me know!