Thursday, November 24, 2005

The Brainwashing of a Generation, Part 1: Tuition Fees

I am a university student. I pay $5000 a year to take five credits, cram my brain full of equations and figures, stress myself to the max to get a good grade, etc. The usual university student fare. I also pay $400 a month rent, plus utilities. There's also the general cost of living (groceries, the occasional night out, supplies, etc). And I'm damned priviledged to be able to do so. No matter the government's lip service to how no one should be unable to attend university because of lack of funds, it's simply a reality that the costs of post-secondary education do keep people out.

The school I go to is nicknamed "The University of Wealthy Ontarians," because of its general conservative, rich-kid reputation. And, you know, I'm coming to see why this is. Aside from the hoardes of girls wearing overly-priced and disturbingly ugly Ugg boots and carrying burdensome Louis Vuitton and Lululemon bags to class, I am also discovering a breed of people I hadn't realized existed: those who don't give a shit about how much money they pay to go to school.

The government announced a while back that the tuition freeze, which has been in place for two years, is going to be lifted next year. The comes on the heels of an announcement that over $7 billion is going to be re-invested into the post-secondary education system. Now tell me, with all this money coming in, why are we going to hike tuition fees? Where, exactly, is this money going? There is no reason for a fee increase.

Ideally, students should be digging their heels into the dirt and going, "heyyyy WAIT A SECOND, no no no, this can't happen." We should be trying to make our voices heard - that we most certainly don't want a tuition fee hike. Instead, our representatives, the Ontario Undergraduate Students Alliance (OUSA) claims that it is impossible to keep tuition fees frozen forever (fine, that's not what we're asking for anyways), and that instead of capping the fees, we should be ensuring that they somehow limit the growth of tuition. This is a group that is supposed to be representing the interests of the undergraduate student body... seems to me that they're doing a pretty shit-tacular job.

So the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) launched a campaign to raise awareness about the tuition fee issue, culminating in a short "referendum" which asked the student body if they supported a tuition increase. The results, published in the Gazette, stated that 94.7% of students are not in favour of a tuition fee hike. This should have been 100%, or closer to it.

There was some "controversy" surrounding the campaign, which was baseless and stupid. The Gazette featured an editorial claiming that the CFS should basically just shut their pie holes, and that everyone already knows students don't want to pay more money, but that we're going to have to anyways, so get over it (this is, of course, very roughly paraphrased). OUSA, the Gazette claims, is the body to which our undergraduate population belongs. Only the Society of Graduate Students (SOGS) is a member of the CFS. Does that make the CFS's claim any less valid? No. In fact, they are doing more for the undergraduate student body than OUSA is.

Several people have informed me that they wouldn't mind an increase in fees, because they are under the impression that the more money they pay, the better quality education they will get. It's funny, because Ontario's universities are consistently ranked top-notch. We're ALREADY getting a damned good education. And they're about to pour $7 billion dollars back into the system. The quality of education is certainly not what is at stake here, but somehow a fair portion of the student body has been brainwashed into believing that everyone would be better off with higher tuition.

I suppose that's all well and good if you can afford it, but the unfortunate truth is that most students can't. And it's the lower-middle-class demographic that is affected the most - those whose parents make maybe a little too much to get all or any of OSAP will perhaps be forced not to attend post-secondary education due to affordability issues.

Article 26 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Continuing to raise the cost of attending post secondary education is unacceptable, especially when there is no immediate need to.
Let's keep education affordable, to everyone.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Guardian Unlimited | Science | Fuel's paradise? Power source that turns physics on its head

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html

What has much of the physics world up in arms is Dr Mills's claim that he has produced a new form of hydrogen, the simplest of all the atoms, with just a single proton circled by one electron. In his "hydrino", the electron sits a little closer to the proton than normal, and the formation of the new atoms from traditional hydrogen releases huge amounts of energy.

This is scientific heresy. According to quantum mechanics, electrons can only exist in an atom in strictly defined orbits, and the shortest distance allowed between the proton and electron in hydrogen is fixed. The two particles are simply not allowed to
get any closer.

According to Dr Mills, there can be only one explanation: quantum mechanics must be wrong. "We've done a lot of testing. We've got 50 independent validation reports, we've got 65 peer-reviewed journal articles," he said. "We ran into this theoretical resistance and there are some vested interests here. People are very strong and fervent protectors of this [quantum] theory that they use."


I was discussing this with my physics profs, who seemed to get a hearty chuckle out of the idea. One of them said, "It sounds like he's reinvented a great source of energy - combustion!"
The other was skeptical, as this guy, Randell Mills, isn't even a physicist, and none of the people who have reviewed his papers are physicists either. Kinda sketchy. I have to admit, though, that even browsing through some of the technical information, I couldn't make heads or tails of anything. Naturally I'm extremely skeptical of anything that makes such grandiose claims as to disprove all of quantum theory. If this lower energy state for electrons exists, then why aren't the electrons in it naturally? It just doesn't make sense to me. Additionally, it sounds like this guy is positing the existence of multiple energy levels between the "hydrino" state and the accepted ground-state determined by quantum theory... that is to say, any proper fraction is an energy level. Doesn't this leave open the possibly for an infinite series of energy levels? It irks me.

Anyways, time will likely soon tell whether he's "onto something," though I doubt very much that he is. I wouldn't jump on the investment bandwagon anytime soon.

Fell in love with a bad idea...

I have (after holding off for so long) finally decided it was time to get with the "blog generation," and start ruffling my feathers on the internet instead of to my roommates, who far too often have to put up with my exasperated tirades about the idiocy of the world.

So this'll be yet another one of those left leaning, feminist, environmentalist, pro-choice, atheist, scientific-minded, unapologetically opinionated blogs.
Hurrah.