College of Architectureremains hot topic
Re: Editorial “University shouldn’t leave architecture out in the cold,” Sept. 11
I have seen the College of Architecture protest. Some bystanders just looked at them as people who have a bit too much of an opinion. What they don’t understand is the neglect that the College of Architecture receives from USF.
My sister is an architecture student of this university, and I can clearly see what the problems are. All current architecture students are paying costly graduate tuition fees because the university only offers a master’s degree in architecture, and yet they don’t even have their own building? These same students are being educated to design efficient buildings and do not even have their own building? USF’s College of Architecture has been awarded best architecture school of the state, and yet they fear losing accreditation because the university doesn’t see the need of architecture students to have their own building? The ironies just don’t stop.
My sister works in a cramped studio area that doesn’t even meet the State University Systems minimum requirement. It’s only her third year and she’s already paying graduate fees due to the 5-year master’s plan she’s following, and the school neglects her most basic needs. It’s very unfortunate that there are so many renovations on campus, and yet the university neglects its own students.
Apparently, refurbishing the Marshall Center is of higher priority than giving architecture students their own building. I don’t know how the university manages its financial decisions, but it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize that maybe the best architecture school in Florida deserves to have its needs met.
Joyce Belen is a junior majoring in civil engineering.
I understand the problem of having a college and not a building. However, the answer is not in taking from one college to give to another.
I think we all understand that the College of Arts and Sciences is the most important college at the university. Thus, reducing the money for them is not a solution.
In our free-market economy, the only way to raise more money for a business (or in this case USF) is to raise the price.
Many people, understandably, dislike this solution. They feel that they pay enough tuition as it is. But these are the same people who complain about there not being enough workspace for the College of Architecture, not enough parking spaces, overcrowded classrooms and having to attend classes at the University Mall.
But if we continue the policy of not increasing prices when more people want to attend we are only going to exacerbate the aforementioned problems.
If we were to increase the tuition by 1 percent and thus raise revenue by 10 percent, what is wrong with that? Nothing.
But sadly, in this country, we believe that everyone should be entitled to a college education. However, this should not come at the expense of university resources or instruction.
I want the College of Architecture to have a large building where they can have 100 square feet per student and to have their own classrooms instead of going to Cooper Hall. I want parking spaces right next to the Library available to everyone. I want more professors. I want more research opportunities. I want less crowded classrooms.
But these cannot come about by fairly distributing the funds. It comes about by increasing the funds.
Steven Tanner is majoring in Economics and Political Science.
U.N. should be involved in rebuilding
America easily organized a coalition with U.N. backing for the Gulf War, as our favorite dictator had stepped over the line and invaded another country. This was clearly not the case last winter, prior to the United States invasion of Iraq.
Indeed, as time passed, as Saddam Hussein reluctantly granted request for access, as the evidence of weapons of mass destruction presented by the United States consistently collapsed, and as the inspections continued to turn up nothing, the threat of Saddam continued to shrink. Even those who had previously spoken of such a threat with religious fervor were hard pressed to continue with such an argument, and so alternative justifications began to emerge. The same folks who had actively supported the Saddam were now troubled by his human rights violations. The same folks who had actively supported brutal dictatorships all over the region, and continue to do so, were now speaking of democracy in the Middle East. Their arguments were false, and were exposed as such in newspapers worldwide, with the exception of the so-called liberal media here at home.
What the United States sought from the United Nations in its failed attempt to secure a second resolution authorizing the use of force was legitimacy for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, legitimacy for their plans to tighten their control of the Middle East, and legitimacy for dominating the entire region and its energy resources. Indeed, such domination of the energy-rich Middle East has been the primary focus of U.S. foreign policy in every administration since WWII, regardless of party affiliation. The United Nations balked, and rightly so. France, Germany, and Russia’s motives may not have been pure, but if you take this line, then you must also concede that the United States’ were even less so. You cannot selectively apply realpolitik. Worldwide opposition to the U.S. invasion was a rejection of the current meme that might makes right. President George W. Bush has flatly stated that we are the biggest and the strongest, and that we’ll do what we please; get out of our way. Richard Perle, epitomizing the incompetence and arrogance of the neoconservatives, summed up the administration’s go-it-alone attitude here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.htmlI’m tempted to question how the United states could swallow its pride and face the embarrassment of crawling back to the United Nations, begging to be rescued from the disaster it made of Iraq. But it’s not pride the neocons have; it’s hubris.
Michael Cohen is a graduate student in the Applied Behavior Analysis Master’s Program.
Scene article on New York hip hop had flaws
I am a student at USF, and I am very angry with The Oracle. After reading the cover of the Sept. 11 issue and seeing a preview of a story about New York and hip-hop, I was excited. That was until I turned to the actual article. I am a born-and-bred New Yorker who returns home about four times every year and only came to Florida to attend college. It is because of this that I noticed that you made a serious error in your story “… each borough housing pioneers who would later steer …” Having said this, you should of listed the five boroughs instead of four. Sorry to tell you, but Long Island is not a borough. You dare to have a picture of the Manhattan skyline, but you don’t include it in your piece? Hello, Manhattan is a borough. There are five boroughs: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. What about all the rappers from Harlem? It was a slap in the face to New Yorkers. People are already miseducated about the city and think they know it all when they don’t. Don’t add to it. Next time do your research right. Typical Floridians!
Krystal Vias is a junior majoring in physical education.