Privacy Trumps Gov-Sanctioned Groping

The Transportation and Security Administration’s new, mandatory full-body x-ray scan provides officers with a detailed image of airplane passengers’ bodies — an image that exposes much more than explosives and go so far as to reveal breast implants and underwear. And while the threat of terrorism is alarming, we cannot sacrifice our basic right to privacy for a policy that isn’t even fool-proof.

Santa Claus is taking over CVS. His two aisles of Christmas lights and plastic lawn elves have temporarily moved the loofahs I need to Aisle 15 and “Jingle Bells” is starting to blare. But while most would feel cheer at these signs of upcoming consumerism, when trudging through the overwhelming displays of red and green, I felt the spirit of the Grinch growing.
Thousands of Santa’s loyal elves — my little sister being one of the most dedicated — are aghast: “How could you hate Christmas?” First, it’s actually not that hard if your favorite holiday is Thanksgiving. Plus, my little sister makes sure it’s Christmas year-round, blasting her “Santa Baby” and “Winter Wonderland” in July and dressing the seven-foot-tall tree with my mother every year before Halloween hits. Santa would be so proud.

Another reason I hate Christmas, might be the fact that I discovered Santa Claus wasn’t real at the tender age of eight. It began on a cold night in December 1999. Like every other 8-year-old, I couldn’t stop myself from counting and recounting the star-covered wrapping paper underneath the tree. When my mom finally told me I could unwrap my gifts, I make a run for it, attacked the biggest one, but to be polite, opened the card first.

The envelope read: “From Satans.” Even without a Christian upbringing, it was pretty obvious that the devil didn’t go around dropping off kits of 150 gel pens to 8-year-old girls.

Then the card was signed, “Love, Mom and Dad.” You can tell by my last name that I’m Asian, and according to the stereotype, my mom can’t spell English for shit. She also forgot that “Mom and Dad” is supposed to replace “Satans” on the card.

So maybe this holiday bitterness stems from not having a normal American childhood, but deep down, I know that one simple, if slightly scarring, blunder won’t overshadow the years my mother struggled through reading bedtime stories to me in English — and because my 5-year-old self kept correcting her pronunciation, she began saving up to buy every Disney movie that came out (thanks Mom, I love you)so I could learn English without an accent. And when my rice and seaweed lunches made me the brunt of jokes, she packed sandwiches stacked high with turkey, ham, lettuce and tomatoes.
So even if I’m not a huge fan of cutting out a thousand paper snowflakes, I’ll suck it up and help my sister decorate the house while joining in on the “Twelve Days of Christmas.”

Not all Christmas traditions are bad. I mean, who else is going to eat the cookies my sister leaves out for Santa every year? To survive the holidays, I’ll embrace the “Christmas spirit” and remind myself that it’s not about the insane amount of cheer I have to force each year or the incredibly annoying songs. It’s about spending time with the family — something that’s become more rare as I grow up.

Maybe this year, Mom’ll get a present from “Satan” signed “Love, your daughter… the older one.”

As college students, we’re not exactly rolling in dough — and when the average coed is expected to dish out $700 to $1,100 annually for textbooks whose prices will probably increase with each quarter, breaking the bank in the name of Poli104DA becomes a frightening possibility. But there’s a light at the end of the costly tunnel. Depending on the final ruling, the Costco v. Omega case, elevated to the Supreme Court last week, could put an end to the abusive monopoly of publishing companies and finally give us the break we deserve.

[caption id="attachment_20251" align="alignright" width="258" caption="Illustration by Philip Jia"][/caption]

Costco v. Omega arose after wholesale company Costco sold Omega-brand watches at lower-than-retail prices. If Costco had purchased the watches in the U.S., the first sale doctrine dictates that Costco would have had full power in determining the watches’ resale price. But the case is complicated because Costco bought the watches from overseas. The question now up for debate is whether the first sale doctrine still applies outside the U.S.

If the court rules that the doctrine does apply to items purchased overseas, Costco has the right to sell the Omega watches stateside at whatever price it wants. If not, Costco needs Omega’s permission to sell the watches.

The Association of American Publishers wrote to the court, citing similar ramifications in the world of textbook publishers. Most textbooks, the letter said, have cheaper international counterparts that contain the exact same content but with lower-quality papers, bindings and covers and without color. If the court rules in favor of Costco, companies can sell cheaper international textbook editions in the U.S.

For students, this is only good news. With the price of college textbooks has gone up nearly 30 percent in the past four years alone, differences in binding, color and quality of paper are negligible sacrifices. It’s not worth paying an additional $2,000 for more durable binding that we’ll forget about the second finals are over.

Publishers also claimed that selling international editions would cause negative ripple effects, such as less compensation for authors, fewer updates and an overall decrease in the quality of textbooks. Textbook company lawyers warned that paying authors less would lead to a decline in the textbook content quality, which would negatively impact the education system. They further stated that these would be fewer updates and textbook editions, reducing the amount of cutting-edge information.

In reality, the quality of a teaching staff is more important than textbooks to the quality of education. Students lose almost nothing when sacrificing unnecessary textbook editions. New editions come with a hefty price increase, but usually have little to offer aside from changes in the numbering of problems.

In 2008, Congress passed legislation forcing publishers to sell textbooks separately, instead in costly packaged bundles. This mandate has only begun to take effect in 2010, but removing a study guide here and there has done little in terms of reducing costs to affordable levels.

There has also been a great increase — $2 to $263 million in 8 years — in the percent of e-books being sold, but for some students, reading a text online is not the same as having a tangible copy. Some online companies let students rent textbooks for a quarter or semester at a fraction of the cost of buying them.

But the most obvious cost-saving tactic is to buy an international edition without the bells and whistles. As long as it’s the same content, the student has the same experience for a fraction of the cost. Publishing companies need to give students more price and quality options. Right now, they’re forcing all students to buy Coach purses, without allowing them to purchase lower-quality but equally functional and cheaper versions.

Many students resort to taking out second loans, photocopying texts, borrowing from school libraries or sharing with other students. We’re here to learn — not get hustled. If the court rules in favor of Omega, nothing will change for broke college students.

The Supreme Court is set to decide on Costco v. Omega before June of this year. If all goes well, the ruling will force publishers to offer cheaper versions of their textbooks and give students more power over their educations.

Readers can contact Revathy Sampth-Kumar at [email protected].

An Empty Wallet Puts Mars on the Backburner

Scientists Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies have brought the attitudes of long-ago pilgrims into the space age. The two have suggested that astronauts traveling to Mars should do so with the same idea that settlers had when making their way to America — that they should leave their homes without expecting to return. Two scientists, Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies, are proposing just that. While the idea has stirred up controversy among space enthusiasts globally, it’s fairly premature to get worked up over this when NASA is having trouble making its way to being a financially stable enterprise just yet.

NASA has bigger issues on their plate right now. In 2008, Congress announced that two-thirds of NASA’s major new programs were over budget — a fact that has nearly dismantled a Mars Rover project. When the government proposed a 2011 budget for NASA, huge changes were suggested. Though NASA has been a major pioneer in space exploration, its business management is open to problems like fraud and mismanagement. Given NASA’s current problems, a Mars
colonization effort is beyond the realm of possibility right now; instead, the NASA should focus on keeping its current programs on track and under budget.

Given all of NASA’s current problems, putting the mission to Mars on the back burner is probably the best solution. This one-way trip to Mars, however ambitious, is the least of NASA’s worries. It may well happen eventually, but let’s sit tight until then.

— Arik Burakovsky
Staff Writer

We Can’t Afford to Send a Death Capsule

The Red Planet: No trees, no water, barely any atmosphere to speak of, high radiation levels and — hell, there’s hardly even an atmosphere. It doesn’t sound like anywhere you’d want to live for the remainder of your life, and yet for some reason some scientists are proposing we whip out our checkbooks and send astronauts on a one-way mission to Mars for the sci-fi goal of colonization.

Those arguing for the cheaper one-way mission forget there is no Martian agriculture and a settlement there is not self-sustaining. Though scientists are claiming that foregoing a return journey will reduce costs, the long term small costs of sending supplies up to Mars will add up. The mission is only one-way if we forget about all the other ‘ways’ we need to get food and supplies to the people. If we can barely fund the International Space Station — there’s no chance we can drop millions to keep the astronauts alive for the rest of their lives.

The thought of being the first to settle on that giant floating red rock might be exhilarating to some — and even badass. But in reality, it comes down to eating food from tin cans. And if you think your chances of getting laid on Earth are bad, just wait until you get to Mars. Since there’s no won’t be a return trip, your reward for living this ascetic life is a lonely death millions of miles from your family.

— Saad Asad
Contributing Writer

Only Way to Be Pioneers is to Take the Leap

Mars isn’t just for aliens anymore. Sending astronauts to Mars for good is a smart idea since it would speed colonization time and reduce the cost involved. With all this talk of global warming and the ever popular 2012 doomsday scenario, it makes complete sense to think about realistic possibilities of survival. Permanently sending aging astronauts to Mars would put pressure on progress and show a dedication towards the possibility of escaping earth’s dangers by leaving it all together.

Sending away colonizers is not a new idea; explorers have been on similar missions since the beginning of time. Early settlers left Europe for the sake of a permanent future in the US. As a society, we need to use our technological advancements to push our boundaries and spark innovative spirit. Space exploration doesn’t have to take a nose dive right after the first man makes it on the moon.

Most importantly, sending these astronauts away is worth it since living on mars is actually a realistic possibility. The atmosphere closely resembles that of earth and there are water, carbon dioxide, and mineral sources. Money is the only thing that is stopping us from taking full advantage of these resources. By sending astronauts one way, we will save money in the long run and make the project more feasible. It may seem crazy to permanently send people to Mars, but sometimes it takes a few brave men to make giant leaps for mankind.

— Revathy Sampath-Kumar
Staff Writer

Even as protesters march on UC San Francisco with signs decrying the University of California’s rapidly diminishing affordability, the California Supreme Court is doing its part to open the doors of the state’s public universities just a little bit wider.

Last Monday, seven justices unanimously upheld a bill that allows illegal immigrants living in California to pay in-state college tuition. The ruling is a reaction to a 2005 class-action suit called Martinez v. Regents of the University of California in which the irate parents of out-of-state students sued the UC Office of the President, arguing that their children should not have to pay higher student fees than illegal immigrants. This backlash is unwarranted, because illegal immigrants already contribute to California society and will only be more of a boon when armed with a college education.

The difference between out-of-state and in-state tuition in California can be as high as $13,316 — at UCSD, in-state students pay $9,401 while out-of-state students cough up $22,717. The 2001 Education Code and Assembly Bill 540 grants in-state tuition to all students who have had at least three years of high school education in California and obtained a GED or equivalent, regardless of their legal status. In the case of Martinez v. UC Regents, the court ruled that the code should continue applying to illegal immigrants, though it does not make students eligible to receive federal or state financial aid.

Those opposed to the ruling claim that it’s a violation of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, which prohibits giving greater educational benefits to illegal immigrants than legal citizens.

Though AB 540 may seem like a raw deal for those who don’t chip in on the state level but pay taxes to the federal government — a small portion of which does come back to the university in the form of contracts and trickled-down state funds — the Martinez v. UC Regents case is based on more than just a dollar amount. Granting education access to illegal immigrants has historically been linked to the Fourteenth Amendment and issues of discrimination that make the necessity of such a law clear.

And it’s not like this is the first time the subject of illegal immigrants and education has come up; in the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, the Federal Supreme Court found that Texas education laws that withheld state funds for illegal immigrant children were unconstitutional. These laws, it said, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because restricting the ability of undocumented minors to educate themselves would gradually form a caste-like system that left illegal immigrants at the bottom. The Federal Supreme Court hypothesized that with no opportunities for upward mobility, the resulting social class of illiterate illegal immigrants would simply add to the growing rate of poverty.

The Martinez v. UC Regents case might seem like it just concerns a disparity in tuition prices — one offered to “illegal aliens” and one offered to “true Americans” (derogatory phrases used in conjunction to the recent court ruling) — but there are greater constitutional issues at stake.

Some argue that, since UC enrollment is open to all qualifying students, there is no issue of discrimination. But a world-class education at a cutting-edge university is just a pipe dream if it comes with a price tag that most of these lower-income students are unable to accommodate. Offering them a $13,316 discount on a college education will put a decent education within their price range.

Additionally, those out-of-state parents who are comparing their own contribution to UC’s coffers favorably to that of illegal immigrants may have the wrong end of the stick.

The reason that the University of California is so cheap for Golden State natives — comparatively speaking, and for now, at least — is that our families have spent years chipping in tax dollars that supports the state and, by proxy, our public universities. Detractors argue that since illegal immigrants dodge most of these taxes, they shouldn’t be able to go to the institution they have done nothing to support for the same price as those that have kept it afloat.

But with the common exceptions of payroll taxes and corporate income taxes, illegal immigrants do pay, same as the rest of us. In 2008, illegal immigrants contributed an estimated $9 billion dollars in taxes to the state, despite the fact that they do not benefit from social programs like Social Security. Though illegal immigrants cost the state $10.5 billion through education, health care,and incarceration, their huge contributions — monetary and otherwise — cannot be overlooked. There is a reason for this misconception; not all illegal immigrants pay taxes, but their financial contributions to this economy mean that they deserve the same education as the next taxpayer.

Additionally, higher numbers of college graduates — an expected outcome of allowing students to pay $11,285 instead of $34,164 — will only help California’s economy in the long run.

Every 30,000 students that earn a bachelor’s degree add $20 billion dollars to the state economy, increase state and local tax revenue by $1.2 billion a year, and bring about the creation of 174,000 new jobs. According to CSU Stanislaus, for every dollar invested in a California State University student, the student ultimately returns $4.62 to the state economy by being an asset to society. The potential economic boom that these new college students can provide is a long term benefit that cannot be overlooked.

Providing illegal immigrants with college educations is the first step in them receiving jobs and helping the economy. The D.R.E.A.M. Act, a piece of proposed federal legislation, will allow undocumented high school gradates to apply for conditional permanent residency — provided that they arrived in the U.S. as minors, lived here for at least five years, and are of good moral character. If, in the next six years, they enroll in and complete two years of college education or enlist in the military, they will be eligible for citizenship. The result of Martinez v. UC Regents coupled with the potential enactment of the D.R.E.A.M. Act will play an essential role in giving illegal immigrants the rights they fled to the United States to receive.

One inadvertent potential result of this ruling will, unfortunately, be a continued financial burden on the UC system. Many will claim that upholding this state education code will continue to hurt California’s economy, because for every illegal immigrant who pays in-state tuition, the state loses out on $23,000 in increased revenue. But Martinez v. UC Regents only upholds the status quo, it doesn’t take away money that was previously being funneled into the UC endowment. Still, with students still reeling from news that the UC system has raised tuition by 8 percent for the top 45 percent of the income bracket, fee hikes are likely going to be incorrectly attributed to this court ruling. More lawsuits from irate parents are sure pop up in the near future.

The California Supreme Court did right by future generations when it presented a unanimous front on this controversial subject. The appeals process means that this case will likely travel up to the United States Supreme Court; right-wing conservatives, indignant out-of-state parents and illegal immigrants alike will be waiting anxiously to see if the big nine will put this xenophobic backlash to rest for good.

In November, seasons change, the birds fly South for the winter, and
men’s facial hair gets way out of hand. It’s the biggest phenomenon
to sweep college guys since the bromance: No-Shave November.

In November, seasons change, the birds fly South for the winter, and
men’s facial hair gets way out of hand. It’s the biggest phenomenon
to sweep college guys since the bromance: No-Shave November.

It’s where men shave at the beginning of November and then conveniently “misplace” their razors for the rest of the month transforming into Tom Hanks in “Castaway.”

However, those talented in growing facial hair often continue on to Don’t-
Shave December, Just-Don’t-Shave January, and Forget-to-Shave February.

As a woman I do not understand the pride that goes into growing facial
hair. Those who don’t have beards are women and boys. And it seems that
men want to prove they are neither. You could all try volunteering at an animal shelter instead. It’s just as hairy and will increase your chances of getting
laid, far more than not shaving.

There’s something special about watching men attempt to grow beards. Some get hobo beards, some get creepy stringy beards, and others have the ability to rock it like Clooney.

As No-Shave November seems to be celebration of masculinity (for while women create life, men create… more hair) I was curious if this ritual was used to hook the ladies by showing off their man-imal ways.

I couldn’t be more wrong.

Men go into No-Shave November knowing that it is a conscious decision
that will inhibit their interactions with women. It’s a month dedicated
sacrificial brotherhood. The trade off: An excuse to not shave for the longest
period since they were prepubescent.

The only force strong and stubborn enough to break this bond of refusing
to shave is “the girlfriend.” It’s understood among men that if a buddy has
a girlfriend, she’ll be first to say that the Hagrid look is has got to go if he
expects to get within yards of her. Thanksgiving break also often results in an understandable buzz to the midnight shadow so Mom does not mistake her son for Zach Galifianakis.

To me, it seems that this month is about laziness — because what better
pact to make with your buddies than forego personal hygiene? A few of my girlfriends voiced some excitement in participating in No-Shave November.

Because really, if guys are going to boycott the razor, we should be allowed to too. But when I brought this up to one of my guy friends, he did not approve.

His stance is yet another example of the male double standard — claiming
that it’s acceptable for men to not shave, while it’s unacceptable for
women to ditch the Gillette.

With these gender-biased comments, No-Shave November could go from a display of manliness to a feminist rebellion of societal pressures. So, in the name of equality, what if No-Shave November wasn’t just restricted to dudes who want to let themselves go for a month? What if no one decided to groom their dog,
didn’t mow the lawn, and skipped those expensive waxing appointments? Everything would be an absolute mess by the time the month is over.

So guys, consider picking your razors back up before the world gets as out of control as your beard.

I feel like, for the most part, I’m pretty good with money. I don’t go out and drop truckloads of cash on designer clothes, or pimp out my car with every cool gadget the body shop has to offer. (The giant subwoofers in the trunk came with the car — I swear.) But when I went to pay my credit card bill at the end of last month, I was met with a nasty surprise.

My first instinct when presented with the triple-digit bill was “Are you kidding me? Someone must’ve stolen my identity!” Even as I scrambled for my phone, intent on calling the bank, calling my mother, calling Santa — calling anyone that could help — I stopped mid-freak out when I actually looked at what I had purchased. I couldn’t find one item that I didn’t remember swiping my card for: $7.21 at Los Primos, $3.45 at In ‘N Out, $6.25 at Hi Thai. The list went on and on.

Conveniently, Wells Fargo lets you itemize your purchases into clever little categories like “shopping,” “gas” and “food.” Much to my surprise, over 82 percent of my monthly spending went towards food. It had never occurred to me how often I was eating out, and how quickly it added up.

It’s not just that takeout is more convenient — though having freshly prepared potato skins handed to me over a counter is an easier guarantee than trying to work my oven solo. The truth is, eating out is a social thing.

This is especially useful when you’re in the awkward phase of a friendship, where you want to hang out, but you’re not quite comfortable sitting on the couch in pjs and watching TV while you do homework together. In this phase, every such occasion for hanging out starts with the same over-used conversation:
“Let’s go out this Friday.”
“Sure, what’dya want to do?”
“Well, we can always grab dinner.”

I had to change, and change fast, before my bank account ran out on me. I made the decision: Not only was I going to (temporarily) stop eating out completely, but I also wanted to see if I could survive off $20 a week compared to my usual $100 or so.

The first day I embarked on this seemingly impossible mission, the Hare Krishna tent in the Old Student Center was serving up mouthwatering curry that I could smell a mile away.

But despite temptations — my coworker asking if I wanted anything from Shogun, my roommate eating Red Robin — I knew I really didn’t have any other choice. Unless I wanted to call my mother for money at the end of the month, $20 was all I had for the week.

Over the course of one of the longest weeks of my life, I learned a few things:
First off, Bisquick is your best friend. When you’re living on a budget, the giant $4 box of Bisquick from Costco becomes the Inspector Gadget of foodstuffs. Just grab your waffle maker, add some feta, garlic and basil and you have a delicious savory for waffle lunch or dinner.

Secondly, you’ll surprise yourself at how creative you really can be when it comes to scrounging together a meal. When I packed my car and headed down to San Diego at the end of the summer, my mother wouldn’t let me leave without sending a trunkful of food with me. Mom-fare has gone largely unnoticed for the last three months, but last week, those awkward canned artichoke hearts made for a perfect complement to my $1 bag of pasta.

The third, and most exciting, discovery is that fresh fruits and vegetables really aren’t as expensive as you think. I read a study in Michael Pollan’s Omnivore’s Dilemma about how there are more low-income obese people in America, because fresh veggies are too expensive. My own experience tells me otherwise; at Trader Joe’s you can pick up a giant bag of salad for $1.29.

Although the week was long — and painfully included me brown bagging it to work — I was able to successfully live off of $20. Of course, I’m not going to be withdrawing a single 20-dollar bill for food every week now, but I like to think I found a happy medium. I am eating at home more often, while still occasionally splurging on a bowl of rare beef pho at Pho La Jolla. Eating out all the time doesn’t sit well with my wallet, and eating on such a tight budget doesn’t sit well with social life. But when you’re in a pinch, it’s possible to make those $20 bills stretch.

Ever since YouTube caught on to our secret that refreshing the page allowed us to skip their ads (too smart for their own good), I’ve had to sit through commercials for everything from cell phones to senators when all I want is to watch Willow Smith whip her hair back and forth.

It was during one of these forced viewing periods that I noticed Carly Fiorina’s ad, encouraging Californians to support her in a now-failed bid for U.S. Senate. For those of you who haven’t had to sit through the longest 30 seconds of your life, it goes like this:

Fifty-six-year-old Fiorina, impeccably coiffed and with glowingly flawless skin, makes steady (and sparkling) eye contact with the viewer as she tells him or her a simple message: Vote for me. I can change.

The thing that struck me about this ad — especially when faced with the results of a Google image search — is that the Fiorina I know doesn’t look like the 30-year-old Neutrogena model on my screen. Fiorina, actually looks like she could be my grandmother. She has the wrinkles that befit someone her age — here she went through a lot of trouble, probably including postproduction airbrushing and several layers of coverup, not to show them.

Of course, she’s not the first to go to extreme lengths to clean up for television. The bright lights and media scrutiny of the modern age — as well as the Hollywood standards of attractiveness that people hold for anyone who appears on a TV screen — mean stepping up your visual game if you want to stay ahead. Politicians have drawn huge criticism for spending thousands of dollars pruning and preening themselves.

Sarah Palin may have gotten in trouble for paying almost $33,000 for her makeup and hair over the course of her vice presidential campaign, and let’s not forget, John McCain spent $5,500 on makeup during the 2008 campaign season, John Edwards’ infamous $1,250 haircut; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spent £1800, — $2,888, for those non-UK among us — on makeup.

But before we grill our world leaders for being shallow or poke fun at them for wearing a three-inch-thick matte non-shine mask, we should remember that harsh TV studio lighting, combined with the pore magnifying effect of high definition, can make any swan look like an ugly duckling.

Research from the Journal of Public Economics showed that voters are subconsciously swayed by better looking candidates. Subjects in the study were asked to rank the attractiveness of politicians along with their perceived intellect, competence, credibility and friendliness. The results showed that a point increase in a candidates’s perceived attractiveness correlated with significant increases in his or her perceived leadership qualities.

A famous incident that proved that voters were more inclined to side with the better-looking candidate was during the first televised presidential debates between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. People who listened to the radio thought that gaunt Nixon won the debate; people who watched on television thought suave Kennedy did.

The difference was in the details: Nixon sweated profusely, refused to wear makeup, his suit was too light and baggy and he looked generally uncomfortable. Kennedy, on the other hand, wore makeup and a fitted suit.

The bottom line, whether we admit it or not, is that the way our politicians look does affect how we vote. But it shouldn’t. Instead of focusing on how shiny their hair is in the latest campaign ad, we should be focusing on their policies and platforms. Politicians’ policies will be the same whether they’re wearing sweats and a muscle-tee or a tailored suit. It’s counterproductive to rank appearance over policy.

With that said, I understand that looking one’s best is a part of the political job description. But though I’ve accepted that my national leaders wear more coverup than my yearly paycheck can afford, I can’t help but hope that Fiorina will someday trade in her makeup artist for a new campaign manager (have you seen her demon sheep commercial?).

We can all agree that the Internet has made life easier. Forget about going to the library for your paper on Nietzche, or making the trek to UTC for this winter’s must-haves. Hell, you don’t even need to leave the comfort of your own room for some one-on-one time with Jenna Jameson.

But while the Internet is perfect for looking up how to deep fry a turkey, there is a difference between a recipe and a chem lab, no matter how hard our Regents try to bridge that gap. On Nov. 2, the UC Office of the President announced that it is taking the first steps toward a UC online degree program that will hopefully offer a “UC-quality” education. And though some online classes are already offered through the UC Extension program, the UC system will have to upgrade its thinking caps if it wants to create a cyberspace version of our esteemed university that’s up to standard.

While online universities like the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University have successfully created online degree programs for everything from an associates degree to a PhD, there’s no question that a UCSD degree has more weight than a University of Phoenix B.A.

In all fairness, some departments like political science and literature could transition to an online format without a drastic loss of quality. Given the opportunity, we’re already more likely to skip out on our poli sci lecture in favor listening to the professor’s podcasted analysis of Malcom X from the living room couch.

But, things like live discussions can’t be duplicated online. Sure, some students could use discussion boards like the ones on WebCT or e-mail their professors with questions, but no amount of e-mailing or posting can replace personal face time with a professor or TA.

A major draw of the UC system is that it offers students the chance to work with award-winning faculty — your UC degree means that you have been face to face with a literature professor who won a Pulitzer Prize, or the man who pioneered bioluminescent nanotechnology. Sacrificing that for online convenience compromises the quality of education.

Aside from losing valuable educational points from discussions, there is no way to give online bio and chem students the educational equipment of a real lab. It’s the real life experiences — like mixing potassium with dihydrogen monoxide and finding out why safety goggles are a good idea — that can’t be duplicated online.

There’s programs that simulate reactions, but watching a screen mix two different colors together at the click of a button is not the same experience as physically mixing them yourself.

Another department difficult to replicate online is foreign language. The best way to become fluent in a foreign language is by constantly having live conversations. But this could pose a problem when there’s no human-to-human interaction.

One of the primary draws to online courses is that you can take them from nearly anywhere that has an Internet connection. But aside from missing out on real life conversations, there’s no guarantee that every student that opts for an online education will have the technology to support it.

Some UCSD classes require specific programs that don’t work with both Macs and PCs. Consequently, students have to come to a campus and do their work in a computer lab — which won’t be so easy if they’re taking the class for purposes of convenience. Especially, if someone is taking the class as a parent with a full time job — making it to campus between work and the kid’s dance practice won’t be an easy feat.

In addition, most online classes have the capacity to enroll thousands of students at a time — which, when taking room capacity and fire regulations into consideration, will be an unlikely possibility if the program plans to have the students attend an in-class final.

Online education is a solution for those that can’t physically make it to school, or can’t afford the extraneous student fees of room and board. But there’s no comparison between sitting in a lecture hall and clicking through online slides.

It seems that the proposed online degree program is little more than a quick fix to the UC’s budget crisis. By filtering more students through an online degree program, the campuses will be able to generate more money, without putting in the time. But unless the UCOP takes steps to make sure online students don’t slip through the cracks, the UC degree is going to be worth as much as one from DeVry.

When They’re Legal, There’s No Scandal

Panties and boobies and sex, oh my! Three stars of the hit TV show “Glee” posed half naked in a GQ photo spread, and according to the notoriously conservative Parents Television Council, the world’s coming to an end. The council charged that the spread “borders on pedophilia.”

I love romantic movies more than Matthew McConaughey loves starring in them. They are the Cinnamon Toast Crunch of movie genres: What they lack in substance, they make up in satisfaction. While romantic moments like the “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” kiss in the rain, “Say Anything’s” blaring boom box, or the passion of “The Notebook” leave me craving some Gosling, this magic often fails to translate into my unfabulous life. So, to add a little whirlwind romance, I’ve decided to take matters into my own hands.