UNC-Chapel Hill annually comes face to face with tuition increases and all the uproar associated with it. Each year the same issues are brought up without ever really coming up with one solution that can carry from year to year, though many ideas are floating around campus. In three articles from the Daily Tar Heel, three different authors share their perspectives on the tuition issues. Though each article has a different point, they share some similarities and each offer a different view of the issue. In the board editorial "Time to go all in...", and unknown author expresses his opinion on the treatment of out-of-state students. They pay higher tuition since UNC is a state support university, but the increases should be proportional and fair. "That happened last year, when the Board of Govoner's actions meant that nonresident undergraduates saw hikes of hundreds of dollars despite an in-state tuition freeze." By making increases unproportional, UNC could lose some of its brightest students. The author concludes that no matter what is decided, it is a given that greater predictability would allow students less "puzzling over their pocketbooks." But no matter what is decided the tuition task force and the Board of Govoners should follow a set of principles that should guide them in their decsion making.

Guest columnist Judith Wegner wrote in her article, "Its time for some tough decisions," that there are four guidelines that would help the task force set reasonable tuition hikes. The most important consideration should be maintaining the highest quality of education possible. To do so faculty salaries and TA stipends must be raised to keep up competitive wages offered at other peer universities. This can only be done by increasing tuition. Secondly, the task force must follow solid principles when considering tuition hikes. The three things to be considered are accessibility, predictability, and flexibility. The money from tuition increases has in the past been accessible due to the fact that 40% of tuition revenue goes to funding need-based aid. Predicability could be easily achieved by creating a year-to-year increase average. Flexibility of the tuition monies would allow different funding sources to be considered, but not interchanged. Another thought to guide tuition discussions is what can be lost from unprofessional tuition hikes. Risks include losing the ethnic and soci-economic diversity and keeping talent students from enrolling in the university. This can be avoided if all students share an equal proportion of educational costs. Lastly, by building partnerships with other near-by schools, UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State can together improve the quality of education of North Carolina students.

One common trend in the two editorials was predicable tuition hikes. But in the editorial "Not to be Trusted," the unknown author has a different view. He believes that by allowing the Board of Govoners to set the maximum tuition increase to $451 would prevent students from fighting the tuition increases. The BOG could easily abuse the set tuition by always increasing fees by the maximum amount, whether needed or not. The author makes a good point that even though each year the BOG battles with tuition hikes, students have the right to protest proposed increases. With a set increase, they lose this advantage. So the question to be asked is whether predicability is worth losing our argumentative rights.

Maybe we can have it all! If the BOG set the increase at $451 per year, then during the span of that increase a task force could evaluate how much of the maximum should be enforced. By balancing out the power between the BOG and another campus legislative body, maybe UNC students could receive fair tuition increases on a yearly basis.

All of campus seems to be abuzz with talk of tuition and fee increases. This issue affects students, faculty, and all university workers. In the opinion editorial "Time to Go All In.." by an anonymous author, he describes his view on tuition hikes. Yes they are inevitable, but lets get a little predictability. Having set tuition hikes would make financial planning easier for students and their families. One issue raised in the editorial is how to approach increasing out-of-state tuition. The author feels it should be equal for in-state and out-of-state students. This idea I don't agree with, but I do think all students should have a "heads-up" on how large of an increase should be expected. Guest columnist Judy Wegner also expresses her views on tuition and fee increases in her opinion editorial "It's Time for Some Tough Decisions". In her column, Wegner presents her ideas in a 1-4 step process. The first of her ideas is to make sure that the highest quality of education is reached. This a goal that all aspire too. To do so, most all agree that hikes in tuition and fees should be directed TA and faculty salary increases. This would allow UNC-CH to have the highest quality instructors. Her second point is always using solid principles when discussing the tuition increases. This can be attained by making sure that increases are predictable and fair. I agree that by setting guidelines for increasing tuition and fees it would allow students flexibility in outlining their finances. Wegner's third point is that tuition increases should be proportion, and not all put on nonresident. This is a good point. Without out-of-state students, UNC would lose some of its cherished diversity. But it still is a state supported school, and residents do deserve the benefits guaranteed from living within North Carolina. Wegner's forth and final point seems to be the strongest-building strong partnerships. This idea I haven't heard in other articles about the tuition and fee issues. By building strong partnerships with other universities in the UNC system, a broader range of education could be offered to students. Isn't that the ultimate goal we are all trying to achieve. Wegner's guidelines should be used by the task force when they study the dynamic of the university. All issues could be minimized if all kept in mind we are only trying to achieve one thing-The high quality of education for those enrolled in the University. With this in mind all should come together in a common bond.

It seems to me that every year the issue of tuition increases is at the forefront of most people's minds. Even though there is debate year after year, it seems that each year they start all over again with no progress being made. The common questions asked are: "Who should the tuition hikes target?" Should nonresidents and residents pay different tuition fees?" How much more should out-of-state tuition rise in relation to in-state students. In the editorial "Time to go all in.." the author gives his answers to these important questions. In the article the author states the proposed increases from the task force, which is composed of 3 students, 3 faculty members, and 3 administrators. The fees proposed have out-of-state students paying more tuition then in-state students. This makes sense right? Not to the author of the editorial. He feels that out-of-state students are treated as "unwelcome guests", and that this should stop. I don't think that by paying more tuition then North Carolina residents makes anyone feel unwelcome. Tuition increases for out-of-state students should be expected when attending a state funded university. UNC-Chapel Hill and the other schools in the UNC system have always been supported by North Carolina funding, and always will be. If a certain percentage of enrolled students must be from in-state, raising the tuition more so for these students could make it harder to recruit students from NC. Though tuition hikes are going to be used to benefit the university, the difference between in-state and out-of-state hikes shouldn't even really be an issue.

This post is focusing on an article in the Daily Tar Heel. The article discussed the closed meetings over the president of UNC system.

1. Why were the meetings closed and secret in the first place?
2. For what reason are newspapers allowed to be involved in the lawsuit?
3. Are the presidential candidates for UNC-Chapel Hill, or the UNC school system as a whole?

News Article: "Bowles similar to past leaders"
Opinion Article: "Let in a 'lil light"
Letter to the Editor: "Bowles' new appointment raises some hard questions"

For the last four years the Truth Corporation has been giving teenagers statistics and ancedotes about smoking, and the evils associated with it. The newest campaign launched by Truth is called Fair Enough, and it uses real documents to create mock sitcom shows about potential marketing campaigns created by tobacco companies. The advertisments created by the Fair Enough campaign are a new way to unmask the tobacco companies and their manipulative advertising techniques. In an article written by Seth Stevenson, he comments on the advertisements, and their overall effectiveness. He agrees that the Fair Enough campaign is a new way to give teenagers the same old message of "do not smoke." This jazzed up approach to anti-smoking advertisments has a far better chance of reaching teens on a more realistic level.

In Stevenson's article, titled "How to get teens not to smoke, prey on their insecurity", he addresses the age-old idea that kids don't listen to what their parents try to beat into their heads in a conventional way. The article begins with a description of a cheesy anti-smoking ad used when Seth was younger. He comments on how lame and ineffective the ad was. The rest of the article describes how the Fair Enough campaign doesn't use the ordinary approach to not smoking, but instead a more effective way of getting inside teenagers heads. Stevenson believes that by giving kids the idea of not smoking, they are defying the authority of large tobacco corporations and keeping their "cool" image, and this is exactly what teens need to feel in control and "savvy". Over-all Steveson feels the campaign is a hit with its teenage audience, but do es not work quite as well with an older generation of viewers.

The message of the Fair Enough ads are a revolutionary new way to get inside teenagers heads. "Hey kids, tobacco companies are evil! And you're a tool if you get duped by their manipulative marketing techniques. Do you want to be a tool, kids?" Stevenson hits the nail on the head with his idea that teenagers will do anything not to be considered foolish and out of the "inner circle." He also points out that teenagers aren't falling for the false advertisments created by tobacco companies, and the youth of today are feeing more empowered by their decision not to smoke. This empowering feeling comes from the thought they are defying the authority of something powerful; something every teenager wants to do.

Teens have a great capacity for righteous outrage at all the world's evils.
They're forever looking for something to be indignant about. Enter big
tobacco—the perfect foil. When it comes to standing in for pure evil, big
tobacco does a bang-up job.

Stevenson understands what it's like to be targeted by adults to not smoke, and by coming up with new ways to send out that message, the Fair Enough campaign has successfully targeted teens weaknesses, and the "preyed" upon them. It is obvious that Stevenson and Fair Enough have the right idea about how to target teens in a successful way.

Our first assignment is to analyze a CD or DVD cover. I am analyzing Independence Day. The cover consists of very bold-faced wording. The name of the movie is written at the top in large capital letters. This can convay a message of intensity and seriousness. The picture presented on the cover shows a large spaceship taking up most of the space . Below it is New York City, looking very small in comparison to the large space craft. The space craft has a bright light beaming down from the central part of the ship and landing on the Empire State Building. This picture is also very intense and bright. The colors shown on the cover are a brighter red that fades down into yellow and eventually to a black and the base of the city. These bright eye-catching colors show that movie must have intense action. The size of the space ship in comparison to the size of the city also shows a difference in control. NYC has always been a city of power and control. It being shown so small shows that space craft is larger and in this aspect may for once have more power and control over the city. This action packed theme of the movie is parallel with the intense thoughs provoked by the cover.

Just a couple days ago, I had no idea what a blog was. I have created this blog to use during my English 11 Compostion class. We will use them mainly to post ideas that correspond with the units of study we are tackling at the time. Our first unit will be on Popular culture, such as advertisment compaigns. The whole idea of posting my thoughts and ideas for others to read is a scarey and unnerving thought. But hopefully I can overcome that fear and use the blog as a helpful tool for my English class.