By Alice Zhao ‘12, Contributing ColumnistPublished on Thursday, October 16, 2008
Print
Write the Editor
Facebook
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
I began laughing the moment I opened the thin, innocent-looking envelope. Someone, or perhaps more than one person, had anonymously mailed me a photo of an inside joke from my DOC Trip, scrawling various one-liners on the outside of the envelope. A melange of memories accompanied the photo — not showering for five days, awkward moments from living in the wilderness, and how five days in the New Hampshire-Vermont forests transformed a group of nine strangers into a family unit.
“Family?” I asked myself, clutching my photo, wandering around the Hop. When did I begin thinking of nine people who I never met before, in a place I never set foot in as my new family? I spent the first night of my DOC Trip crying in my sleeping bag, bitterly wishing I had never signed up to spend my first days as a college student in the middle of nowhere — miles and miles away from my real parents.
The wood walls of the cabin around me lacked the photo collages of my suburban Kansas bedroom. I had developed little rapport with the people sleeping around me through a few formulaic exchanges, and, not suprisingly, our early conversations fell somewhere between blatantly awkward and glaringly absent.
Like Emily Johnson (“At Home In Hanover,” Oct. 6), I quickly drew the line between my old and new homes. As I longed for the memories, people and friendships enshrined in my photo collage at home, the strangers whom I was forced to coexist with on my DOC trip made the bareness of the cabin walls around me painfully obvious.
Somehow the line between my old and new family blurred during the five days in the wilderness as we nicknamed our Trip leaders “Mom” and “Dad.” Between cooking, hiking and getting to know each other through conversation, I began to draw parallels between my family life in Kansas and my new makeshift family unit in New Hampshire.
Trip expectations for my cooking mirrored my parents’ goals — no fires, no deaths, quasi-edible food equal success. The hiking trip dialogues resembled car talk on my family road trips to Disneyland: various chimes of “Are we there yet?,” increasingly exasperated replies of “Not yet” from “Mom” and “Dad,” and, finally, various word games designed to entertain and distract the trippee “children.”
The familial theme continued when I returned to Hanover. While portions of my Trip family still live near me, my family unit expanded to include dorm mates.
In the dorm, I bonded with my floormates as we butchered our laundry together — putting detergent in the bleach slot and mistaking the dryer for the washer. Consequently, I gained a sense of family with my floormates as we shared giggles after a dormmate shrunk his bedsheets to a small swatch of fabric.
Cooking in my dorm was another reminder of expectations from home. Group ‘schombbing to the Hop was even reminiscent of family road trips with more siblings, random bits of conversation, and, of course, the occasional “Are we there yet?”
Despite these parallels between my old and new families, I didn’t officially link them until, coincidentally, my parents mailed an album full of childhood memories, leaving empty slots for photos of my Dartmouth family. I added group photos from my Trip between snapshots of my nine-year-old self, gleefully placing rabbit years on my parents’ heads at Disneyland. Snapshots of scenic views seen on the trail went between road-trip highlights. Each photo in my album represents a snapshot of the family I love or the family I have come to love at Dartmouth. Empty spaces remain for future additons.
I deliberately excluded the Trip photo that appeared in my Hinman Box from my album, opting to hang it up instead as part of the new photo collage that I’m assembling on the wall of my dorm room.
Next article in Opinion (2/2) » Piercing Feedback
Showing posts with label Alice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alice. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Touch The Candidate!
By Alice Zhao ‘12, Contributing ColumnistPublished on Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Print
Write the Editor
Facebook
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
I touched the fire. Well, sort of.
Consistent chants of “Touch the fire!” hurtled by thousands of upperclassmen slowly dulled my judgment until I quasi-intuitively gravitated toward the bonfire. The crowd’s enthusiasm enveloped me until I could almost envision my hands caressing the flames. Mob mentality clouded my personal judgment until I finally realized that deciding not to cremate my hands was smarter than following the crowd’s advice.
In his recent column, Peter Blair ‘12 asserts that our generation displays a similar tendency to mindlessly embrace Barack Obama and Sarah Palin’s campaigns for the upcoming election (“Informed Enthusiasm,” Oct. 19). According to Blair, youth support for both candidates is based on messianic overtures and not on the candidates’ platforms or qualifications. Blair equates our generation’s shared enthusiasm and endorsement for a candidate with running around his or her political bonfire with little or no justification beyond an idealistic desire to change the world.
I disagree, however, that young voters view either Obama or Palin as political bonfires to run around and touch in the next election. While voters from various ideologies and age groups gravitate toward candidates based on hype and imagery, few voters continue to support candidates on hype alone. Messianic imagery may initially lure most voters to a political bandwagon, but I — and most young voters that I’ve spoken to — justify continued support based on campaign stances, platforms and ideology. Realistically, we do not expect that a savior will miraculously fix the U.S. health-care system by building a political bonfire, nor do we expect that running around it with our endorsement will accomplish that same goal.
Instead, I support Obama for his plan to reform, expand and make health care more affordable. Sure, his charisma, youth and intelligence appeal to me, but my peers and I cite his platforms, and not solely his personal appeal, as the primary reasons for our support. Some listed their views on health care, economic policy and reproductive rights in supporting Obama. A few called Obama “our generation’s candidate,” pointing out his willingness to reach across party lines and his ability to appeal to the public as a whole.
The situation is similar for my conservative peers. In their decisions to support McCain, some cited his relatively longer experience in the Senate. A few mentioned social issues. One noted his economically conservative background, while another criticized liberal ideology as a whole.
In short, none of the 25 or so peers I polled justified their candidate choices on hype. Granted, I encountered more liberal leaning voters than conservative ones, but I didn’t detect a running-around-the-bonfire-esque collective mentality from either party’s supporters. When prodded, most people justified their decisions with concrete policy or personal ideology.
Despite the messianic imagery touted by some, most young voters support a candidate based on the soundness of his proposed policies, not an idealistic visions of him as a savior. While some people’s decisions are made on savior-like imagery, most voters realize a crowd’s endorsement doesn’t necessarily make a candidate’s policies any better — just like thousands of people chanting “Touch the fire” doesn’t make touching it any better of an idea. Most freshmen realized, as I did, that the throng of people supporting the idea had little bearing on its merit, just like a messianic bandwagon surrounding a candidate does not necessarily yield a better nominee.
Youthful enthusiasm does not automatically mean blindly following a candidate. Similiarly, voters who support a candidate weigh his platforms and policies against their own and don’t blindly accept him as political gospel. The majority of youth voters do not display a “touch the fire” mentality in supporting a candidate. My peers and I vote in the same way we “touched” the fire — on our own accord after it collapsed, not on the crowd’s accord while it was still burning.
« Previous article in Opinion (1/2) Blitz Goggles
Write the Editor
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
I touched the fire. Well, sort of.
Consistent chants of “Touch the fire!” hurtled by thousands of upperclassmen slowly dulled my judgment until I quasi-intuitively gravitated toward the bonfire. The crowd’s enthusiasm enveloped me until I could almost envision my hands caressing the flames. Mob mentality clouded my personal judgment until I finally realized that deciding not to cremate my hands was smarter than following the crowd’s advice.
In his recent column, Peter Blair ‘12 asserts that our generation displays a similar tendency to mindlessly embrace Barack Obama and Sarah Palin’s campaigns for the upcoming election (“Informed Enthusiasm,” Oct. 19). According to Blair, youth support for both candidates is based on messianic overtures and not on the candidates’ platforms or qualifications. Blair equates our generation’s shared enthusiasm and endorsement for a candidate with running around his or her political bonfire with little or no justification beyond an idealistic desire to change the world.
I disagree, however, that young voters view either Obama or Palin as political bonfires to run around and touch in the next election. While voters from various ideologies and age groups gravitate toward candidates based on hype and imagery, few voters continue to support candidates on hype alone. Messianic imagery may initially lure most voters to a political bandwagon, but I — and most young voters that I’ve spoken to — justify continued support based on campaign stances, platforms and ideology. Realistically, we do not expect that a savior will miraculously fix the U.S. health-care system by building a political bonfire, nor do we expect that running around it with our endorsement will accomplish that same goal.
Instead, I support Obama for his plan to reform, expand and make health care more affordable. Sure, his charisma, youth and intelligence appeal to me, but my peers and I cite his platforms, and not solely his personal appeal, as the primary reasons for our support. Some listed their views on health care, economic policy and reproductive rights in supporting Obama. A few called Obama “our generation’s candidate,” pointing out his willingness to reach across party lines and his ability to appeal to the public as a whole.
The situation is similar for my conservative peers. In their decisions to support McCain, some cited his relatively longer experience in the Senate. A few mentioned social issues. One noted his economically conservative background, while another criticized liberal ideology as a whole.
In short, none of the 25 or so peers I polled justified their candidate choices on hype. Granted, I encountered more liberal leaning voters than conservative ones, but I didn’t detect a running-around-the-bonfire-esque collective mentality from either party’s supporters. When prodded, most people justified their decisions with concrete policy or personal ideology.
Despite the messianic imagery touted by some, most young voters support a candidate based on the soundness of his proposed policies, not an idealistic visions of him as a savior. While some people’s decisions are made on savior-like imagery, most voters realize a crowd’s endorsement doesn’t necessarily make a candidate’s policies any better — just like thousands of people chanting “Touch the fire” doesn’t make touching it any better of an idea. Most freshmen realized, as I did, that the throng of people supporting the idea had little bearing on its merit, just like a messianic bandwagon surrounding a candidate does not necessarily yield a better nominee.
Youthful enthusiasm does not automatically mean blindly following a candidate. Similiarly, voters who support a candidate weigh his platforms and policies against their own and don’t blindly accept him as political gospel. The majority of youth voters do not display a “touch the fire” mentality in supporting a candidate. My peers and I vote in the same way we “touched” the fire — on our own accord after it collapsed, not on the crowd’s accord while it was still burning.
« Previous article in Opinion (1/2) Blitz Goggles
Red States, Blue States
By Alice Zhao ‘12, Contributing ColumnistPublished on Friday, November 14, 2008
Print
Write the Editor
Facebook
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
“We’re immigrating to America?”
I equated moving to the United States with moving to a different universe. At age nine, I resisted leaving my friends, my house and the Chinese newspapers on the kitchen table for a new world. In my childish mind, America equaled space stations, aliens and foreign printed materials — not the familiar comforts of home. I welcomed dinnertime conversations about the move about as much as the mysteriously limp vegetables on my plate. What bothered me most, however, was being excluded from the after-dinner political discussions, especially after one of the adults caught my friends and me eavesdropping.
Shortly after the move, I realized my new American home and friends weren’t as foreign as I had first expected. But the first newspaper I opened was just as alien as I imagined. The opinion pages condemned, criticized and satirized politicians and policies — content that I didn’t remember from those Chinese newspapers on the kitchen table. The Chinese opinion pages lacked the sheer derision their American counterparts had for many candidates and policies. Whereas the U.S. pages ranged from scathing to quasi-complimentary, the Chinese ones nine years ago ranged from loosely critical to sycophantic.
The disparity between the Chinese and American print media underscores theunderlying tone of political discourse in the two countries. The American system featured — and still features — door-to-door canvassing efforts, negative political advertisements and lively lunchtime conversations about Sarah Palin. In contrast, the Chinese system featured fewer political volunteers and public political discussions, as well as less critical writing and reporting. Although tolerance for political expression has increased in recent years in China, differences between the U.S. and Chinese systems persist.
The two presidential campaigns I’ve witnessed since the move reflect these disparities. The recent swath of canvassing volunteers contrasts sharply with the dearth of door-to-door campaigners in my childhood. I don’t recall strangers knocking on my door with political agendas and shiny stickers — U.S.-style political campaigners didn’t exist in my neighborhood.
In contrast,several partisan and non-partisan Dartmouth volunteers grilled me on my political leanings before the recent election. When I told them I couldn’t vote, they produced an impressive collection of posters and buttons for “other methods of participation.” Thus armed, my friends and I took full advantage of the American political system to express our views. We were the random strangers dispensing campaign paraphernalia at people’s doors. We plastered the aforementioned collection on windows, doors and bulletins, bathing our dorms. We subtly and not so subtly worked our policy preferences into everyday conversations.
The election atmosphere across campus seemed utterly alien compared to the less politically open one of my childhood. Most adults held political conversations at home, with friends and eavesdropping children, not with strangers at public dining halls. The idea of campaign paraphernalia was ludicrous in itself, as was the display of political stickers in public areas.
Now, my favorite sticker to display is the one for which my dormmates dragged me out of bed on Election Day. They saved an “I voted” sticker from their early morning trek to Hanover High, a symbolic gesture I appreciated when I picked up The Dartmouth that day. This very Opinion page reflected the diversity of political ideologies, which — like the sticker — symbolized a degree of political expression I hope my childhood friends will attain as different political opinions become more and more acceptable at home in China.
Granted, freedom of speech was not a top priority when I was nine. Nine years later, however, it defines my role as an Opinion columnist. Printed conversations should further political discussions, offering a repertoire of viewpoints instead of merely reflecting a fraction of them. Self-expression should only be edited for clarity, style and good taste so readers can “vote” on its merit, not its ideology.
Indeed, the ideas for this column first crossed my mind on election night. Sandwiched between liberal and conservative friends, I realized I didn’t even dream of writing a politicallyoriented column nine years ago, let alone seeing it in print. That was the America my parents spoke of around the dinner table.
« Previous article in Opinion (1/2) Verbum Ultimum: Tightening Our Belts
Write the Editor
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
“We’re immigrating to America?”
I equated moving to the United States with moving to a different universe. At age nine, I resisted leaving my friends, my house and the Chinese newspapers on the kitchen table for a new world. In my childish mind, America equaled space stations, aliens and foreign printed materials — not the familiar comforts of home. I welcomed dinnertime conversations about the move about as much as the mysteriously limp vegetables on my plate. What bothered me most, however, was being excluded from the after-dinner political discussions, especially after one of the adults caught my friends and me eavesdropping.
Shortly after the move, I realized my new American home and friends weren’t as foreign as I had first expected. But the first newspaper I opened was just as alien as I imagined. The opinion pages condemned, criticized and satirized politicians and policies — content that I didn’t remember from those Chinese newspapers on the kitchen table. The Chinese opinion pages lacked the sheer derision their American counterparts had for many candidates and policies. Whereas the U.S. pages ranged from scathing to quasi-complimentary, the Chinese ones nine years ago ranged from loosely critical to sycophantic.
The disparity between the Chinese and American print media underscores theunderlying tone of political discourse in the two countries. The American system featured — and still features — door-to-door canvassing efforts, negative political advertisements and lively lunchtime conversations about Sarah Palin. In contrast, the Chinese system featured fewer political volunteers and public political discussions, as well as less critical writing and reporting. Although tolerance for political expression has increased in recent years in China, differences between the U.S. and Chinese systems persist.
The two presidential campaigns I’ve witnessed since the move reflect these disparities. The recent swath of canvassing volunteers contrasts sharply with the dearth of door-to-door campaigners in my childhood. I don’t recall strangers knocking on my door with political agendas and shiny stickers — U.S.-style political campaigners didn’t exist in my neighborhood.
In contrast,several partisan and non-partisan Dartmouth volunteers grilled me on my political leanings before the recent election. When I told them I couldn’t vote, they produced an impressive collection of posters and buttons for “other methods of participation.” Thus armed, my friends and I took full advantage of the American political system to express our views. We were the random strangers dispensing campaign paraphernalia at people’s doors. We plastered the aforementioned collection on windows, doors and bulletins, bathing our dorms. We subtly and not so subtly worked our policy preferences into everyday conversations.
The election atmosphere across campus seemed utterly alien compared to the less politically open one of my childhood. Most adults held political conversations at home, with friends and eavesdropping children, not with strangers at public dining halls. The idea of campaign paraphernalia was ludicrous in itself, as was the display of political stickers in public areas.
Now, my favorite sticker to display is the one for which my dormmates dragged me out of bed on Election Day. They saved an “I voted” sticker from their early morning trek to Hanover High, a symbolic gesture I appreciated when I picked up The Dartmouth that day. This very Opinion page reflected the diversity of political ideologies, which — like the sticker — symbolized a degree of political expression I hope my childhood friends will attain as different political opinions become more and more acceptable at home in China.
Granted, freedom of speech was not a top priority when I was nine. Nine years later, however, it defines my role as an Opinion columnist. Printed conversations should further political discussions, offering a repertoire of viewpoints instead of merely reflecting a fraction of them. Self-expression should only be edited for clarity, style and good taste so readers can “vote” on its merit, not its ideology.
Indeed, the ideas for this column first crossed my mind on election night. Sandwiched between liberal and conservative friends, I realized I didn’t even dream of writing a politicallyoriented column nine years ago, let alone seeing it in print. That was the America my parents spoke of around the dinner table.
« Previous article in Opinion (1/2) Verbum Ultimum: Tightening Our Belts
The Polka-Dot Umbrella Plan
By Alice Zhao ‘12, Contributing ColumnistPublished on Monday, December 01, 2008
Print
Write the Editor
Facebook
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
When I was younger, I dreamt of becoming a polka-dot umbrella. While my peers fixated on occupations in banking, archeology, and other fields, I aspired to “protect people from the rain” professionally. My parents and teachers temporarily indulged this umbrella fantasy, before explaining that future jobs should a) posses a decent outlook, b) provide reasonable returns on the financial investment of a college education and c) be physically possible.
In other words, becoming a polka-dot umbrella was not a viable option. My underlying “protect people from the rain” mentality, however, gradually matured into ambitions of a career in public service.
According to an article in USA Today earlier this month, public service industries will soon experience severe staff shortages: Federal and university projections predict a shortage of 2 million public school teachers and 500,000 nurses in the next two decades and 200,000 government positions in the next two years (“Programs help with tuition in exchange for public service,” Nov. 18).
For many students, however, a career in public service is a difficult choice considering the financial investment in their education. Indeed, one friend recently abandoned his passion for public service in favor of a more “practical” field because of “strains” on his family’s finances.
The average new college graduate owes almost $22,000 in student loans, making starting salaries a key deterrent from a career in public service. Monthly loan payments of $600 spur graduates such as my friend to abandon their dreams for financial stability. It comes as no surprise that, according to the USA Today article, financial implications are “a major barrier” in attracting young, talented graduates to public service, compounding the field’s increasing staff shortage.
But in light of current and projected job deficits across the country, various universities have created new initiatives to nudge otherwise reluctant or financially wary graduates into public service. Such programs assist students financially in exchange for public service work after graduation.
This fall, Princeton began offering free masters degrees for students who pursue two-year federal government jobs after graduation. Starting in 2010, Harvard Law School will waive the $41,500 third-year student tuition for students willing to commit five years to a government or non-profit field after graduation. Tufts currently offers loan payment assistance to all graduates in exchange for public service work.
I commend these new initiatives because they help attract and retain innovative, talented students such as my friend who would otherwise abandon or overlook public service jobs because of financial constraints.
Princeton recently hosted an institutional conference of 24 other colleges and universities in the hopes of expanding these programs. Congress is even considering a public service equivalent of the ROTC, to be known as the “Roosevelt Scholars” program, which would provide graduates with full tuition, room and board, and spending stipends for completing a federal agency internship and three years in some government agency after graduation.
Passing the Roosevelt Scholars program bill and expanding institutional incentives for students pursuing public service is crucial to expanding the pool of potential public servants. Governmental and institutional incentives will allow graduates to indulge their “protect people from the rain” passions while shielding their families from current and future economic storms.
« Previous article in Opinion (1/2) Show Me The Money!
Write the Editor
var boxwidth = 250;
displayjobbox(boxwidth);
_uacct = 'UA-4454876-6';urchinTracker();
The Dartmouth Job Board
Web Business AnalystBlurb
Director, Brand Partnerships – West CoastZumobi
Principal SWE/Tech Lead - Ruby on RailsRedBubble
Web Developer - ruby, phpParticle
Interactive Producer/Head of ProductionTennman Digital
See all jobs Post a job
Powered by Personforce
When I was younger, I dreamt of becoming a polka-dot umbrella. While my peers fixated on occupations in banking, archeology, and other fields, I aspired to “protect people from the rain” professionally. My parents and teachers temporarily indulged this umbrella fantasy, before explaining that future jobs should a) posses a decent outlook, b) provide reasonable returns on the financial investment of a college education and c) be physically possible.
In other words, becoming a polka-dot umbrella was not a viable option. My underlying “protect people from the rain” mentality, however, gradually matured into ambitions of a career in public service.
According to an article in USA Today earlier this month, public service industries will soon experience severe staff shortages: Federal and university projections predict a shortage of 2 million public school teachers and 500,000 nurses in the next two decades and 200,000 government positions in the next two years (“Programs help with tuition in exchange for public service,” Nov. 18).
For many students, however, a career in public service is a difficult choice considering the financial investment in their education. Indeed, one friend recently abandoned his passion for public service in favor of a more “practical” field because of “strains” on his family’s finances.
The average new college graduate owes almost $22,000 in student loans, making starting salaries a key deterrent from a career in public service. Monthly loan payments of $600 spur graduates such as my friend to abandon their dreams for financial stability. It comes as no surprise that, according to the USA Today article, financial implications are “a major barrier” in attracting young, talented graduates to public service, compounding the field’s increasing staff shortage.
But in light of current and projected job deficits across the country, various universities have created new initiatives to nudge otherwise reluctant or financially wary graduates into public service. Such programs assist students financially in exchange for public service work after graduation.
This fall, Princeton began offering free masters degrees for students who pursue two-year federal government jobs after graduation. Starting in 2010, Harvard Law School will waive the $41,500 third-year student tuition for students willing to commit five years to a government or non-profit field after graduation. Tufts currently offers loan payment assistance to all graduates in exchange for public service work.
I commend these new initiatives because they help attract and retain innovative, talented students such as my friend who would otherwise abandon or overlook public service jobs because of financial constraints.
Princeton recently hosted an institutional conference of 24 other colleges and universities in the hopes of expanding these programs. Congress is even considering a public service equivalent of the ROTC, to be known as the “Roosevelt Scholars” program, which would provide graduates with full tuition, room and board, and spending stipends for completing a federal agency internship and three years in some government agency after graduation.
Passing the Roosevelt Scholars program bill and expanding institutional incentives for students pursuing public service is crucial to expanding the pool of potential public servants. Governmental and institutional incentives will allow graduates to indulge their “protect people from the rain” passions while shielding their families from current and future economic storms.
« Previous article in Opinion (1/2) Show Me The Money!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
