Internships, Love Them or Leave Them?

Internships: We love them!

By Jason G
 

Hooray! I've almost made it through 4+ years of college! Wait, you're telling me I need to pay tuition to go work an internship before I can graduate? Many internships are unpaid jobs? Why would I pay to go work for someone for free? This stinks!  While all of these are normal reactions from students, internships are very much a positive--and necessary--part of a college education that greatly outweigh any negative connotation, which might be associated with them.

Many students argue that since an internship is not set in a traditional classroom, it is not a valuable learning experience. This could not be further from the truth. Working through a good internship, in the right field, teaches real world skills one can not get solely from classroom training. Moreover, after graduating, most students will use the experiences from their internship to help them land a permanent job since employers will seldom hire inexperienced candidates. So how does one gain experience? They do so by working an internship, in a particular field, to gain real world experience.

Most of the full time job duties in the workplace will only be based on things learned in school. Once hired, the real learning curve starts where you either sink or swim in the actual workplace. For instance, learning how to work with different personalities, networking and making many professional connections, and gaining real world experience. It is not reasonable to think these skills can be taught in a classroom environment. Did you ever wonder why nurses and doctors have to fulfill such a long residency? It is because no one wants an inexperienced nurse to stab them with a needle! A residency is just like an extended internship. Overall, experiential learning is as important as the book learning you did throughout your college career.

The Ugly Truth of Internships

By Cassandra M.

 

Although most of what Jason writes about internships is true, it is not true that if a

student is successful in completing an internship that a permanent job can be secured. While it is

possible for students to learn necessary skills by participating in an internship, sometimes those skills are not always the one's needed to survive in today’s marketplace. For instance, my current employer hires interns on an annual basis during the summer for eight to ten weeks depending on the student’s schedule. The interns work in almost every department of the organization, including the mail room. Over the past three years, some of the same interns have returned, but only a few have been hired.

An intern in an office environment, to some, means having someone around to do the tedious tasks that no one else wants to do or the jobs that have been put off because you  know the interns are coming. So it could be a positive experience for both the employer and the intern under the right circumstances or it could be a situation where an intern ends up being the office lackey. Who wants to brag to their friends that they learned how to sort and distribute mail over the summer? 

The good thing about being a college student is that most will gain experience working in an environment where they are exposed to a diverse group of co-workers and the public, and learn time management skills necessary for competing and surviving in a work environment. Furthermore, an internship does not necessarily afford students the life lessons they will learn when applying and securing a position that not only gives them hands on experience but also monetary compensation for the work they accomplish. Unfortunately, with most internships the only compensation a student can expect to receive is a heartfelt thank you and maybe a farewell gift.  While the student will be able to list the internship on a resume as an accomplishment, it will probably be most suited under the heading of community service for all the weight it will carry in securing a position.

Are Social Policies that Classify People based on Race, Color, or National Origin Good or Bad?

The Dangers of Classifying People by Race and Culture
By Tony R. B.
“A strong sense of identity gives man an idea he can do no wrong; too little accomplishes the same.”  – Djuna Barnes, Author/Novelist

History has all but demonstrated that there is little value that comes from any social policy, which seeks to classify individuals based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin. Arguably, such policies exacerbate sentiments of inferiority among some (and superiority among others), while normalizing social tendencies toward separation and differentiation among all. Moreover, these social labels, or scripts, have tremendous psychological implications concerning how we view and/or accept ourselves and others who are “unlike” us.

According to sociologist and author Diana Kendall (2011), the question of one’s “race [and ethnicity] is based on the genetically transmitted physical characteristics of a group of people…classified [by] a common history, nationality, or geographical location” (49). Kendall further asserts that since one’s race is mostly attributed to such innocuous phenotypes like skin color, body type, and hair texture, then to rely on such characteristics―to classify and separate one individual from another―is not only irresponsible but immoral (50). Thus, if classifying people for socio-economic, political, and educational reasons is indeed a necessary endeavor, then it would appear more practical to simply categorize all people as one race―the human race. Regrettably, history has all but proven that our great nation, which is emblematic of so-called democratic virtues and norms, has always been obsessed with socially constructed labels and scripts. And although ours is a uniquely diverse republic, we still find it necessary to catalog our nation’s people into distinctive "in-groups" and "out-groups," which among other things perpetuate destructive social biases and stereotypes (McCallion 2007).

For this reason, my understanding of who I am is, at times, difficult. My American identity, for example―carved from the splintered and tragic history of a forgotten tribal lineage and sewn together instead by slavery, Jim Crow and various contemporary social policies like Brown v. Board and Affirmative Action―remains virtually unknown to me. For that matter, my culture is never quite as simple or easy to define or explain. Intellectually, I understand that I am of African descent―born in the United States of America. Thus, the question then becomes, am I to be considered African-American―or simply American? There was a time when I was once called Nigger, and then Negro, later on I was Black, which was followed by Black-American, and eventually Afro-American. It seems that every generation or so I am to be invariably reclassified for the purpose of being socially categorized (or stigmatized depending on one’s perspective), according to pseudo designations, created by cold bureaucracies, and enumerated on every job application, college application, consumer survey, and census form next to tiny boxes that I and others will inevitably check without question or much consideration.

And yet, for every new label that has ever been created to define my race or culture or ethnicity, the only true beneficiaries are those with political, social, and educational influence who aptly assign both bias and stereotype upon me depending on the cultural “out-group” I happen to land in (McCallion 2007). This is perhaps why my culture is sometimes difficult to define or explain―because; it appears that mine has been defined for me.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources

Kendall, Diane. "Racial and Ethnic Inequality." The Intersections Collection: Pearson Custom Sociology in the Twenty-first Century. Pearson Learning Solutions. Boston, MA. 2011. Print.

McCallion, M.J., Ritzer, G. (ed). "In-Groups and Out-Groups." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
           Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell Reference Online. 2007. Web. 02 Feb. 2013.

           <http://www.sociologyencyclopedia.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_yr2011_chunk_g978140512433115_ss1-48#citation >

It’s Human Nature

By Jasmine Alexis C.

Although Tony Brooks makes very valid points supporting the prohibition of classifying people by race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, he fails to take human nature into consideration. Classification is not merely a socially or politically based agenda. It is human nature to create labels. Prohibiting this classification, that can be traced from the beginning of time, will result in people not being able to be themselves, the diminishing of cultural traditions, and, eventually, a “Big Brother” society. It may seem that dismissing labels would give individuals and society a sense of freedom; however, the lack of distinction will result in one, uniformed culture, which could very easily lead to a tyrannical society.

America prides itself on being a melting pot filled with people from various backgrounds, religions,and cultures. In America, we have freedom, and we have laws to protect those freedoms. These freedoms allow us to worship whomever and however we wish and practice cultural traditions that have been passed down from our ancestors and are based on the cultures of our countries of origin. America gives us freedom to embrace our own personal cultures, instead of forcing us to assimilate to a specific culture and its practices. Many people come to America for this freedom—not to dismiss their culture and ethnicity but to embrace it freely in a safe environment. Many people from various cultures take pride in their ethnicity. For example, in the Hispanic culture, a Puerto Rican takes pride in being a Puerto Rican and will get very offended if one were to call him or her Mexican, Dominican, or any other Hispanic nationality. (I am talking about American Hispanics, not just those still living in their native lands.) These people do not migrate to the United States in order to forsake their culture, race, ethnicity, color, etc. They come for better opportunities. These people do not care that the jobs they are applying for ask them their race, because they are proud of their race. They are not ashamed and do not take offense, because there is nothing offensive with pointing out our differences. Our differences is what make this world so worth-while and worthy of exploration.

Now, imagine for a moment that each state in the United States were to abolish classifying people according to their race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. It would take decades for people to actually catch on, because even after the states stop classifying people, people will still classify themselves. Why? It’s human nature! However, let’s suppose that people do assimilate to the prohibition of racial classification. Eventually, people would forget their native cultures. America would no longer be a melting pot. Everyone would be a standard American—whatever that is—though, physically, there would still be differences. Culturally, however, people would forget where they came from, because there would be no importance in race and ethnicity. There would be no Puerto Rican Day Parade in New York City. There would be no Caribbean Festival. Everyone would be Americans, which all U.S. citizens already are—but there would be no more cultural make-up of the United States. Everyone would eventually become the same, except physically. People are not color-blind. Therefore, people would still notice the differences. And guess what. People would then label one another as “dark Americans,” “light Americans,” “brown Americans,” etc. Whether the state labels individuals or not, the people will always do it. Just like in the African American community there are many distinctions as well. I am considered a light-skinned African American woman. I’m not just African American or black to most African Americans—sadly—but it’s true. There will always be people who label others based on color. Is part of it social and political? Yes. Is part of it discriminatory? Yes. Is most of it human nature? Of course!

So is the prohibition of the classification of people based on race, ethnicity, and nationality beneficial or pernicious? It is clear that it is beneficial. One might say from my argument that it would not seem to make a difference anyway, since people will label themselves regardless. However, the lack of labels will result in a lack of self-pride, which will result in one, uniformed culture in America, which will, then, end our freedoms. It is our differences that give us our freedom. Without different religions, there would be no freedom of religion. Without different ethnicities, there would be no freedom of expression and culture. If you take note, you will see that countries with little to no diversity tend to have the least amount of freedom. Diversity is good, and labeling that diversity is not bad. It’s human nature. Need more proof? American Indians. Before the “white man” came and took over the United State of America, the natives had different tribes. They labeled themselves based on their tribes. Even back in the Bible days people were labeled according to their nations. God even set a group of people apart and made them His chosen people—the Israelites. If God Himself labeled people, how dare we not?

Not classifying people may seem fair, but that one policy can, ironically, create tyranny. Think about it. Communism was based on “equality”—everyone being the same, no labels or classification. Well, being American, we all know the dangers of communism. Need I further explain?

*I am Jasmine Cason, and I approve this message*

 

The Big Game to get the Atlanta Falcons a new stadium

The Falcons Proposed New Stadium 
By Kristen T.



The Proposed Stadium

The proposal for the Atlanta Falcons’ new retractable roof stadium is outrageous. The Georgia Dome, the current home of Atlanta’s NFL team, is relatively new--being only twenty years old. While the current stadium does not have a retractable roof, it is in great condition, can hold 71,228 fans and has hosted numerous sporting events aside from being the home of the Falcons. The Georgia Dome held sporting events in the 1996 Olympic Games, two Super Bowls (1994 and 2000), NCAA Men’s Final Four Basketball, professional wrestling and bull riding. To imply that the building that hosted Olympic Games is no longer adequate for a mere average NFL team is preposterous.



The Georgia Dome

Atlanta has been deemed the worst sports town for fans- that is, our town is the least enthusiastic about our hometown sports. Arthur Blank, the owner of the Falcons, believed that the team's decent win record in the 2012 season would increase fan support enough that the public would be in favor of the proposed stadium. Unfortunately, after their NFC Championship loss to the 49’ers, the fans lost all interest in the Falcons, and the $948 million stadium again. In addition, with the economy in poor condition, as it is with educators taking furlough days, spending $500 million of state and city money on something that is unnecessary does not make a lot of sense.

Arthur Blank

Arthur Blank has approached Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed telling him and other officials that Los Angeles, one of the top media markets in the country, has made it clear they are interested in moving the falcons to southern California. While Arthur Blank is a suave businessman, this isn't the most effective negotiation tactic. While the move would cause Atlanta very little fan upset and monetary loss, it most certainly wouldn't cause $948 million of loss like a new stadium for a losing team would cost. 










A New Stadium: Good for Falcons―Great for Atlanta
By Tony R. B.

By now, most have heard that The Georgia World Congress Center Authority (GWCCA) and the Atlanta Falcons have agreed to build a new retractable roof stadium, located on one of two potential sites on the Georgia World Congress Center campus. The proposed stadium will not only serve as home to the Atlanta Falcons―when the lease to the Georgia Dome expires in 2020―but also to other sports activities, conventions, and entertainment events. Notwithstanding the advantages of this effort, there is still plenty of opposition to the construction of a new multi-million dollar stadium, with disparate views on the matter ranging from concerns about community gentrification to baseless claims of increased cost to taxpayers. The inherent reality, however, is that a new stadium not only benefits the Falcons and their fans, but also the surrounding community as well as the state of Georgia.


An artist rendering of the new Atlanta Falcons

Stadium, featuring a retractable roof (2012)

First, the retractable roof stadium is a unique and eye-catching sports venue, providing a league-worthy game day experience for fans, and allows the team to remain competitive on the field for years to come. In addition, a new arena/stadium cements a long-term solution for the Falcons―pending the end of their lease at the Georgia Dome―and retains the successful partnership between the GWCCA and the Falcons in the years following (New Atlanta Stadium 2012-13). 

Second, the Atlanta Falcons, along with the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, have a history of investing in projects that enhance communities and improve the quality of life throughout the neighborhoods near the Georgia Dome as well as the proposed new stadium (New Atlanta Stadium 2012-13). Furthermore, The Falcons have publicly pledged to make significant monetary investments in these communities as a result of the new stadium. All of which underscores a long standing commitment by the franchise to enhance the surrounding Atlanta communities.

Two potenital sites on the GWCC campus under consideration

Finally, when the stadium is complete, the state of Georgia will own an asset that is one-third of its cost, and the Falcons will not only pay rent of $2.5 million per season, but public funding for the stadium’s construction will originate from an existing hotel-motel tax, which is paid by visitors―not local residents (Carasik 2012). In addition, there are significant economic benefits resulting from the project. For instance, over the three-year construction period, “this effort is estimated to add more than 4,500 new jobs to the state’s economy and generate more than $400 million in total economic [gain]” for Georgia. Furthermore, a new stadium helps to retain several events currently held at the Dome like the SEC Championship game, the Chick-fil-A Bowl, and the Bank of America Football Classic, which generate combined annual revenues of over $450 million dollars, and arguably benefits the state and its economy (New Atlanta Stadium 2012-13).

In brief, while opposition continues to exist for this project, at its core, a new stadium is unquestionably a tremendous economic and aesthetic benefit to the Falcons, the surrounding communities, and the overall economy, and represents a smart investment win for the team, the fans, all of Atlanta sports, and the state of Georgia.

____________________________________________________________________________

Sources

Carasik, Scott. “Atlanta Falcons Need a New Stadium for the Long Term.” Bleacher Report. December 2012. Web. 27 Jan. 2013. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1440200-atlanta-the-falcons-do-need-a-new-stadium-for-the-long-term-with-limited-psl     

New Atlanta Stadium. Atlanta Falcons. 2012-13. Web. 27. 2013. http://newatlantastadium.com/