AT&T’s acquisition of its competitor, T-Mobile, will give birth to a new juggernaut in the American telecommunications industry, producing a company which can supposedly better serve its customers by providing a faster and stronger network. But is it really worth risking consumer interests?

The merger between AT&T and T-Mobile, the second- and fourth-largest wireless service providers respectively, is expected to create a duopoly of AT&T and Verizon Wireless, which makes the market far more consolidated than necessary. The deal, which is expected to close in a year, makes AT&T by far the largest service provider in the nation with 130 million total subscribers. Various market analysts are raising concerns over the upcoming change in the market.

AT&T justified the acquisition in a statement on March 20, claiming that the acquisition will benefit the customers by “enhancing network capacity, output and quality in near term for both companies’ customers.” This statement is realizable as AT&T and T-Mobile have similar technology, and their networks, which already cover large areas of the country, can contribute to each other to create an even stronger and faster wireless network.

However, it still seems that consumers have more to lose than to gain. The customers may enjoy enhanced services after the acquisition, but they have to expect a future increase in price when two or three behemoths dominate the market.

Concerns over future price hikes are well-founded. AT&T presents itself as the provider of the highest quality mobile services, which collides with T-Mobile’s brand image as a provider of affordable services. Thus, some of T-Mobile’s more price-efficient contracts may be terminated or altered to maintain AT&T’s brand image and profit margins. In a recent media release by T-Mobile, the company suggested that future rate plans may be subject to a price increase. T-Mobile merely states “all customer contracts entered into before the change of ownership will be honored (for their applicable period),” suggesting the looming possibility that prices may rise in the future.

Moreover, if this acquisition is approved by the regulators, it may encourage future mergers in the market. Mergers and acquisitions are very attractive options to businesses as they can take advantage of various economies of scales (various economic benefits made available by the increase in the size of a firm such as a stronger bargaining power in business deals and lower interest rates on loans). In addition, in the telecommunications industry, a bigger size usually means larger control over the market (in other words, more subscribers) and increased revenues as the companies deal directly with their customers. Once AT&T’s acquisition of T-Mobile is approved, it may encourage other mergers in the future, as they are highly profitable for telecommunications companies.

There are always banes and boons when economic decisions are made, and they have to be measured carefully. In this acquisition, at least for now, the banes seem to outweigh the boons.

A crisis was “averted” Friday evening when leaders of Congress and President Obama compromised on an agreement to shave roughly 38.5 billion of the 2011 budget — a whopping 1 percent. Included with the agreement was a spending bill that will fund the government for about the next week. Both the compromise and the spending bill still have to be approved by the House and Senate.

The reason for the quotations above is that the shutdown was extremely unlikely to happen, despite what the media was saying.

It probably isn’t shocking to anyone that the media used the vague possibility of the government “shutting down” to attract viewers. News agencies played off the fear and uncertainty to keep the American public glued to their laptops and television screens. A veritable buffet of hypothetical situations were served a la carte, allowing us to chose whichever situations frightened us the most or simply load our plates with all of them.

To the media’s credit, if the government had shut down, it would indeed have been a crisis. It would have been unthinkable if military families or federal employees hadn’t been paid. But what the media really should have focused on was how likely a governmental shutdown actually was. The likelihood was less than the percentage cut of the budget.

Regardless of how much posturing was going on by politicians prior to a deal being brokered, a governmental shutdown would have been so politically damaging for everyone involved that it simply would not have happened. Yes, there was fiery rhetoric from Republicans, trying to appeal to their base by making bombastic claims about shredding government spending. There were aggressive statements made by Democrats, claiming Republicans were attempting to turn the debate into a social policy issue over Planned Parenthood. In the end, politicians did what was politically necessary: They compromised.

It is simply basic bargaining strategy. The NBA is going through a similar process right now. If a new collective bargaining agreement is not reached by the end of the summer, it is likely there won’t be a season next year (i.e. shutdown). There are reports that the players’ union and the owners are separated by large gulfs, particularly over the players’ salaries. Many teams are operating at heavy losses (i.e. deficits) because of the inflated salaries. Right now it would appear there won’t be an NBA season next year.

That will change as the summer approaches.

When individuals come to the bargaining table, they start with their most extreme demands. You don’t go to a Saturday market offering a thousand bucks for a leather wallet. Two opposite positions are laid out, and through negotiating you come to at least an acceptable, if not completely agreeable, outcome.

News agencies either failed to acknowledge this or simply chose not to.

They chose instead to focus on the visible players of the process, mainly President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House John Boehner. They noted down what these individuals were saying and how far apart their opinions and goals were. According to their statements, a deal was not likely.

But the easiest way for politicians to come to an agreement is to shirk responsibility in order to not appear to be kowtowing. It was not these individuals who formed the compromise. Rather, it was their underlings. The deal was really brokered by Reid’s chief of staff, David Krone; Obama’s legislative director, Rob Nabors and Boehner’s chief of staff, Barry Jackson. The media should have spent more time focusing on these individuals if they wanted to forecast how likely a shutdown was.

The deal did seem to come at the last possible moment — what the media dubbed “the eleventh hour.” And many people were rightfully upset that it took so long to develop. If my paycheck was predicated on a funded government, I would probably be more upset about the politicians bickering when my family’s livelihood depended on their decision. But again, these types of situations always tend to unfold this way. It’s like a game of “chicken,” seeing which politician will break away first. What almost always happens in the end is both swerve their cars away at the last second to avoid a head-on collision. This is exactly what happened Friday night.

Following the agreement, pundits eagerly looked to see who the “winners” and the “losers” of the agreement were. The sad reality is there really were no winners. Some people just didn’t lose as much as others. The government will continue to be funded for another week. Families dependent on the government will continue to be paid. Boehner looks like he won concessions from the Democrats. Obama and Reid look like flexible leaders.

The only real “loser” was the media itself, which devoted its time to predicting what would happen if a shutdown were to happen.

They would have been more useful examining what would happen if an asteroid collided with earth.

Big Ten football has been completely revamped in the past year. Nebraska joined the conference as its 12th team, the Leaders and Legends divisions were created and a new logo was released.

Members of the Legends division had a lot to say during Tuesday’s spring football teleconference.

New coach, new philosophy for Michigan

With a new coach, a new scheme usually follows, and this is certainly the case for the Wolverines. There were two significant changes that coach Brady Hoke spoke of Tuesday afternoon.

Hoke said he has had a smooth transition thus far because there are “so many great people at the university, players are eager to learn and dive into fundamentals.”

“We’ve got to get better faster than everybody in the Big Ten,” Michigan defensive end Ryan Van Bergen said.

Dual-threat quarterback Denard Robinson will be taking snaps from under center in the upcoming season. Hoke said Robinson was doing well moving back under center from the spread and that it helped that he had experience there from high school. Hoke added that he dealt with a similar situation while coaching at San Diego State.

“He’s a guy that’s dangerous with ball, but tremendous thrower,” Hoke said.

On the defensive side of the ball, the Wolverines will switch to a 4-3 scheme instead of the 3-4 it ran last season.

Van Bergen said the biggest difference between Hoke and Rich Rodriguez is that Hoke “is more of a defensive-emphasis kind of coach.” He added that he felt Rodriguez had players out of position, and he likes the way Hoke has put an emphasis on both the offensive and defensive lines.

As for the Ohio State-Michigan game, Hoke was pleased when he found out it would remain on the schedule and that it was the last game of the season.

“It’s always played during the last Saturday of November, and that’s where it should be,” Hoke said. “There’s no bigger rivalry in sport than that game and having the game at end of the season.”

Iowa excited for new Nebraska rivalry

When news broke last summer that Nebraska would join the Big Ten, it meant more to Iowa than another formidable opponent within the conference.

“I think most people are excited,” coach Kirk Ferentz said. “Everybody’s enthused about what Nebraska brings to the Big Ten.”

It created a new rivalry game that will be up there with OSU and Michigan.

Ferentz said people have been asking for a game against Nebraska for years.

Linebacker Tyler Nielsen said he liked the nickname “Farmageddon” for the Iowa-Nebraska match up.

Iowa’s toughest hurdles to overcome this season are replacing Ricky Stanzi at quarterback, and finding depth at the battered running back position.

Quarterback James Vandenberg’s preparation impressed Ferentz, but Ferentz added that there is a short list of running backs arising in spring ball. Look for Marcus Coker to be the featured back so long as he can stay healthy.

Nebraska joins Big Ten; Bo Pelini returns to alma mater

The toughest challenge for any team in the Big Ten is given to Nebraska. While all other members of the conference may have to prepare for one new opponent, coach Pelini and his staff have to prepare for eight.

But Pelini does not plan on overhauling his game plan. He said he was not overly concerned with changing schemes toward which it plays.

“It’s more about playing good football,” he said. “It really comes down to executing your game plans to be a good football team. … I think it’s a way to measure yourself.”

On Oct. 8, Pelini hosts his alma mater OSU in Lincoln. Pelini played free safety for the Buckeyes from 1987 to 1990.

“Having played there and understanding the tradition and what that all entails, it’s going to be a heck of a challenge,” he said.

Nebraska linebacker Sean Fisher also spoke during the teleconference, and said he was excited to move to the Big Ten.

“I think it’s an extremely fortunate thing for us,” he said. “Not many people get to do this, and it gives you an opportunity to see some really cool places.”

Fisher and his younger brother, Cole, a freshman at Iowa, will face off in Lincoln on Nov. 25.

“Fortunately, he plays defense,” Fisher said, “so I won’t get to tackle him.”

Michigan State humble

After tallying a 7-1 record in the Big Ten last season, the Spartans had high expectations. Michigan State would have dominated the Legends Division, excluding Nebraska, winning it by three games against next-highest Iowa (4-4).

Many favor Michigan State to win the Legends Division this season, but coach Mark Dantonio is not quite ready to accept that label.

“We’re going to be in the hunt for things,” he said. “But to say we embrace the favorite, I don’t put a whole lot of stock in that.”

In October alone, the Spartans face a stretch against OSU, Michigan, Wisconsin and Nebraska.

“If you want to be best,” Dantonio said, “you have to play best.”

Although the schedule is extremely tough, he has been very impressed by his offensive and defensive lines this spring.

“The future looks bright, as bright as it ever has here, on the offensive line,” Dantonio said. “The nucleus of who we are as a football team is back.”

The leader of that nucleus is quarterback Kirk Cousins, whose comments showed his humility after many questioned the ability of Michigan State to succeed in consecutive seasons.

“We can’t rest on success, but work even harder. Guys who had success last season aren’t acting like they had success last season,” Cousins said.

Dantonio emphasized winning on the road, minimizing turnovers and staying poised as ways to repeat there successful 2010 season.

Minnesota looks to bounce back

New coach Jerry Kill has a slightly tougher task than Hoke in Michigan in order to bring the team back to the top of the conference.

The Golden Gophers were 2-6, placing them second to last in the Big Ten in 2010.

After beginning the season 1-9, Minnesota took home two solid wins, including a 27-24 victory against Iowa.

“We’re taking infant steps,” Kill said, “not baby steps.”

Keeping players accountable and improving the talent pool were most important in revitalizing the program, Kill said.

The big change is MarQueis Gray, a wide receiver for the Gophers last year, will be the starting quarterback.

“He’s learned very well,” Kill said. “He’s a very quick learner, he doesn’t make the same mistake twice and he’s a tremendous athlete.”

A bright spot for Minnesota: It does not have to face OSU for the next four seasons.

“As good as Ohio State is,” Kill said, “I guess I’m pretty happy about that.”

Dan Persa for Heisman

Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald said quarterback Persa was a Heisman candidate.

It is no secret Northwestern’s success revolves around Persa.

Some were uncertain of his availability this season after he tore his Achilles tendon late in a 21-17 win against Iowa last year.

Persa is not participating in spring football, but Fitzgerald said, “He’ll be clear to go for this fall.”

Although Fitzgerald did not seem all that convincing on the phone, Persa cleared all doubts quickly.

“I plan to be, at the latest, ready at the end of May,” Persa said.

The key to his fast recovery, Persa said, was having surgery just three hours after the injury.

Persa said he is not afraid to take off and run the ball in order to make a big play, but Fitzgerald feels he is not doing a good job protecting his body.

“Part of that’s on Dan,” he said. “He’s got to get down in time; he took some unnecessary hits.”

Persa remains on the sidelines, and he said he has played a coachlike role during his rehab.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan is causing a bit of a furor in the higher-education circuit.

The budget plan, a recent version of which bears the title “Path to Prosperity,” aims to moderate what some see as a catastrophic government debt by cutting numerous government programs, reducing spending, and redesigning Medicare. Regardless of partisan divides and opinions about the national debt (and deficit), ideological adversaries should agree on one thing: Any proposed cuts should not occur in programs that buoy people who are struggling.

Pell Grants, which provide financial assistance to low-income students, are one such program (Emily Inman, a member of the DI Editorial Board, receives a Pell Grant and did not participate in the discussion or writing of this editorial.) The federal grants provide up to $5,500 per year, on a sliding scale based on need, to college students nationwide. Pell Grants are not the singular cause of our fiscal problems, and cutting them is not the solution; the Editorial Board hopes that our U.S. representatives will resist the pressure from fevered peers to be “fiscally responsible” long enough to avoid slashing sensitive programs.

It would be the worst kind of blinkered partisanship to target only Ryan: Even President Obama’s proposed budget from February would remove year-round grants and exclude more students from receiving full awards. But Ryan’s proposal goes above and beyond; it would cut up to $850 from each students’ grant — money that many struggling students can’t replace.

Two U.S. representatives visiting Iowa City Monday mentioned Pell Grants. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., reminisced about paying $8 per credit hour when a DI reporter asked her about Ryan’s plan. “You can see there’s tremendous inflation in higher education,” she said, indicating a need for greater affordability. Bachmann did not, however, provide any substantive support of or opposition to Ryan’s plan.

Iowa’s Rep. David Loebsack, himself a recipient of Pell Grants, took a much stronger stance. He told the DI that he intended to fight for the grants that helped him succeed. “I worked hard for my education, but I also had a lot of help with financial aid,” he said.

Despite the specter of freeloaders imbedded in our national consciousness, many Pell Grant recipients would agree. Recipients of the grants, according to a 2009 study, are almost twice as likely to be financially independent and have their own dependents than students who don’t receive grants, even if they are about equally likely to hold full-time jobs. The vast majority of Pell Grant recipients in the 2009-10 school year made less than $30,000 per year; 70 percent of students who receive grants qualify for the complete award.

The grants have been expanded massively in the last few years, and the program is running a nearly continuous shortfall. Thus the reason for the proposed cuts: Pell Grants are proving unsustainable.

But broad cuts in awards can’t be the solution. The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last month that college lobbyists are pushing for any cuts necessary to be made not to awards but to the summer grants — something that echoes Obama’s plan. But if the federal education budget is suffering, perhaps other alternatives should be explored; an end, say, to a widely decried Race to the Top program ($900 million requested by Obama) could be a start, followed by a serious interrogation of the role of the federal Department of Education (how much federalization is really needed in academic standards?).

There is one other potential cost-saving measure: a Department of Education requirement that institutions that receive Pell Grants prove that they ready students for “gainful employment,” which aims to exclude for-profit colleges at the center of recent controversies. GOP lawmakers are attempting to fight this rule, passing a quick amendment in the U.S. House in February to prevent its enaction; this amendment was not included in the last-minute budget deal.

Attacks on Pell Grants hit home for many University of Iowa students. Approximately 20 percent of UI students receive federal financial aid through the Pell Grant program, which prevents them from having to take out costly loans. With student debt skyrocketing, rising tuition, and a shaky economy awaiting new graduates, Pell Grants are more important than ever.

There’s no word yet on the details of the budget deal considered by Congress this week, although Obama has said the Pell Grants are maintained at their current maximum value; students will have to wait to see if the 2012 budget makes any reductions in eligibility.

It may be tempting to heedlessly slash programs when vocal sections of the electorate are baying for (fiscal) blood. But serious evaluation must be conducted into both the necessity of these particular funding reductions, and the best method to cut costs. Students across America are relying on their federal legislators to duly investigate all options before shrinking programs.

Otherwise, like Ryan’s plan, they could damage those with the least ability to absorb a fiscal blow.

The problem with the Ivy League — and believe it or not, there are problems with it — is that graduating with a bachelor’s degree also comes with a smug sense of success. It makes us believe that gaining entrance into the Ivy League is an accomplishment unto itself.

From the first day of orientation until the last day of graduation, we are coddled with reassurances and showered with compliments from our friends, relatives and professors. Three years ago on the first day of orientation, Cornell’s Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences proudly boasted our school’s sinking acceptance rate, evidence that the Class of 2012 was the most gifted to enter these gates.

And our parents happily drank the Kool-Aid, believing that those plump acceptance packages were official affirmations of their exceptional parenting skills. “What great parents we are,” they must have thought, “Our child is in the Ivy League. The Ivy League!” 

During our time here, our self-delusion continued to be fueled. Our professors and advisors tell us that our courses are the most rigorous, the textbooks most comprehensive and our work ethics unmatched.

And these empty adulations have taken hold: We thoroughly believe that we are the crème de la crème of our generation.

We shamelessly self-promote our fabricated elitism. To the benefit of our school store, sweatshirts and t-shirts boldly printed with our school’s name have become staples of our wardrobe. And it is impossible to walk through a campus parking lot without seeing a Cornell decal. The most egregious example comes from the motto of our dining services: “Towering Above the Rest.”

Our school may promote a philosophy of accepting any student, but once given admittance, he is no longer just “any student.”

And finally at our graduation, we are again told that once we are unleashed from our campuses, we will be the leaders of tomorrow. Usually, graduation speakers share words of wisdom to the senior class, deriving insight from their personal hardships that will help us overcome our own troubles later in our lives.

But not in the Ivy League. Nancy Pelosi, Cornell’s 2010 graduation speaker, took the opportunity to reassure the senior class at the young and naïve age of 22 that they are well-equipped to handle the problems of the world and will eventually become tomorrow’s movers and shakers.

Rest easy, Cornellians, Pelosi told us: The hard part is over. Now that we have this degree, things will come easy and we will be the source of our country’s future prosperity.

Now, an inflated self-confidence isn’t a bad thing. For better or worse, it can produce some our most notable figures — Gates, Napoleon, Zuckerberg, Kim Jong-Il.

The problem comes when this sense of entitlement gives rise to a false belief of superiority. And make no mistake: Ivy Leaguers do believe that we are superior in every sense of the term, as evidenced by The Harvard Crimson’s editorial Monday. What has happened is that the Ivy League has become a brand rather than an education. Even worse, it has become a brand that partially defines our identities.

A recent trend in the past few years has been the prominence of Ivy League social networks. Just recently, invitations to join IvyDate.com flooded our inboxes. The website claims to connect “exceptional singles” who value “intellectual curiosity, love of learning, creativity, drive and determination,” as to imply that Ivy Leaguers and our peers can only mingle, date — and ultimately procreate — within our exclusive social circles. To the creators of IvyDate, everyone else is incapable of satiating our supposedly sophisticated intellectual palates.

But surely, we do not really believe that the 24,000 extremely lucky applications selected out of some 242,000 were the only ones worthy of admission, that the methods used by a hodgepodge team of admission officers were foolproof in deciding which high school senior is “better” than his peers? And we don’t really believe that the poor blokes who weren’t as lucky — and indubitably luck has come to play a larger role — are destined for lives of mediocrity?

Sure, we exhaust ourselves studying for exams and spend an inordinate number of hours in the library, but so does every student who possesses ambition and discipline, regardless of whether he attends Yale or State U.

Here’s a startling fact: According to a study by economists Stacey Dale and Alan Krueger ’83, those students who were rejected by elite schools — whatever that means — and went on to attend state schools earned just as much as their peers. According to the data, success is based on inherent character, not a four-year degree.

But do realize that by simply graduating from college, we join an elite group that comprises only 28 percent of the population in the U.S. and only 6.7 percent of the world’s population. Why Ivy Leaguers still feels a need to elevate ourselves further is a mystery.

Just like what the “Bourne” films did for the action film in the 2000s, “Hanna” redefines the action genre for the thinking man’s (or thinking girl’s) action film and is one of the best of the new decade.

The character Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) might look harmless with her fair skin, long blonde hair and bright, blue eyes, but inside that young, sweet and innocent exterior is a killer waiting to be tested. After all, “Adapt or die” is her life motto. Hanna is a 16-year-old girl trained to be the perfect assassin by her ex-CIA agent father Erik (Eric Bana). Though Erik and Hanna have everything they need living in the forests of Finland, Hanna yearns to experience the real world. But yearning for the real world also means that the two will have to face an old threat from Marissa (a terrific Cate Blanchett). Erik sends Hanna on a mission throughout Europe that leaves her with questions about the world and her very existence.

“Hanna” is an action film with an art house twist. A terrific cast with top-notch talent like Blanchett, Bana and especially 16-year-old Ronan make the film something more than your average action thriller. Blanchett is deliciously evil as one of the most enjoyable action film villains in years in her role as a ruthless intelligence officer. Blanchett masterfully plays her character with as much depth as possible.

The ultimate praise has to go to “Hanna” herself, Ronan, who commands every scene with presence. A cast of colorful characters sprinkled throughout. Notable standouts include a bratty teenager that befriends Hanna (Jessica Barden), an openminded mother (Olivia Williams) and a flamboyant German assassin who tracks down Hanna throughout her journeys (Tom Hollander). But as great as the acting is, the directing is so precise and well maintained throughout the film that Joe Wright’s work can be appreciated in every shot. Wright knows how to compose a shot to tell as much of a story as possible, which helps keep the film from being bogged down in too much unnecessary exposition dialogue that ruins most assassin/espionage films. Though “Hanna” is only Wright’s fourth film, Wright is proving his versatility as a director, having tackled the period costume drama with the recent “Pride and Prejudice,” romance with “Atonement” and contemporary drama with “The Soloist.”

One of the most notable elements of the film is the soundtrack. The film’s music, by The Chemical Brothers, is one of the most dynamic soundtracks since last year’s Oscar-winning score for “The Social Network”. The music balances harsh electronica and light techno fare all while complementing Hanna’s journey of kicking ass and discovering the world for the first time with childlike wonderment.

While every scene is a feast for the eyes and ears, “Hanna” is far from perfect. The pacing of the film can be stop-and-go at times and some of the details of Hanna’s very existence is often brushed off or rushed in exchange for more action sequences and coming-of-age story details. Even the family that Hanna finds herself with has less than realistic reactions to Hanna’s behavior. Despite its minor flaws, Hanna is definitely an adrenaline ride worth catching and admiring as an action film for the new millennium.

A study conducted by USC Professor and senior author Caleb Finch found that freeway pollution resulted in significant neuron damage for mice.

This was the first study to explore the physical effect of freeway pollution on brain cells.

In the study mice were exposed to a synthetic combination of floating freeway matter. The mice were exposed for up to 15 hours per week, which is similar to the experience of L.A. commuters, who may spend up to three hours per day on the freeway.

The results were the same for neurons in test tubes as in the live mice: brain cells showed damage to learning and memory, signs of premature aging and stunted cell growth.

“ You can’ t see them, but they are inhaled and have an effect on brain neurons that raises the possibility of long-term brain health consequences of freeway air,” Finch told the Los Angeles Times.

The pollutive particles may be invisible, but the health risk is still readily apparent to USC students.

“When I came to L.A. from NorCal I immediately noticed the difference in air quality,” said Alicia Anguiano, a junior majoring in political science and history. “Sometimes going north on the 110 towards downtown I can’ t even see the skyline — it’ s covered in smog. And I just think, it can’ t be healthy for kids to grow up in this environment.”

Solutions to the problem are hard to find, according to Finch, because even if we decrease the local concentration of these particles, we live in a larger environment that contributes to the pollution anyway.

With its goal to end the negative impact of federally assisted farming, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG) launched yesterday its “Stop Subsidizing Obesity” campaign at Brower Commons on the College Avenue campus.

NJPIRG’s campaign focuses on ending federal subsidies of corn and soy to large factory farms, as NJPIRG campus organizer Katryn Fraher said this causes production of cheap unhealthy foods consumers choose over healthy choices.

“This amount of consumption has contributed a lot to the obesity epidemic, which has quadrupled in the last 40 years,” said Gideon Weissman, program associate for NJPIRG.

The abundant production of corn leads to a greater production of corn syrup, allowing unhealthy food to be sold cheaper than healthy alternatives, he said.

“[Subsidies] make it cheaper to sell Twinkies instead of carrots,” Fraher said.

Ankur Chauhan, event organizer, said consuming these products could lead not just to obesity but also to other health issues.

“When these children grow up, they won’t have a lot of nutrition in their body, which means that they will have a lot of deficiencies,” said Chauhan, School of Arts and Sciences junior. “Deficiencies in their eyes, liver and other organs will cause problems for them in the future.”

Chauhan cited the danger of having too much sugar, like high fructose corn syrup, in a diet.

“Too much sugar can lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes,” he said.

During NJPIRG’s launch, people played a version of the game “The Price is Right,” and members collected signatures to garner more public support and raise awareness on the issue, Fraher said.

“I plan on going to med school and if I can help control this issue now, then it won’t proceed any further when I become a doctor,” Chauhan said.

Weissman said he did not believe there were any strong arguments supporting subsidies on agriculture.

“Subsidies had a use when they were first implemented 30 to 40 years ago, but now they’re just overused,” he said.

Weissman said the argument supporting how subsidies help small farmers was incorrect.

“Ninety percent of agricultural subsidies go to big factory farms and not to local farmers,” he said.

Fraher said she recognizes buying food is a personal choice but believes many people do not have that option.

“If somebody cannot afford healthier food, of course they’ll buy the cheaper food, which unfortunately is unhealthy,” she said.

Chauhan said people should understand where their money is going.

For instance, Fraher cited wasteful subsidies given in past years, like when Domino’s Pizza received $12 million to advertise their cheesier pizza.

“These subsidies are federal subsidies, it’s basically taxpayer money,” Chauhan said. “It’s being used to allow Oreos to be cheaper than bananas.”

Weissman said he believes cutting subsidies would be more beneficial than cutting spending on what people need like federal Pell grants and food and water inspections.

“The recent budget compromise, H.R. [House Bill] 1 included some cuts, but it’s not enough for us to be happy,” he said.

Weissman said the timeliness of discussion in Congress about reducing government spending benefited NJPIRG’s cause.

“The campaign makes sense right now because we want to cut spending,” he said. “We have a great opportunity to cut these unhealthy subsidies right now.”

Students may want to think more carefully about cheating on homework assignments or using the answer key for practice tests.

Although cheating may be beneficial in the short run for receiving higher grades or quickly gaining answers and reassurance, a recent study by Duke University and Harvard Business School researchers titled “Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception” has shown that cheating gives students false confidence in their abilities.

“The real questions are about what we call self-deception,” said Dan Ariely, co-author of the paper and James B. Duke professor of behavioral economics. “When we lie, how quickly [do we]… convince ourselves that we’re not really lying?”

Subjects from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were split into two groups to take a test, with one of the two groups receiving an answer key for the purpose of checking their answers after finishing. As expected by the researchers, the group with access to the answer key got higher scores than the group that did not, said Michael Norton, co-author of the paper and associate professor of business administration at Harvard.

The subjects were then asked to predict how they would do on a second test without an answer key. The group that previously had the answers expected to continue their superior performance, but the two groups’ scores were nearly identical on the second test.

“The [group with the answer key doesn’t] seem to be acknowledging that they’re cheating, although we can show that they are,” said Zoe Chance, a co-author of the paper and a graduate student at Harvard. “So the implications are that it’s pretty dangerous to not realize you’re cheating because then you won’t be able to [correct the behavior].”

The subjects very quickly convinced themselves that their performance on the first test was due to their actual ability rather than cheating, Ariely said. Furthermore, when they were given a certificate of their false accomplishments on the first test, they seemed to think even more highly of themselves and how they would perform on the next test, he added.

This research applies to students who use study aids or practice tests with answers to help them study for tests, Chance said. Even if a student is not actually cheating but just looking for answers in a book studying with a friend, they may not accurately understand how well they comprehend the material.

Even students who do well on homework and usually receive good grades often blame test anxiety for performing poorly on exams, including the SATs and GMATs, Chance said. On practice tests, many of these students will look up a few questions or give themselves the benefit of the doubt when they score. Their poor grades on exams may be due to giving themselves more credit than they really deserved when preparing, Chance said.

The next step in this research is going to evaluate the long-term effects of cheating, Norton said.

“Once you’ve deceived yourself, how much does the world need to tell you you’re wrong before you stop deceiving yourself? That’s what we’re going to do next,” Norton said.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and we cannot exaggerate its importance to our community.

Though many of us go without considering it, sexual assault is an alarming truth on college campuses. One in four women on college campuses will experience some form of sexual assault within their four years of attendance. Because of this, we must use April to assess just how safe our environment is and figure out what we can do to make our community a place where sexual assault is uncommon and reduce our chances of being sexually assaulted.

The safety of our community lies in our hands, and we cannot allow sexual assault to continue to be an unspoken truth within the Eugene community.

This month, the ASUO Women’s Center and Men’s Center will host several events, including April 28’s Take Back the Night, to challenge our community to think more critically about sexual assault and its discomforting prevalence on our campus. We should do what we can to support our peers in their efforts by attending some of these events and talking with our friends about these issues. Even those who aren’t survivors of sexual assault should be aware of how it impacts those who are.

The fight for sexual wellness doesn’t stop in April. The Women’s Center, Men’s Center and other groups such as the Sexual Wellness Advocacy Team make efforts year-round to make our campus safer. Ultimately, it comes down to our entire population making smarter decisions and looking out for one another.

One of the most important places for us to start being more aware is at parties. Environments involving alcohol are a common setting for sexual violence — at least 50 percent of student sexual assaults involve alcohol, and 75 percent of male students involved in date rape had been using alcohol. There is nothing wrong with having a good time on the weekend and responsibly drinking with friends and peers. We have to understand, however, that in doing so we increase our risk of falling victim to sexual violence. We should consider it our responsibility to protect one another in these high-risk environments by supervising how much we drink, looking out for any signs of forceful action and traveling in groups.

But even then we are not immune, and it can still happen — the National Center for Victims of Crime reported 73 percent of female victims are sexually assaulted by people they know.

If you are ever sexually assaulted, the worst thing you can do is nothing. Though you may feel embarrassed or afraid nobody will believe you, it is important to tell your close friends, family and the authorities, so you know you are not alone and there are people here for you.

Local resources for sexual assault survivors include the University Counseling and Testing Center (541-346-3227), the University Health Center (541-346-2770) and the Sexual Assault Support Services (541-343-7277). They are here to ensure that you can get through these trying times in the most healthy fashion possible and that you receive any help you need.

The prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses today is totally unacceptable. An environment where 25 percent of women will be sexually assaulted shows students and universities aren’t doing enough to protect women from assault and violence.

This Sexual Assault Awareness Month, let’s work together to make this campus a safer place for everyone.