Why it’s so difficult to eat well in college, and what you can do to better your diet

The post Opinion: “I think I might have scurvy” — college students’ lack of nutrition appeared first on CU Independent.

Opinions do not necessarily represent the staff of CU Independent or any of its sponsors.

Fall is upon us again, and with it comes changing leaf colors, cooling temperatures and, of course, internship application deadlines.

While perusing the options of potential internships, it’s impossible to ignore the increasing amount of unpaid positions available for the taking. Many students are required to participate in an internship before graduating, so the appeal of snagging any internship — paid or not — is tempting; not to mention that companies are good at making their positions sound worthwhile despite the lack of paycheck.

Obviously, accepting an unpaid position is something to consider financially. There are some questions you should ask yourself before applying for the gig. For example, will you have enough money saved up to buy a bottle of wine and a box of cookies after a particularly stressful day on the job?

Likewise, is the internship even legal?

While I don’t have the answer to the former question, the answer to the latter is likely no.

The Fair Labor Standards Act under the U.S. Department of Labor created a test to determine when it is fair to not compensate an intern. The test has six criteria that must be met in order to render an intern without pay.

1. The internship must be similar to training given in an education environment.
2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern.
3. The intern works under close supervision of existing staff, not taking the place of a regular worker.
4. The employer providing the training gets no immediate advantage from the intern’s activities; sometimes the employer might even be inconvenienced.
5. The intern is not necessarily guaranteed a job at the end of the internship.
6. It is agreed upon by the intern and the employer that the intern will not receive pay.

If all six are met, then the internship does not exist under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Act’s standards of having to pay interns at least minimum wage and overtime compensation do not apply to the position.

That’s kind of difficult criteria to meet, though. I don’t know too many companies that would seek additional help from an intern if no immediate advantages from the intern’s activities were benefitting the employer. While an internship may be necessary to graduate, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that paying for an extra course for school credit to do free labor is much of a benefit on the intern’s behalf.

That’s not to say that internships are not enriching experiences if unpaid. I would hope that interns are learning, growing and becoming more experienced in whatever field they are studying. However, with companies eager for cheap — or free — laborers and students eager to load up their resumes, it seems as though there’s a black market of internships out there that are hiring bright-eyed students to do the work of otherwise paid employees for nothing more than a letter of recommendation and, if you’re lucky, a free donut from time to time.

Just because an employer is prestigious or the opportunity sounds too great to pass up — such as the White House Internship Program, which is unpaid — does not make it an acceptable unpaid position. If you are able to afford wage-less work, that is wonderful, but those who are not in a financial position to support themselves with no income end up losing out on opportunities, setting them even further behind in the race to land a good career in the future.

Essentially, unpaid internships are proponents of that whole “the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer” factor with companies getting work done for free, well-off students getting experience and those who are financially struggling having to pass up internship opportunities.

While I could wag my finger at employers taking advantage of job-hungry college kids, I will instead do something that might actually make a difference and warn students to think twice before jumping aboard the unpaid internship wagon.

Contact CU Independent Opinions Editor Lizzy Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu or @literally_lizzy.

Opinions do not necessarily represent the staff of CU Independent or any of its sponsors.

Aren’t government shutdowns the worst?

I mean, I can’t get my nature on in a bunch of national parks, I’m still expected to attend school and the animal web cams at the National Zoo have been turned off, for crying out loud!

The United States Capitol Building. (James Bradbury/CU Independent File)

Oh, and 800,000 federal employees are out of work. The other 1.3 million federal workers who are considered essential employees and have not been sent home may or may not get paid “eventually.” The National Institutes of Health in Maryland, a clinic that admits hundreds of patients every week seeking new clinical trials, is forced to deny new patients. It would have accepted 200 this week, with 30 of those being children and ten being children with cancer. The Women, Infants, and Children program—a program that helps about nine million Americans buy healthy food, educate themselves on nutritional information and assist them in getting medical referrals—will be cut from the Department of Agriculture’s funding. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be able to provide “minimal support to protect the health and well-being of U.S. citizens.”

These are just a few of the affected departments and programs. All of the chaos, misfortune and life-debilitating obstacles that are being dumped onto the American people must be unavoidable because there’s no way a sane body of government would let this happen unless it was absolutely necessary, right?

Well, actually, this could be reversed rather easily, in theory. The government shut down because Congress can’t agree on federal government funding. Once they agree, the government can resume. The minor obstacle getting in the way is that the Democrat-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House must come to a decision together.

In other words, we might never have a government again.

The silly thing is that it’s not so much the budget in question as it is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The House Republicans won’t pass a budget unless it delays Obamacare. As a reminder, Obamacare was already passed three years ago, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it last year. Essentially, the House is holding the country at ransom until it gets what it wants, which is to delay and defund a bill they don’t like that has already been passed fair and square.

Don’t worry, though. While the U.S. and its citizens suffer through the consequences of a government shutdown, Congress will continue to receive pay for doing absolutely nothing other than making themselves look more stubborn than a sleep-deprived two-year old.

It’s clear that the House refuses to listen to the Senate, the Supreme Court or the President, but maybe they’ll listen to me.

Dearest House, this nation is not a game of Monopoly; you can’t just flip the board over mid-game because you think you’re going to lose. This country is not supposed to be governed by personal ideologies; it is governed by a system of checks and balances that did not turn out the way you had hoped this time.

Pout all you want, but don’t put the people you govern in jeopardy.

Contact CU Independent Opinions Editor Lizzy Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu. 

Opinions do not necessarily represent the staff of CU Independent or any of its sponsors.

Arguably, Colorado’s greatest appeal is the natural splendor that blesses the state. Both locals and travelers alike flock here to take advantage of our natural wonders and all they have to offer: skiing, mountain biking, rock climbing, hiking, river rafting and more. From its purple mountain majesties to its amber waves of grain, Colorado is clearly the favorite child of Mother Nature.

It is for these reasons that the Colorado floods feel like a betrayal; they are a somber reminder that what Mother Nature giveth, she can also take away.

Local Boulderites sit out above the flooding Boulder Creek. (Gray Bender/CU Independent)

As of early Monday morning, Boulder broke its all-time annual precipitation record. The total rainfall in September amounts to 17.7 inches, bringing the yearly total to 30.13 inches. The previous yearly record was 29.93 inches from 1995.

Boulder County officials said the number of people unaccounted for is 235 as of Sunday night. In all of Colorado, that number rises to 1,254. Despite the photos of students frolicking in muddy waters and stocking up on alcohol to take advantage of the days campus was closed, it is important to remember that this disaster was not a much-appreciated long weekend.

This is a historic, 100-year flood.

While it is wonderful to see students, in true Colorado fashion, make the best of a bad situation, it is important to reflect upon the gravity of this weekend’s events.

While to some the floods may have just been an annoying series of sirens and CU alert texts and emails that kept them up all night, to others it meant evacuation, ruined homes and possessions, safety hazards and worry. Many in other areas of Colorado are still facing frightening circumstances.

Although the rains have rocked our state, I’m confident we’ll float on okay. If nature is our first draw, Colorado’s next appeal must be its people and their generous, hopeful, hard-working hearts.

Natural disasters are particularly difficult to accept because with them comes so much destruction, yet nobody to blame. As humans, placing blame is one of our most beloved pastimes. With no scapegoat in sight, let’s turn our pointed fingers into helping hands, and show some respect for our resilient state.

Contact CU Independent Opinions Editor Lizzie Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu. 

Opinions do not represent CU Independent or any sponsors.

According to a 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 87 percent of U.S. households are now equipped with air conditioning.

A pool of sweat and tears that has accumulated on my keyboard made it difficult to type that cruel statistic.

Studying outside is often be more pleasant than a stifling dorm room. (Amy Leder/CU Independent File)

Like many students in Boulder, I am without air conditioning and, consequentially, without moisture content in my body. I hail from the Las Vegas desert, so I am no lightweight in the face of heat. However, even us Las Vegans who recreationally sun bathe in 120-degree temperatures more than likely have the luxury of returning to an air conditioned home.

I am unsure who thought it would be cool (pun absolutely intended) to do away with air conditioners in certain homes despite consistent 90-degree days, but I assume he or she figured that installing the units would be too expensive for student occupants. College living spaces aren’t a big priority for landlords and property management companies, especially when financially established homeowners could install it later.

After all, young people are troopers, right? They survive solely off of ramen and pumpkin spice lattes, so what’s a little heat added into the equation?

Most residence halls on campus don’t boast air conditioning, either. It would seem that Boulder has a thing for sweaty students.

Sophomore marketing and operations management major Mark Yabut is yearning for cooler days in his second year living in Buckingham Hall at CU’s Kittredge Complex.

“Its hard to concentrate on homework and studying because I keep having to wipe off my sweat every other second,” Yabut said. “I wish CU would at least provide fans for the study rooms in the residence halls. It’s the least they can do for having us pay so much.”

Holly Moran, a senior communications major, had a scare this summer when the heat in her Goss-Grove home caused her to feel physically ill.

“I was downing water and trying to stay cool, but I started to get dizzy and felt like I was going to pass out.” Moran said. “I had to sit down in a freezing shower for a while before I felt okay again.”

Who doesn’t love a nice sit in a freezing shower? In my case, it’s a lavish bed of towels on the first floor of my two-story apartment because — as my elementary school science teacher taught me — heat rises. I fear that sleeping in my upstairs bedroom will result in a Sylvia Plath-esque “died in an oven” kind of thing.

Not only is living in a home sweet sauna generally uncomfortable, but it’s also proven detrimental to sleep. In two decades of research, doctors have generally found that the ideal temperature to fall asleep in is between 60 and 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Apparently, a drop in body temperature increases sleepiness or something, but I don’t need science to tell me that trying to fall asleep when it feels like your body is about to burst into flames can be tricky.

Hey, at least you’ll have a better excuse the next time you fall asleep in class. “Sorry, professor. I don’t have air conditioning, and, you know, science.”

Maybe if all the Buffs deprived of air conditioning coordinate a simultaneous heat stroke, the City of Boulder will address this flagrant disregard for human decency. All you cool-air elitists are rolling your eyes in your nice, 60-68-degree homes. If you wouldn’t mind, could you roll them faster to get a draft blowing my way? I appreciate it.

In the meantime, I’m going to flop onto my towel bed and try not to combust.

Contact CU Independent Opinions Editor Lizzy Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu.

Being a journalism major is wonderful because professors, ignorant students, friends, family members, people you meet on the bus, people you meet at dinner parties, people you meet walking home from Pearl at 2 a.m. and even fellow journalists are constantly telling you that your degree is useless.

Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano speaking at Spring Commencement May 11, 2012 in Boulder, Colo. (James Bradbury/CU Independent File)

I’m used to the whole “you’re wasting your parent’s money, you poor, delusional child. Why don’t you study a field that isn’t dying a slow and painful death?” I know when to argue back and when to bite my tongue and wait until I get home to angrily blog about the situation. My journalism major has made me thick-skinned to such criticisms.

However, there’s a trending topic going around the water cooler that college in general is a waste of money, and to this I have to ask: would you suits standing around that water cooler honestly hire me without a degree?

Listen, I’m a first generation college student. I know that you can be extremely successful without a college degree. In fact, half of college graduates aren’t even using their degree in their place of employment, so why bother? An equally inspiring statistic from a 2011 U.S. government current population survey states that 56.3 percent of all college graduates under 25 are either out of work or underemployed, so why take on accumulating years of student loans and accruing interest on something that’s not even going to reward you with a job?

Well, according to an analysis by Burning Glass, a company that analyzes online job ads, a college degree is necessary for even the lowest level of jobs these days. Jobs such as human resources managers, security managers, school administrators and property managers appear on the list of occupations with the largest percentage increase in requiring a college degree.

While the roles in most of these positions remain, essentially, the same as they always have, the hiring process is different. A college degree, while not necessary to complete the tasks necessary to do the work, differentiates candidates much like a high GPA and well-written essay differentiate high school students seeking universities in the first place. Ah, the circle of a life in which we are required to jump through endless hoops to stay afloat.

What I’m gathering from this information is that those privileged enough to have secure, well-paying careers are so kindly trying to figure out what others are doing wrong. Anyone mildly cognizant can deduce that college tuition is sucking students and their families into a deficit black hole. Therefore, some genius in a corner office had a light bulb moment one day and said, “Wait a second. What if…those who would be financially burdened by college just…didn’t go!”

Eureka! Brilliant deduction!

So brilliant that I would like to personally thank this genius in a corner office for figuring out that college is a complete waste of my time and money. While I’m there, I might as well bring my resume and portfolio because I sure would like to work for someone so forward thinking.

Wait, a closer look at the job requirements tells me that I need a college degree to even apply. So…you’re telling me I shouldn’t go to college because it’s worthless, but nobody in my field will hire me unless I go to college.

I see.

I understand that going to college is not for everyone. I know that I am overwhelmingly lucky to have the opportunity to attend a university. What frustrates me is the hypocrisy. Do not belittle the years I have worked toward obtaining a degree by casting them off as a poor decision and then proceed to make that “poor decision” the standard for which I can be considered a job applicant.

Instead, I implore the working world to own up to their demands. I’m not asking for a miraculous yet warranted decline in tuition—equivalent to asking for the pot of gold at the end of rainbow. I’m not even asking for an altering of requirements that would allow applicants without a college degree to apply for jobs they were once able to.

I’m simply asking for corporate America to say, “Yup. We fully understand that college is vastly overpriced. We’re going to make you go anyway whether the job you’re applying for truly requires it or not, solely because we can. Your degree is not worthless. It is leverage.”

I’m sure I’ll get my wish.

Contact CU Independent Opinions Editor Lizzie Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu. 

Opinions do not necessarily represent the staff of CU Independent or any of its sponsors.

Amidst the endless descending of spring snowstorms, I have found myself extremely disappointed in the way the university’s administration has been handling these chilly circumstances. The driving conditions are dangerous, I can’t wear the cute spring clothes I recently purchased, and I’m a walking death-by-icicle-impalement target with each class I am forced to attend. These conditions deeply disturb me, and, frankly, I think I speak for the whole school when I say that the spring snow is a university disturbance that needs to be handled by school officials.

If I were the administration, I would begin with warning emails informing the student body that any signs of snow warrant strict campus closure. These emails would be foreboding and authoritative because, as I have previously described, this is an extremely serious matter. Students will be encouraged to stay home and off of school grounds where the frosty disturbances would be taking place.

Snow blankets the trails of Chautauqua Park after an unusual spring snow storm Tuesday April 9, 2013 in Boulder, Colo. (Nate Bruzdzinski/CU Independent)

Once students are warned, if snow occurs, I expect cops stationed at every entrance of campus making sure that no student squeaks by. “It’s too cold,” the police would announce. “Go home.”

Perhaps the university could invest in some distractions to keep students from causing a frigid ruckus. Maybe they could arrange for a concert to be put on with an artist just irrelevant enough to seem ironic and quirky to attend his show. I’ve heard this tactic has worked well in the past. With students at the concert, they would be less likely to cause a liability through icicle homicide or frostbite.

Now, I know that the school year is almost over and that finals are upon us, but that does not make the sinister threat of spring snowstorms any less prevalent. For as long as the snow pours, the school must shut its doors. It’s really a matter of safety.

Because I don’t see the school taking such actions, I think it’s time we, as a proactive student body, take a stand.

I’m calling for a protest on Norlin Quad. Let’s all gather in our North Faces and collectively shiver. Any traces of a fish fertilizer smell on the grass will be overpowered by the scent of thermoses full of hot chocolate. News crews and photographers will go wild as our water vaporous breath creates a looming, white cloud that hovers over the entirety of our campus.

Our university administrators will hang their heads in shame, as CU goes down in history as the college that refused to give extremely warranted snow days.

Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Lizzy Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu. 

It’s a true privilege to attend college at the University of Colorado. As students, we are challenged daily to think critically, to grapple with different ideas and to learn to formulate our own. And what is so wonderful about this environment is that while we all have different thoughts, we are given a space to speak them freely. We may not always agree with each other, but we can be thankful that we are allowed to hear a myriad of viewpoints to help us gain an appreciation for multiple perspectives, as well as a better understanding of our own. Freedom of speech is essential to this atmosphere, which is why we should be critical of the administration’s attempt to lock down the campus once more to prevent this free speech event.

A rasta-colored Colorado state flag soars above the crowd on April 20, 2012. (Nate Bruzdzinski/CU Independent)

The 4/20 event is a chance to raise serious issues, making it worth a space on our campus. The way in which we relate to drugs, the question of their legal status, and the high incarceration rate due to current drug policies are all major issues that deserve serious contemplation.

The gathering raises awareness of these issues through a large assembly of people who advocate for marijuana. Part of the assembly has included small acts of civil disobedience in past years, with the most notable being the people who have smoked marijuana even though it was illegal. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado since last year’s event, but it is still illegal to smoke it public. The free speech practiced in this assembly certainly comes in a different form than, say, a classroom discussion, but it is, nonetheless, an expression that should be protected at all costs to ensure the vibrant exchange of ideas on our campus.

I realize that there are many students and faculty who think that 4/20 is nothing more than a group of stoners invading CU’s campus and tarnishing the school’s image, but such concerns should be put in perspective. Students and faculty have every right to be upset that their school is written off as a “party school” in part because of such gatherings. It certainly doesn’t feel good to think that your school is known for people lighting up on the quad. Nor is it pleasant to think that when the media write off CU, the public misses so many of the good qualities the school has to offer.

I would urge, however, that we not let concerns over image lead us to encourage actions that actually undermine the quality of our education. The U.S.  Constitution guarantees freedom of speech in its first amendment, and the University of Colorado is a public institution funded by federal and local tax money. Our university is an essential institution to a functioning democracy, and it is imperative that freedom of expression be allowed so it can serve us best as citizens.

The claims being made about the 4/20 event by the CU administration seemed reasonable at first, but the truth is they don’t justify the police state-style ID checks and massive law enforcement presence. The administration claims that such an event could interfere with safety on campus. It isn’t unfair for the administration to want to maintain a healthy campus atmosphere that promotes a sober, learning-centered environment. Yet as student government executive Tyler Quick pointed out, CU allows the open consumption of alcohol on campus at tailgating parties before football games, and alcohol is a dangerous drug, as well. If they can trust students to make responsible choices about alcohol, surely they can trust us to be adults about our marijuana choices. A letter from CU’s Chancellor DiStefano also claimed requiring ID’s and creating a large police presence will “ensure that the business of the campus continues without being materially disrupted.”

Isn’t being challenged with opinions and ideas that are different from our own the essence of “the business of campus?” The real disruption isn’t in having active citizens come to the quad; it’s in having the campus in an almost militarized lockdown.

I urge all CU students, workers and faculty to support the right of fellow citizens to make a statement on our campus, even if you do not agree with the message or the means. Whatever your opinion on the protest, remember that you have as much right to your freedom of speech as those who will join us on campus on April 20. You have every right to bring signs denouncing everyone who smokes weed, just as you have the option of simply walking to class—or, more likely, the library, since the event will be on a Saturday—and ignoring the event. But please don’t be so misguided as to believe that because you disagree with this action, it is okay for the administration to shut it down entirely. The planned actions of the administration constitute a blatant overreaction to a protest, at best, and a stifling of free speech at worst. Let’s make a better statement: CU as a whole cares more about protecting freedom of expression and fostering an inclusive atmosphere than it does about ticketing people for minor drug offenses.

Contact CU Guest Writer  Nate Banfield at Nathan.banfield@colorado.edu. 

The opinions represented in this article do not necessarily represent those of the staff of CU Independent nor any of its sponsors.

It is that time of the semester, again. The time when you thought the insistent nagging of “have you voted for student government, yet?” was over.

Well, as the Grumpy Cat would say, “no.”

There are a lot of choices ahead of you as a voter. But the biggest choice is who do you want representing your voice? To me, the choice was clear: INSPIRE for CUSG. As a past representative of ASSG and former Representative at Large of CUSG, let me explain.

Abraham Lincoln once stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” CU’s House would surely be divided under the UNITE ticket.

Why? Not once do I recall having a representative or supporter from UNITE come to College Republican meetings, contact us, or reach out to us. This seems to be an attempt to isolate our voice and not allow us to have a say in the campus political discourse.

College Republicans may not be popular, but we are woven into the fabric of this campus community. We are students too. This is something that UNITE for CUSG seems to conveniently forget.

Apart from including College Republicans in the discussion, I trust that the student leaders of INSPIRE will do the right thing and keep the CU House unified.

After all, if they can get both College Democrats and College Republicans to support them, they are on the right track for bringing diverse and, often conflicting, groups together. This accomplishment is something that not even our current political system and national leaders can achieve.

If you believe in inclusion, openness and fairness in our campus, like me, then I hope you would join me this week in supporting INSPIRE for CUSG.

Contact CU Independent Guest Writer Aslinn Scott at Aslinn.scott@colorado.edu.

After Hillary Clinton recently announced her support of gay marriage, many felt as though the likelihood of her joining the 2016 presidential election was solidified. So much so that the political action committee “Ready For Hillary” officially launched its new website.

(Josh Shettler/CU Independent Illustration)

The possibility of a female candidate’s name appearing on the 2016 ballot is a real, plausible occurrence, and that’s a really big deal. In fact, it’s disheartening how much of a big deal it actually is as it emphasizes the overwhelming constraints placed on women in the year 2013—a time when robots and computers ingrained in our glasses exist, but a female is just now MAYBE being considered a legitimate presidential candidate.

Because many American’s social ideologies remain stuck in the 1950s when gender roles were at their trendiest, the debate surrounding this topic often drifts from if Hillary Clinton would make a good president to if a woman, in general, would make a good president.

Aside from the whole “we live in a patriarchal society, and this is just the way it is” aspect of things, a common argument against a female president is that women are emotionally unstable, overly sensitive and hormonally hindered. What if a female president was PMS-ing hardcore and arbitrarily declared war on Canada because she ran out of maple syrup? Thank goodness our rational men have stepped in and reigned for the last 200-something years; they surely have avoided unnecessary wars or anything condemnable, really.

Reinforcing a stereotype that women are fragile, hysterical creatures is ignorant and easy. Although even if an elected female leader proved to be more sensitive in nature, I see nothing wrong with some political compassion. What is most frustrating is the double standard present in politics that applies to male and female politicians.

Take John Boehner, for example. John Boehner is Speaker of the House, and he cries a lot. He cried when he was elected Speaker of the House. He cried during a ceremony honoring Arnold Palmer at the capitol.  He cried while giving a commencement address at Ohio State University.  He cried presenting a Congressional Gold Medal to Neil Armstrong. He’s cried in television interviews, at statue unveilings and even at a St. Patrick’s Day Luncheon. While some have mocked the man for shedding tears publicly so frequently, others applaud him for being “real” and wearing his heart on his sleeve.

I’m not knocking anyone for letting a few tears slip. Emotions happen. But can you imagine what would happen if Hillary Clinton was known for crying so often? She wouldn’t be a potential presidential candidate; I can assure you that much.

In the few instances in which Clinton has shed tears, the act of her crying ended up receiving more attention and analysis than anything she was actually saying. Articles declaring whether they thought her tears were helpful or hurtful to her as a politician surfaced like wildfire. Instead of being a harmless additional detail or laughable punch-line like Boehner’s tears invoke, Mrs. Clinton’s tears defined her.

To be taken seriously in a male-dominated job—in a male-dominated society, no less—women must depict themselves as stoic beings that have overcome their terrible biological tendencies to feel or emote.

If 2016 rolls around without adequate female representation on the ballot, maybe I’ll give in to my own genetically-manufactured wild instability and see if I can get in on the race. I’ll whine and cry and bake goodies until I’m sworn into office, and all I can say is, someone better keep my cabinet stocked with syrup or Canada gets it.

Contact CU Independent Opinions Editor Lizzie Hernandez at Elizabeth.hernandez@colorado.edu.