In a bittersweet turn of events, the University of Maine has somehow found itself an outlier in a developing story of college-reopenings-turned-outbreaks across the country. The New York Times reported on Saturday that there have been rising infection rates in about 100 college communities across the country, meanwhile UMaine’s case count tallied out to eight at the end of the first week of classes. While this early outcome is encouraging, students must continue to rise to the occasion to prevent the Orono and Old Town communities from becoming another demerit on a list of failures. 

When discussing the responsibilities that students bear in the new pandemic reality, it is important to recognize that they are not just beholden to the university, but also to the Orono, Old Town and Penobscot Nation communities that would be at the greatest risk if there were to be an outbreak. Naturally, many individuals in these communities are concerned and even alarmed at the prospect of the campus reopening, such as Roberta Bradson, owner of The Store Ampersand in Orono. During an interview with WABI back in August, Bradson remarked that her business does not depend on college students and expressed concerns that the influx of thousands of people from out of state might actually scare away many of her older customers.  

Despite these concerns, many other individuals in the community recognize that students and university events are vital pieces of the local economy. In another interview with WABI, The Family Dog owner Luke Wardwell acknowledged that businesses like his “need college to get through our year.” 

As if the economic pressures were not enough, much of the burden has been put on these local businesses to make sure that patrons are abiding by Gov. Janet Mills’ executive orders and Orono’s ordinance on social distancing. The emergency ordinance, passed by Orono’s town council on Aug. 26, requires that individuals wear facemasks while in indoor public spaces and when closer than six feet to others while outdoors. The ordinance is a direct reaction to local anxieties regarding the arrival of students, as it also requires that off-campus housing complexes, such as The Ave, Orchard Trails and The Reserve, create COVID-19 prevention plans and submit them to the town. 

Some students might argue that they should be allowed to socialize more, that on-campus policies shouldn’t be so strict. Maine has one of the lowest positive test rates in the country, and after the university’s successful first two phases of testing one could be forgiven for thinking they might let their guard down. 

New York also had a very low infection rate, right around 1%, and some students at the State University of New York at Oneonta thought they could let their guard down. The New York Times reported that just over a week into the semester five students had been suspended for holding parties, and the university had 500 positive cases on its hands. The campus was shut down shortly thereafter. 

However, UMaine has taken multiple steps that campuses such as that at SUNY Oneonta did not. Namely, the university required and provided testing for all out of state students, on-campus residents, and staff members. Leaders at UMaine and in the surrounding communities have worked together in order to allow students to return to campus and enjoy some semblance of a college experience. The president, the dean of students, the Orono and Old Town administrators, and all the other community leaders have, at this point in the process, held up their end of the bargain. 

Forget vague entreatments to 18-year-olds to exercise foresight and self-responsibility, the fact of the matter is that every single student, whether they read it or not, signed a contract. It’s more of a pact, the Black Bear Pact, and it’s very simple: Protect yourself, protect others and protect “the college of our hearts always.” It’s cheesy, but it includes very specific instructions for students to effectively hold up their side of the bargain to the greater community. 

If the university succeeds in holding COVID-19 at bay, then it will become a success story. Someone will write about it, and there will probably be a few very nice speeches involved. If the university fails, then we will have effectively betrayed the trust of the community, and the New York Times will write us in just under SUNY Oneonta. 

The first week is over. Now it’s time to see if Black Bears really do care.

On April 13,  Donald Trump created yet another storm of controversy by asserting that state governors would need his permission in order to authorize businesses to reopen. Governors argued otherwise, citing the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, and the president eventually took back his stance. This short and ultimately unnecessary controversy represents a dangerous trend in the president’s behavior of undermining the authorities who are responsible for getting Americans through the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the New York Times, over 22 million Americans are now out of work as a result of the pandemic, and the president is clearly feeling the pressure to assume some sort of control over the situation with the election just six months away. This effort on the Trump administration’s part materialized in the form of a largely superfluous 18-page set of guidelines, cleverly titled “Opening up America Again,” outlining how the governors should proceed to reopen once their states recover. The New York Times noted that Trump’s guidelines describe “much the same strategy that a number of local and state governments have already adopted.”

In the meantime, Maine’s governor, Janet Mills, has been working with New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu and Vermont Gov. Chris Scott in order to determine when and how to reopen their economies. According to Maine Public, when asked about the president’s remarks regarding states’ powers, Mills replied, “It’s hard for me to keep on top of all the statements coming out of the White House… I don’t respond to them.”

Mills’ efforts to communicate with other states in the region, along with her business-like attitude regarding the pandemic, are far more reassuring than the president’s bold statements and false promises. Trump is not on the campaign trail, and it’s not votes that are on the line. Instead, it’s peoples’ lives.

Yuval Levin, director of social, cultural and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute wrote in a recent Washington Post opinion article that, “the only way to reopen the economy is… if the federal government and the states cooperate to create the conditions for public confidence.” While the president’s Twitter remains as combative as ever, he has displayed positive signs of deferring to authorities other than himself. On April 15, the president assembled a bipartisan task force, to which both Maine’s Sen. Collins and Sen. King were appointed, to advise on reopening the nation’s economy.

According to the Bangor Daily News, Sen. King asserted that he would defer to the experts first and would not settle for “an arbitrary date on the calendar,” such as May 1 or Easter Sunday, both of which being dates the president had previously set as ends to the widespread lockdowns.

While the task force and even administration guidelines represent steps towards supporting thought-out plans by the states, the president still has a lot left to make up for with regards to assuring Americans that they ought to put their confidence in their own local and state governments. Should he continue to direct his effort towards generating conflict between himself and other authorities and representatives dealing with this crisis, it could have fatal consequences for countless Americans.

There have not been many silver-linings to come out of the COVID-19 outbreak. It has been a month since the World Health Organization declared the virus as a pandemic, prompting countless businesses and schools, including the University of Maine, to suspend operations indefinitely. In response to these quarantining measures, people have flooded to state and national parks in unprecedented numbers. While it is nice to see people connect to the outdoors in times of crisis, there are serious and justifiable concerns for the parks and those that use them regarding this type of reckless congregation.

At the end of last month, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands (BPL) closed 10 coastal parks, as well as Acadia National Park, in response to overcrowding which stood to violate social distancing guidelines outlined by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The BPL is also recording usage of inland state parks such as Sebago Lake and Bradbury Mountain in order to prevent usage from reaching unsafe levels. Similar closures have occurred at national parks all over the United States in order to prevent out-of-state visitors from possibly spreading the virus. 

Governments have not closed these parks to prevent or discourage people from going outside, but rather to encourage Americans to seek out smaller, local public lands, parks and land trusts in order to avoid larger congregations. Despite what some individuals might assume, Gov. Mills’ “Stay Healthy at Home” executive order does allow “engaging in outdoor exercise activities, such as walking, hiking, running, or biking” so long as individuals are complying with social distancing guidelines.

Getting outside and exercising is actually, now more than ever, one of the best things that you can do to improve your mental and physical well-being in the midst of social distancing and stay-at-home orders. According to one Outside Magazine article, exercise helps to build a stronger immune system by promoting good circulation, and exposure to sunlight increases the movement of vital cells in the immune system. For those concerned about time, in one New York Times article, kinesiology Professor Martin Gibala asserted that a full-body workout as short as five minutes a day would be enough to maintain one’s baseline fitness.

Of course, none of these benefits can be reaped if individuals are not following the CDC’s social distancing guidelines or using common sense. Most individuals are aware of the basics: stay six feet apart at all times and don’t leave the house if you feel sick. But there is also a good deal of forward thinking that one can employ in order to avoid a potentially hazardous outing. One should consider the kind of trails that they might be on if they are going for a walk or a hike. Individuals should try to find areas with wide trails or dirt roads so that they can maintain at least six feet of space between themselves and others on the trail. Similarly, if the parking lot of a recreation area is crowded or full, then the decision should be to go somewhere else. Maintaining distance on the trail is pointless if everyone is already too close together in the parking lot.

While more Americans taking advantage of the recreational and natural resources available would generally be positive, at this very moment everyone needs to consider avoiding those parks that they may frequent otherwise. Take this time to go online and look for the older or lesser known trails in your area, or simply exercise on your own road or backyard. It’s ironic, but for the sake of public health, we have to really carefully consider where and how we exercise.

If the coronavirus pandemic has brought Americans’ attention to a specific commodity besides toilet paper, it’s access to the internet. On March 25, University of Maine students and faculty began online classes, joining millions of other students and the majority of America in an unprecedented migration to the internet. While many Mainers may welcome the opportunity to work from home, for others the state’s inconsistent and underdeveloped internet infrastructure may severely hinder their access to work and education.

Even Americans who usually find their internet connection acceptable are expected to face some difficulties. According to the New York Times, broadband infrastructure is suddenly facing steady usage of apps and services generally reserved for classroom and office environments that support lots of data usage. As students and educators both attempt to navigate classes that were never designed to be taken online, finicky connection speeds are likely to plague many a Zoom or Google Chat session and further disrupt a semester that is already spiraling.

While some Maine residents come to grips with their new lives online, others may become even more isolated by infrastructure that hasn’t been updated in decades. According to the Bangor Daily News, Maine is ranked the last state in New England in terms of access to high-speed internet, with some 11% of the population considered “underserved” with regard to connection speeds. These underserved residents are concentrated in rural parts of Maine, with more than half of the residents in Piscataquis and Franklin county dealing with inadequate internet access.

For the record, Maine’s subpar broadband infrastructure is not a result of a lack of effort on the part of the state’s elected officials. Sen. Angus King is a founding member of the Rural Broadband Caucus, which is dedicated to increasing access to high-speed internet nationally. Gov. Janet Mills has also committed herself to guarantee internet access to underserved Mainers, having outlined a five-year plan to expand access throughout the state.

On the flip-side, there has been a good deal of foot-dragging when it has come down to state representatives passing legislation that would bring broadband access to underserved areas. Republican representatives who support expanding broadband blocked a $15 million bond bill last August, objecting to allowing ConnectME, a semi-government agency, to control distribution of the funds. Now, as an internet connection becomes a means of survival rather than a convenience, the state legislature is considering another $15 million proposal, according to Maine Public.
In a remarkable show of solidarity with customers, and/or fear of public retaliation, cable and internet providers have committed to the FCC’s “Keep Americans Connected Pledge,” meaning that, for two months, customers will be exempt from penalties for late payments, with some even providing free access in the same time period for families with students. While it is wonderful that these providers are stepping up for the public good, these steps wouldn’t be so necessary for many residents if state representatives had made the decision to invest in extending broadband to all Mainers before the situation became so desperate.

I am not saying that Americans need broadband in order to prepare for another pandemic I am saying the pandemic has made it clear that reliable access to high-speed internet is a vital aspect of daily life in the 21st century. Peggy Schaffer, the current executive director of the ConnectME Authority, said on an episode of the radio show “Maine Calling” that rural communities in Maine “see broadband as a tool to survive.” The country and this state will get through COVID-19, but allowing Mainers to go without equal access to the internet may prove fatal in the long run.

The majority of students pursue a college degree in order to one day use the skills they learn at school to start a career and achieve financial independence. This seems obvious and relatable to many prospective graduates, but there is one problem. According to research by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, only about 60% of executives and hiring managers believe that the majority of college graduates are ready for entry-level positions. Graduates should not be satisfied with almost 40% of these employers lacking faith in their education. With the University of Maine’s annual Career Fair finally upon us, now is a perfect time to examine the problematic distance between academic curricula and tangible professional development opportunities that this university, and others, offer.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the average net price for full-time students’ first-year at UMaine for the 2017-18 year, including financial awards, was $16,984. Multiplied across four years of school, that price represents a remarkable investment in a future career that would hopefully justify it, especially if a student took out a significant amount in federal or private loans. Unfortunately, the 120 credits may not be enough; research from the Collegiate Employment Research Institute at Michigan State University suggests that “employers expect nearly a year of full-­time pre-­professional experience prior to graduation.” 

This is not to say that graduates who haven’t had as much professional experience as others are suffering as a result; NCES found in 2018 that young adults (25-34) had an 86% employment rate compared to those with high school degrees (72%) and those without a high school education (59%). With that said, college graduates don’t just want employment, but also fulfillment. The majority of the jobs that graduates are working have nothing to do with what they studied, and many have jobs that do not require degrees at all, according to the 2013 Federal Reserve research. It stands to reason that if graduates could meet employers’ expectations of pre-professional experience, then a greater percentage would be working towards fruitful careers in their desired fields. 

With that said, ensuring that graduates receive the “right” pre-professional experience and guidance is easier said than done. Career centers, like the one we have here at UMaine, face the difficult task of preparing students to hit the moving target that is the ever-evolving professional landscape. There is a constant struggle between the school of hard, technical skills which may or may not become obsolete as technology advances, and “soft skills” like communication, analysis, and creative design which are far more difficult to replicate with a machine but also less immediately tangible. Students don’t even like the word “career,” says Beth Throne, associate vice president for student and postgraduate development at Franklin & Marshall College, as it has a connotation of “lifetime commitment,” and graduates in this day and age are likely to jump between many career paths over the course of their professional lives. 

Understanding the tough job that career centers face, it must be recognized that a more holistic effort would be a far more effective way to serve the pre-professional interests of undergraduates. Attendance at career fairs and on-campus interviews may already be required for those in more technical or STEM-related areas of study, but the curricula of every major should have professional development courses and requirements. The value of internship and co-op opportunities especially cannot be overstated; Forbes contributor Brandon Busteed reported that in one 2014 poll by Gallup found “that graduates who had internships where they were able to apply what they learned in the classroom are twice as likely to be engaged in their work and thriving in their well-being later in life.”

This cannot, of course, fall entirely upon the shoulders of the academic administration of universities; students have to be responsible for their own professional growth. But at the same time, it would behoove the gatekeepers of academia to position the urgency of pre-professional development at the front and center of student life, rather than, say, sequester it on the third floor of the Union. 

Student debt and expensive college tuition rates are a major topic for many 2020 presidential candidates, but from the perspective of a currently enrolled student this issue and the real-life consequences associated with it can feel distant. Outside of the college bubble, student debt is a weight that stands to burden graduates and non-graduates for their entire lives. This is largely the consequence of the federal loans system, which is so convoluted that paying off even smaller loans can become an insurmountable task, as well as a public education system that has failed many students at every step of their journey toward their post-secondary dreams.

Picture a runaway train with about $1.5 trillion dollars loaded on it, hurtling toward a cliff. That is the student debt crisis. Now imagine that there are about 11 million people on the train as well, and they all just saw the conductor turn and look at the crew and tell them that she wants to get off and let someone else deal with the train. It’s not a hard situation to imagine because that just about sums up what Education Secretary Betsy DeVos did last Tuesday when she told the world, including those 11 million graduates who are either in default or delinquency on their loans, that she believes that the Office of Federal Student Aid should be passed off from the Department of Education to some other government entity that doesn’t yet exist.

To default on a loan from the federal government, an individual must not pay that loan for a period of about nine months, during which that individual is in delinquency. Once an individual with a federal loan defaults on it, their credit tanks and the government can begin to recoup its losses through litigation (but this is rare), seizing income tax returns and charging directly from federal benefits. The debt is often passed off to private collection agencies that harass borrowers and usually charge high collection fees on top of the existing debt. Adding insult to injury, even if an individual declares bankruptcy, in all but a few cases, the debt just hangs around until the borrower starts earning again. 

Borrowers can avoid default with something called an IDR (Income-Driven Repayment Plan), which allows individuals to pay 10-20% of their disposable income and maintain a base income just above the poverty line. However, these plans are difficult to apply for, easy to fall out of and often do not leave room for expenses like medical bills or daycare. Often times, even if an IDR borrower’s monthly payment is $0, their debt can continue to accrue interest, leaving them in even deeper debt once they are making enough to support regular payments. In essence, if a borrower is unable to effectively pay off their student debt their life is forced into a limbo where the very life that a college education is supposed to make more attainable — a house, a car, providing for family becomes insupportable.

This high-risk system essentially forces many would-be college students to gamble decades of financial well-being on the chance of their post-graduate success. Unfortunately, the students that are the most unaware of the gambles they are making are the least prepared to succeed in a post-secondary environment. According to George D. Kuh, the founding director at the National Institute for Learning Outcomes and Assessment, performing below standards as early as the eighth grade in subjects like reading and mathematics often means that a student is unlikely to be college-ready by the end of high school. Public education as a whole has to be more effective in order for more students to be engaged and successful college graduates, hopefully making enough money to pay off their debt. 

For Betsy DeVos to suggest that student debt should not fall under her jurisdiction is ridiculous; the success of federal student aid is contingent upon the success of the public education system. At best her comments reflect a lack of confidence in the system and at worst her comments reflect a lack of belief in the students of American universities. In any case, she has as much of a chance of getting off of this train as they do.

The fifth installment of the Democratic debate series took place on Wednesday, Nov. 2, in Atlanta, and Joe Biden was recorded on stage with his foot more firmly secured in his mouth than Americans have yet seen this election cycle. As disheartening as it is to admit it, image is vital in politics, and Biden appears to be hell-bent on constructing himself as befuddled and out of touch with his own party. The most recent debate seemed to make one thing very clear; Biden is not sharp enough to compete on the debate stage. The fact of the matter is that the former vice president may simply be too old to keep up. 

Throughout the majority of the previous debates, Biden has been the preferred target of nearly all the other candidates as he has been leading in many polls since launching his campaign. One might think that two previous runs at the presidency in 1988 and 2008, along with decades of experience in politics, might have prepared Biden for these attacks, but unfortunately, his greatest challenge on the debate stage is himself. Biden’s first major stumble occurred when he was discussing how to prevent sexual assault and violence against women from happening on college campuses by repeating “we’re gonna keep punching at it,” resulting in audible scoffs from the audience. 

Biden then once again tripped over his words while arguing his appeal to black voters, noting that he had the support of “the only bl- African American that had been elected to the United States Senate;” cameras then cutting to a confused Cory Booker before he began to grin and interjected with a delighted “that’s not true!” Biden stood frozen with his mouth agape as the crowd erupted in laughter, before realizing his mistake, shouting “I said the first!” It was too late, the damage had been done. The camera then cut to an outwardly amused Kamala Harris, a female African American senator, holding up her hands as if to say that she too was bewildered by the former vice president’s ramblings. 

Reacting to the vice president’s meltdown during the debate on CNN, former Chief Campaign Strategist for the Obama campaign, David Axelrod, remarked that Biden appeared to be “Mr. Magooing his way” through the primary. It is unfortunate that Biden’s demeanor is so unintentionally cartoonish during debates, as it is ultimately distracting voters from his moderate platform, which is arguably vital for balancing a ballot featuring some of the most left platforms to be legitimately considered by the Democratic party. For instance, Cory Booker’s attack on Biden for his recent invocation of the term “gateway drug” to describe marijuana has arguably distracted many viewers from the fact that Biden is actually a believer in federally decriminalizing marijuana and leaving the rest up to the states, a centrist policy which might actually appeal to some voters who are more leery of clear cut legalization.

The most significant consequence of Biden’s perceived lack of mental agility is the fact that he isn’t polling well with young voters. This is one of the problems that ultimately cost Hilary Clinton the 2016 election, and it does not bode well that in an analysis for the Washington Post, Martin Wattenberg, a professor of political science, compares him to the last Democratic nominee. Biden is doing very well with seniors, but in Iowa, he is only polling at 2% with voters under the age of 30. This pattern makes it more likely that Biden will win the primary but then lose the general election just as Clinton did as significantly more young voters come out for the general election than the primary election.

Biden isn’t the only significantly older candidate, as both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would also be the oldest president ever should they win the general election. The difference is that Biden’s age is shining through most clearly during debates, and young voters simply are not going to elect a centrist “Mr. Magoo.” Before laying into Biden about his marijuana comments, Booker mentioned that Biden swore him in and he described Biden as “a hero.” Rather than write that off as a concession, it’s time that Biden retire and content himself with the fine, if not controversial, cohort of politicians he helps produce.  

Within the next three years, all seven campuses of The University of Maine System could be working together as one governed body, but there are many who fear that this process may be fast-tracked and that the smaller campuses especially may suffer for it. Last Thursday, Nov. 7, the UMaine System Chancellor and Former Governor of Connecticut Dannell Malloy spoke with professors and other members of the university community in order to advocate for the UMaine system to switch from separate accreditation to one collective accreditation for all. 

Accreditation is meant to signify that a university meets a certain standard of quality, enabling students that attend that institution to receive federal financial aid and transfer credits. Currently, all of the public universities in Maine are accredited individually with the exception of the Machias campus, which falls under UMaine, Orono’s accreditation. The governing body which accredits universities, the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE), expressed reservations around the collaboration between some of the universities and questioned, as they were concerned with whether they should be viewed as separate institutions. The Presque Isle and Fort Kent campuses in particular share education and nursing programs, a practice that has caused the NECHE to put the institutions “on notice,” according to WGME. 

Chancellor Malloy and the UMaine system’s board of trustees see this collaboration as positive and would like to solidify it and ensure the survival of smaller campuses through unified accreditation. As such, the new chancellor has been visiting the different public university campuses around Maine with a plan to visit each campus at least three times in order to promote transparency and answer questions and criticisms about the unified proposal. On the website, which was created to follow the reactions and development associated with the unified accreditation effort, numerous concerns are outlined in the documentation of faculty feedback to the board of trustees. Most of these concerns have to do with the smaller campuses losing their agency over themselves, as well as doubts about how effectively a unified system would be governed given the complexity and diversity of the campuses. 

According to a Bangor Daily News article published in September, “under the unified accreditation Malloy is proposing, smaller campuses … could lean on the system as a whole to satisfy those requirements.” This idea is concerning, in that it seems as if a goal of unified accreditation is to keep the smaller universities legitimized even if they alone cannot meet NECHE’s standards. According to WGME, Jim McClymer, a professor at UMaine and the head of the faculty union, appreciates the communication and transparency with the board of trustees and the chancellor, but at the same time asserted that they are rushing the process too much. 

It is that question of execution which gets to the heart of the issue. Perhaps unified accreditation is moving in the right direction; the Fort Kent and Presque Isle campuses have actually supplemented programs, like nursing and education, for each other quite nicely. However, WGME reports that Molloy performed a similar merging of secondary education institutions when he was the governor of Connecticut, and it was not well-liked. Faculty concerns, laid out in a memo addressed to the board of trustees, also indicate a lack of confidence in the bureaucratic system: “it does not make sense to have them be making this decision just based on recommendations from the Chancellor’s office.” 

Perhaps the board and chancellor will push the plan through with or without the support of faculty, and I hope that it has a positive effect on the University of Maine System at large. But as of right now, the effort seems like it could be disorganized and faculty must be looked to for the vital question of whether or not this change will benefit the student body of the University of Maine System or just the system itself.

Back in March of this year, 50 people, including a few B-list celebrities, were charged with fraud, amongst other things, for attempting to bribe and cheat their children into prestigious college institutions. The reason that the “Varsity Blues” scandal, otherwise known as the reason the lady from “Full House” is in your newsfeed, has been so remarkable is not for its celebrity cast, but for the novelty of wealthy Americans being sent to jail for attempting to buy themselves, and more specifically their children, an unfair advantage. 

There is a sort of satisfaction to the scandal for much of the public, in the same way that it is satisfying when you watch Harry Potter beat the Slytherin team at Quidditch after Malfoy’s father buys the entire team shiny new brooms. It’s just a delight to watch the defeat of an unscrupulous villain. However, life is not a movie, and these are parents, not villains. It’s easy to hate a cheater, but, as USA Today reports, these parents and their attorneys say they were mostly driven by something inconveniently sympathetic: desperation and love. Before their sentencings, many parents explained that they were driven by uncontrollable circumstances, often some sort of illness or condition which the child was suffering from. Thus, when the highly touted college applicant consultant William “Rick” Singer offered up some not so legal means to guarantee the currently nebulous future of their children, they jumped at the opportunity. 

This isn’t a fantasy where the bad guys get what’s coming to them, this is a tragedy where real people make poor decisions with good intentions and they and their children inevitably suffer for it. Unfortunately, the reason the public eye will not view these individuals with any degree of sympathy is the same reason that the parents committed the fraud in the first place: the college admissions process is already ambiguous and unfair. Part of the problem, as the New York Times has assessed, is that numerous selective schools do not work to raise admission rates, even as the number of applications increases every year, as a means to “help burnish schools’ sought after status.” This isn’t to say that the wealthy do not still have a significant advantage, as being able to pay full price for tuition will always increase an applicant’s chances, but other methods, such as alumni donations, have grown less and less effective for parents as universities can afford to be more selective. 

The culture that promotes the efforts of wealthy parents to take the side doors into admissions offices, the culture of consultants, prep-schools, and donations is the same which generates resentment and pessimism for those who are aiming for the same goals from more modest origins. This could be justified by the American brand of “when the going gets tough” thinking that brings out the numerous success stories of people from tough backgrounds who got into the Ivy Leagues every admission season. The idea that these prodigious students would be held in the same regard as the son or daughter of wealthy alumna who had every advantage granted to them leaves a sour taste.

At one point, College Board had intentions of implementing a numerical value for students to describe the difficulty of the background which they came from as a means to scale their applications, but the idea was widely criticized for attempting to simplify some of the most complicated aspects of students’ lives. For Harvard, applicants are now asked to explain to the admissions committee directly in their applications about the hardships they may face in their environment, but this method stands at risk for abuse and inaccuracy as well. 

A solution that would be far more likely to work on the large scale, but far more difficult to implement, has been suggested by Rick Clark, director of undergraduate admissions at the Georgia Institute of Technology: “families should be more focused on the rooms they walk into every day, i.e. their kitchens, living rooms, classrooms, than admission committee rooms they’ll never enter.” It’s understandable that these parents initially felt justified in the great lengths they went to in order to ensure the success of their children, but it is that very idea of success which must be re-evaluated. 

“Of all the candidates I’ve seen on the trail, you seem to be having the most fun,” notes Daily Show host Trevor Noah at the top of an interview segment with Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. The former tech company executive nods with a bit of a sheepish grin, responding, “Oh it’s a very low bar you’ve set Trevor.” 

Perhaps the reason that Yang is having so much fun is that he knows that he isn’t projected to make it far into the primaries at all by anyone. But this cheeky exchange displays his individuality and his sense of humor, which is exactly what has kept Andrew Yang’s campaign running surprisingly strong through the first three debates.

Yang, if for anything, is known for being the candidate that wants to give every single American $1000 a month. Regardless of whatever other policy that Yang includes in his platform, no matter how far left it could be, it is his universal basic income (UBI) plan, dubbed the Freedom Dividend, upon which his campaign for the Democratic nomination will live and die. As a member of the technology industry, Yang asserts that he got to see just how close the United States is to automating away millions of jobs and thus leaving many American’s with limited skills jobless and in a tough financial situation. UBI is his answer to this crisis. Yang has a wide range of policies that are fleshed out to a degree which rivals that of heavy hitters like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but the policy that distinguishes him and makes him a dark horse contender is his commitment to a radically new idea. 

One of the major tools which Yang uses to endear himself with his voters is his self-awareness and self-deprecating humor. A 44-year-old Asian man of Brown and Columbia law education, Yang is always mentioning “the math” behind his policies and justifies his knowledge of healthcare in America by frequently bringing up how many doctors he knows — making light of racialized stereotypes about Asian-Americans. He often positions himself as the antithesis of Donald Trump as he recites, “the opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math.” While many of his supporters find his racialized humor to be charming, there are also many who find it to be problematic and regressive. Even if the criticism has made him rethink his persona, Yang has not shown it publicly, continuing to sport his campaign’s MATH hats, a reaction to the Trump campaign’s “Make American Great Again” (MAGA) hats that stands for “Make America Think Harder.” 

It is obvious, when one looks at a debate stage where seasoned politicians like Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren stand next to Andrew Yang, that Yang isn’t cut out for political fistfights in the same way the other candidates are. Yang has openly admitted that he doesn’t desire to be a politician in the way that it is understood now, but rather says his reason for running is, “I want to solve the problems, and the easiest, most straightforward… way for me to solve problems is to run for president and win.” 

While he probably will not succeed in gaining the nomination, his decidedly humanistic approach to politics and the economy should not be entirely written off by the other candidates. Each of the 10 individuals that stood on the debate stage for the third debate had some collection of aspects that the American people are looking for, and it would be best for those that remain for the fourth to take note of, rather than write off, those that are eliminated.