Actual insider tips for College

            I've been lounging around, waiting for Institute for Teach For America and happened to pop on the TV to find Rachel Cruze spouting out nonsense concerning college. She's encouraging students to go to state schools that are far cheaper than their Elite peers and makes the argument that this will put these students at little to no disadvantage. That's a huge lie. I wish it weren't a huge lie, but it is. There are advantages and disadvantages to going to an Elite institution. Going to local state schools also has its own advantages as well. Here are a few actual tips to save money for college, that are doable by almost anyone.

1. Check out the Honors program of your State school- 

 Unless your State school is a UVA or UNC, then your state school is probably average in terms of rankings. Yet you hear of so many people getting amazing jobs after college. That my friends is a result of what some people call "Ivy patches". Honor Programs or Colleges within State institutions tend to provide elite level education regardless of the ranking of the school. These degrees are typically respected locally, so don't try to push your luck too much. Furthermore, these programs tend to have amazing networks all around the world, developed by alumni of the program. Needless to say, these students are the ones getting the best job offers from their career centers, while other students are expected to fumble through the job seeking process. 

2. Ranking isn't everything, but it is something-

 There are advantages for going to an elite institution. The first being name recognition. As I went on interviews for Teaching positions, just the mention of University of Michigan had Principals singing my accolades for academic achievement. Am I deserving of this kind of preferential treatment? Probably not. Did it land me jobs? I doubt it, hard work and dedication is still necessary. But it can be the little bit that puts you over an equally qualified candidate. Furthermore, these degrees have a further geographical reach than your local state school. This reach allows you to easily move throughout the country, while having employers respect your degree. Now if you're set on staying in your geographical region, then honestly you should go to the cheapest state school out there. People have an affinity for local universities and will typically put them on par with elite institutions that are out of state. If your university commands respect in the place where you want to work, then that's the only validation you need. 

3. Elite schools have Elite Networks- 

     Elite schools have a plethora of successful alumni, allowing the opportunities offered through the career center to sometimes be life savers and well worth the high tuition. Now that doesn't mean all people who go to Elite Universities are entitled to these offers. Elite institutions have honors programs, just as other institutions do. Furthermore, the bigger your school, the more competition you're going to have to face. So don't think because you went to an "Elite" institution that a job is going to fall right into your lap. You need to work for it. 

4. There is a debt limit that's hard to predict- 

    If you're planning to go into a field like Economics or Business and you are certain you will be pursuing these things for a career, then definitely go to an elite institution. Getting a BBA from the Ross School of Business in comparison to another Business school could be the difference between Wall Street and unemployment. The issue is many elite institutions are expensive and require you to go into a lot of debt. Some will say screw the debt, you'll be making a lot as an investment banker. Yes, that's true, if you become an investment banker. There needs to be a cap on what students take out in loans and I personally think parents need to take a more proactive role in tempering their kid's aspirations. A parent needs to ask themselves, "how determined is my child to go into finance or economics." If you think your child without a doubt is going to do it, then you should encourage them to take the debt out for a school that can give them the connections they need to get the job they want. If you aren't so sure, then maybe you should encourage your child to go to a cheaper University. Lower rankings do not mean there is any difference in the quality of the education. 

5. You go to college for peers, not Professors- 

   If you're serious about school and have worked hard to attend a great University, then your entitlement isn't to an elite institution, it's to an exceptional cadre of colleagues. That's sometimes the issue with lower ranking schools. The education is great and the opportunities are great, but the student body ends up lacking because the standards to be admitted are far lower than that of a higher ranking school. While making friends may not be your top priority, it can be integral to having a good college experience. Keep this in mind

6. I'm serious about going into (blank), should I go to Harvard? 

This is usually the misconception I see many high school students making. They want to go into a specialized field and assume that an elite institution is the best way to get there. This may not be true. It's important that if you are set on a specialized field, then you check which school has the leading experts in that field. You may be surprised. Elite Institutions do not specialize in everything and lower ranking institutions have far better experts in many topics. If your topic is covered by your local institution, then I think you should go to your local institution. I would only be wary of a few things. First, know what topics are actually germane to your field. Many people might think that English departments might have professors who focus  on early adult fiction or mystery novels and so on. However, the vast majority of English Professors focus on time periods and theories. If you love Early modern poetry written by women in the 17th century, then there's a place for your somewhere. If you want to an expert on Harry Potter, then I think you'll be having a tough time searching for a University that would let you pursue that. Furthermore, choosing a school for their specialization is risky because if you decide you don't want to do that particular topic (as many college students do), you might find yourself stuck in a place that doesn't have the expert you're looking for. 

7. How much money should I take out in loans? 

    If you're thinking about going to college the answer would be as little as possible

    If you're in college, you need to be thinking job, job, job, job, I NEED A JOB (unless you're planning to stay in academia, then your job is school)

Using myself as an example, I worked for the working family party my freshman year summer and wasn't thrilled about the work. Then I worked in Housing and while I enjoyed it, I didn't really want to make it a career. Then I tutored and I knew for a fact I liked teaching. I kept working until I found what I liked to do and that needs to be your mentality when you're in college. You need to find what you like to do and somehow make that thing pay your loans off. The average college student is going into loans of 30,000 plus. That is partially a failure of the government and institutions, but I also think this is also because of the inclination of many parents not to pay. 

Note for parents: If you can't afford college for your child, that is completely understandable. Financial aid should be able to help students who have parents who can't pay tuition. However, if you can afford to give money for your child's education, then shame on you if you withhold that money. I personally think if you're making a salary of 60k or above, and your child asks you to chip in 7 to 9k a year for tuition, then you should do it. That's a reasonable price for any parent. If your child flunks out or is not taking education seriously, then

Social Justice isn't Passive Aggressive, Racism and Sexism are

                   A fellow Wolverine posted on a status I had about a Twitter war between Azealia Banks and Iggy. Naturally Banks went in on Iggy's sudden silence in the wake of the Brown and Garner decisions, leaving twitter gems such as "makes me wanna throw a jar of piss at her." Now just to be clear I loved Banks' comments as they were a raw and candid display of frustration with someone who has appropriated black and hip-hop culture without even attending the cultural tenets both cultures hold dear.
            The Wolverine was displeased with what he perceived as a race to the bottom discussion about contentious political issues about race. He specifically pointed out the twitter battles that force people to take sides. His comment got me thinking about what "twitter battles" actually amount to. Twitter battles really only serve as passive aggressive mud slinging. Neither side will admit they are dismissing the other, but we can all read between the two lines of the pound symbol to see the incendiary subtext being made. And at that moment I took a step back and evaluated what I consider to be "my side."
         While I have been critical of the social justice community as of late, I am still a strong advocate for Social Justice and its beliefs. Could it be that "my side" is equally guilty of fueling this passive aggressive propaganda fest, thus inhibiting any meaningful dialogue and progress from being made? And then I thought of the recent "twitter wars" and realized my answer is resounding no. I believe if we examine the Twitter sphere we will find that many "Twitter Wars" are actually digital social justice movements that are direct and candid which are then met with a slew of passive aggressive counter culture responses (i.e. oppressive, typically white,male,hetero dominated point of view).
                 Let's start with the #blacklivesmatter movement. It started in response to actual events that transpired (i.e. the killing of Garner and Brown). There was no underhanded or indirect acknowledgement of the events. In fact the movement adopted the language associated with the two murders. Many tweets had some derivative of "hands up, don't shoot" and "I can't breathe", tying the movement to the specific incidents and to a larger conversation surrounding police and race relations.
             Now let's compare that with #alllivesmatter. #allivesmatter would not in the least bit be racist if it did not have such reactionary inertia behind it. It was created in response to #blacklivesmatter, but instead of being candid of its critical tone, it instead hides behind a facade of universal justice. Most tweets coming from #allivesmatter find an underhanded way to discredit the #blacklivesmatter movement. Even this seemingly harmless tweet which reads "People who can't understand the importance of human rights and justice need to educate themselves instead of run on emotions," is indirectly criticizing the emotional response by many blacks as an irrational response that borders on close minded. Instead of being candid of her criticism of the #blacklivesmatter movement the twitterer decided to shield herself with a blanket statement. #allivesmatter is ironically hyper conscious of #blacklivesmatter, while #blacklivesmatter is mostly focused on current events that are transpiring in the United States.
         We can see the same trend in #allwomen vs the #notallmen tweets. The #notallmen tweets in this case were in the beginning and in response to the horrible Elliot Roger shooting. But did the tweets actually engage with the feminist conversation surrounding the shooting? No, in fact the whole purpose of the hashtag was to distance men from the reality. In both cases the two hashtags move away from the actual events that transpired and instead shield themselves with comments that undercut what actually happened. #allwomen is simply based on actual experiences. Reading the #allwomen tweets immediately make the experiences of women clear. @allwomen isn't undercutting #notallmen or trying to create a subtext for the #notallment tweets. Instead it provides real life testimony of the egregious sexist acts men do towards women.
    So I'm basically done with this two sides nonsense. There aren't two sides to these stories. These stories are multi-faceted issues, but when your values systems differs in a fundamental way it's because you have become deaf to the experiences of the oppressed. The oppressed only speak with tongue in cheek when they must fake smiles to their oppressors. Twitter is a place for open discourse and naturally the oppressed are candid and direct (e.g. throwing a jar of piss on someone). The only people who are not direct are those who are oppressing and are in self denial. So please take your neutrality somewhere else. You're not neutral, you're petty and passive aggressive and I honestly can't deal with that shit.

AAVE Ebonics and the way I speak

I didn't hear of Ebonics or AAVE till I reached college. My black friends from NYC also didn't hear of Ebonics or AAVE till they reached college. I mean we all knew and used the dialect they were referring to. But the actual designation was never necessary. And clearly we used it to different degrees. Furthermore, Spanglish is another dialect that mixed with my vernancular. The point is that my linguistic journey has been a complicated conglomerate. So when I see people policing language as appropriative claiming "if you're not black, you cannot use that language" I eyebrow raise and get frustrated. I did not have a choice in whether I spoke in ebonics. My Mom, Dad, friends and many people around me spoke in it, so I grew up speaking in it. I learned code switching early as my parents always emphasized the proper language for the proper time. And yes there was a stigma around the language as improper, but I still used it because it was natural for me. I never used it in a sarcastic manner, it was just the way I spoke. That's the issue with ebonics and AAVE being enforced as a language only blacks can use. I don't become upset with my black (non-latino) friends who grew up saying chancla because I know it was forced upon them. I grew up in a diverse neighborhood so I've picked up the slang and vernancular of several cultures. Some of that happens to be black. Now of course certain words are clearly "off limits" and there's a clear tone that makes you an appropriating asshole. but before you call someone out who is using ebonics and isn't black, perhaps you should check yourself. I'm not ignorant to the roots of my language. I know the words that came from my Puerto Rican roots. I know the words that I picked up from my black friends growing up. I know the etymology (not perfectly of course, but I have an idea of where what came from).

Is the stigma still there? Yes. It's a stigma not only placed on blacks, but basically all lower class inner city kids ( so basically predominantly black and latino populations, but not only them). My students in class speak to me in ebonics regularly. I always correct them (code switching is an unfortunate reality we live with and it'd be irresponsible of me not to get them prepared for the scrutiny they will face in traditional academia). If you ask me to stop speaking ebonics because I am not black, my answer is simple: no. That's because it's my language. It's what I grew up speaking. I did not choose to speak it, it was forced on me. When ever I strayed from it, I frequently was told I was "talking white." As a writer I'm constantly confused as to how to speak. Do I maintain clean and crisp prose or do I slip into my New York vernancular where I slip into a smattering of ebonics, slang and odd pronunciation of er endings. Point is before you call someone out be sure it's for good reason.