Increase in tution does not equal increase in status

A recent column piece, "Indiscriminate tuition cuts would not benefit low-income students", by Alexander Chase of The Daily Texan, has me contemplating my own position in the matter. I am currently a student with Austin Community College and I plan on transferring to UT but the added cost to the already priced high tuition has me re-evaluating my options. 

I believe if there should be any change in the price in tuition, it should be lowered, not raised! If a full time student were to take out just loans to finance their education at UT, the average debt load they will shoulder would be around $40,000 according to UT's current tuition rates. I believe making education more affordable should be a priority for the state and we're not making any progress by raising the cost of tuition. Low income demographics are already burdened enough just to make ends meet and this increase will only divide the student body even further. The UT Advisory Council should seek other sources for potential income then to shoulder more debt onto the broken backs of their students. 

I'm also wondering the logic of thinking that raising the cost somehow correlates into better education, better faculty and overall improvement with UT.  Most education can easily be gained online for FREE; one only has to apply themselves, study, and do the work. Attempting to attract quality faculty through higher salaries contains a lot of uncertainty and risk due to the fact that high cost does not equal high quality.

Overall, I believe the entire education system needs to be overhauled and Texas should lead the way. Qualifying all students with government backed loans only incentives Universities and schools throughout the county to increase tuition as much as they can 'appropriately'. Of course, there are also students who can only attend with those very loans but I believe a common ground can be reached between the two. There are many roadblocks in life but the first step into a school shouldn't be one of them.

Campus packed with guns...or packed with irrational fear?

This post in written in response to a fellow classmate's post, The University of Texas packed with Guns? in which he argues against Texas legislation that would allow CHL holders to carry concealed firearms on campuses across the state.

"Professors and students who are aware that one of their peers had a concealed firearm would psychologically fear that the gun wielders poses more power than them."

I don't really understand this mentality. Students in the past could have been carrying weapons on them but the only difference now is that they can do so legally. Also take in account that the majority of students are not even eligible to carry a concealed weapon due to age requirements. Most people that get their CHL don't even carry a weapon due to the "novelty" wearing off, most quickly learn of the inconvenience carrying a concealed weapon has. So what we have here is fear based on the fact that a small minority of students that are eligible to carry might be carrying legally.

“professors would fear inviting students into their offices to talk about a failing grade if they think that students are armed.”

What about prior to the law? Student's could have been carrying then but now they can do so legally. Were they fearful then? I'd also like to expand on my first statement and bring up some interesting numbers to help put in perspective why it's absurd to be so fearful. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Travis county's population in 2014 was just over a million.

Travis County Population of 2014
Soruce: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48453.html

Also, the sum of CHL holders in Travis county from the past four years (these numbers are given annually but I have accumulated from the past four years due to four years being the length one's CHL remains valid before renewal is needed) is 20,811. These numbers can be found through Texas Department of Public Safety's website.

Using the Classical Probability formula, we can deduce the following given the information provided.

Symbols: 

E: Events

S: Sample Space

N: Number

n(E) number of times an event can occur

n(S) number of times possible simple events that can occur.

There is a 1.8 % probability that any given person in Travis county has a CHL. That is has a CHL, not that they are carrying. Given this number, one has to ask oneself if it really makes a lot of sense to be so fearful? One has higher odds of a payout in Vegas! Please note that these numbers are very rudimentary as a more proper analysis would also take in account multi-variables such CHL ownership of bordering counties and population, political ideology demographics of UT student body, CHL holders moving out of district and other such variables that are the beyond the scope of this blogpost/comment. Also note that the author of this blogpost/comment is not supportive or against "Campus Carry". I really don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. I often find myself playing Devil's Advocate for sides I don't agree with (again I have no definitive stance on Campus Carry) but do so if I feel as if one side not been given a proper representation.

"The second amendment ensures that Texans will continuously have their gun rights. But times have changed since the America Revolution. Mass school shootings were nonexistent in the 18^th century."

Mass school shootings were nonexistent in the 18th but violence wasn't. Human nature is still very much the same with the only differences is that we have grown more creative in how we go about inflicting pain and suffering toeach other and the degree in which we hear about it. It would be in everyone's benefit if people in general tuned out some of the news they expose themselves to. I'm not suggesting people be ignorant--just be moderate and mindful of what you're filling your brain with. That way, a 1.8% probability of classmate having a CHL won't pack the campuses across the state full of fear.