Ed/Comm

No finals: a cause of celebration for students!

By: Bella Tortorici

Editor

December 15, 2020

The third week in December usually spells one thing for students: finals. This time of year causes hours of stress, studying, and cumulative assessments. Like most other things in 2020, COVID-19 has completely changed the norm; this year, there will be no finals first semester. As students across the school rejoice at this fact, I want to dive deeper into the benefits and consequences of this development.

Let’s begin with the obvious: no finals means less stress. In addition to all the stress that comes with the holiday season and anxieties about COVID, worrying about six or seven exams would be a strain on the mental health of the students and teachers, too. Sandburg students want to show their teachers their capabilities in their subject, and many spend countless hours preparing to ace their assessments.Overworking is fatiguing and can lead to serious side effects such as sleep deprivation, irritability, and anxiety. Without finals this semester, students can compose themselves, especially during the new learning model.

Moreover, many students find it difficult to learn effectively online and are struggling academically as a result. Unfortunately, some people turned to cheating as a way to bolster their grade. Consequently, their score on the final may be convoluted because, in a typical school situation, they would have understood better. Since it’s possible that notes are out, answers to questions are shared, or students are lost in confusion, teachers will not be able to accurately know the true scope of the student’s ability in their class. Evidently, eliminating finals this semester will prevent students from developing a dishonest work ethic.

Another reason why not having finals this semester is beneficial is the added time students can spend with their family and friends. Let’s be real: the pandemic is an isolating time. With limited interactions with others, the safe connections made with others is cherished. As a junior, I usually have two to four hours of homework every night. My friends and I do not have any time to meet or even text each other. Without studying for or taking finals, we could spend time doing safe activities together, which we have not been able to do all semester. The same goes for spending time with family. Thus, students can finally get the social interaction that is necessary and lucrative during this lonely time.

Although removing finals is generally a positive change, there are some repercussions that can occur due to its elimination. For instance, spring semester finals are still on schedule. Although everything is tentative, students could feel extra pressure in the spring after not taking finals for an entire year. However, Sandburg has always provided great resources for students to succeed like second period intervention, lunchtime resource centers, or evening reviews. Thus, worrying about a potential test in the future should not be a concern for not having finals now, and we should instead focus on the present moment.

Overall,it is beneficial that students are not taking finals this semester. No matter what we prioritize-- mental health, academic integrity, or social interactions-- it is obvious that taking a break from finals is much needed this semester. Let’s go Eagles and end the semester strong!

Collee Board: The Monopoly on Education

By: Alex Kocielski

Co-Editor in Chief

February 25, 2021

If I were to tell you that a certain company made over 1 billion dollars in revenue and over 100 million dollars in profit each year, would you call them for-profit? And a company with unopposed domination over a market, a monopoly? Any reasonable person would say yes. Now, I give you the College Board: the monopolistic for-profit company disguising itself as a helpful non-profit organization for student success. The College Board was established in 1899 as a not-for-profit organization to help students reach a higher education. They have stayed true to their purpose of helping students but calling them a not-for-profit is laughable. As you and I know, they charge nearly $100 to take one AP Exam (which has been steadily increasing throughout the years), $15 to send one of your scores to one college, and a slew of fees for cancelations, late sign-ups, etc. Along with that, there’s the $50 SAT cost (and the additional $15 tacked on for the optional essay section). While it does cost money to run the College Board and they need to charge certain fees for exams, a true not-for-profit organization should not have a profit; it’s in the name. These prices earn the College Board over one hundred million dollars each year which is, if I’m not mistaken, quite a large sum for a not-for-profit. This doesn’t even get into the salary of the executives of the College Board. The CEO of the College Board, David Coleman, makes over one million dollars a year and 13 executives make over three hundred thousand dollars a year based on the most recent data available. And while yes, organizations should pay their executives who make them function, they are not supposed to pay them this much.In addition to the issue regarding the profit of the College Board, there is the whole “Monopoly or not?” ordeal. The College Board has grown monstrously over the past years to the point where the only known exams are their SAT and their main competitor, the ACT. Looking only at the exams, you could argue that they might only be one company in an oligopoly, but I invite you to look at some of your high school courses: “AP U.S. History”, “AP Lang. and. Comp.”, “AP Microeconomics”, “AP Macroeconomics”, “AP Calculus”; you get the point. All of the opportunities for higher education at a high-school level are offered by the College Board and the College Board alone. They have overwhelming power here and, unlike the SAT/ACT competition, there is no major alternative to AP classes. That, I would argue, is some textbook monopolistic competition. In short, College Board treats our education system as a business; we wouldn’t be talking about their monopolistic tendencies if they weren’t. Along with that, they claim to be a not-for-profit organization yet they bring in $100,000,000 in profit annually. They have too much power and too little competition to be sustainable and, while I don’t know the solution, there is a clear problem here that needs to be addressed.

Page updated

Report abuse