Opinion

By Morgan Hones

Starting in junior year of high school, many students start to wonder what college they wish to attend. Oftentimes, their parents and society pressure them to go to a big expensive university or college to seem successful. The issue with going to a big UC is that you could potentially just fall into student debt, trying to pay off the massive loans you took to pursue a degree that 52% of graduated students say they ended up not using in their future job, according to the Washington post. According to the University of California, “about 50 percent of UC graduates who originally entered as California resident freshmen had student loan debt upon graduation.” 

You’ll also have to stress a lot over writing your resume and applying, hoping you’ll make it in and potentially not getting accepted.

On the contrary, the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) provides free education (for San Francisco residents), allowing you to pursue a bachelor's degree in a large array of career types. For students who graduate high school and are still unclear on what they want to do as their future occupation, CCSF  is a godsend, enabling you to experiment and figure out what you would be interested in with a large variety of classes, all while not falling into student debt. During those two years, CCSF allows students to participate in internships while they can simultaneously save up money with a part-time job. What’s better is that at the end of those two years, if you successfully get an associate’s degree, CCSF provides you with the option to join the Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG) program, which lets you enter a multitude of UCs such as UC Davis, UC Irvine, and UC Santa Cruz. As the name suggests, the TAG program guarantees admission, as long as you meet the requirements, to enter into the UC and Major of your choosing. This prevents you from having to stress about whether you’ll get in or not. 

TAG does not cover all the UCs in California such as UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UCSD, but going through CCSF will still heighten your chances of getting into a non-TAG accessible UC. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The transfer acceptance rate for community college students is 30% at Berkeley and UCLA...far higher for transfer students than freshmen [high school students], who only got into UCLA and UC Berkeley at rates of 9% and 15%, respectively.”

For Berkley, going through CCSF doubles your chances of getting in than if you tried getting in directly from high school. City College classes are often “a relatively easier learning experience,” according to Unmudl, which would mean you have to put in less work to have as high of a chance to be accepted to those harder UCs.

So whether you are looking to get into the university or college of your dreams or just want to get a bachelor’s degree, the best option is to take your time and first go to CCSF so you can plan out your future and career with care and financial stability.

By: Justin Chen 

In the ever-increasing competition for admission into selective colleges, high school students do whatever it takes to remain ahead of the rivalry, from staying locked-in in their academics at school to participating in a cluster of extracurricular activities. As for the academic portion, dual enrollment—or concurrent enrollment—in community college classes (CCC) may be the best bet for the majority of Lincoln students.

Dual enrollment is the process where a student enrolls in college classes while still in high school. Dual enrollment allows a high school student to display their academic rigor, boost their grade point average (GPA), concurrently gain both high school and college credit, and receive first-hand experience of taking an actual college course with a college professor. 

Credit dual-enrollment classes are weighted on a five-point scale, equivalent to Advanced Placement (AP) classes. However, every college course consists of different amounts of credits, with most being worth three to five credits. Credits are a way to measure how much time a student will spend in a course, with one credit equating to three hours of work per week. The greater the number of credits in a course, the greater the GPA boost. This means that an “A” in a CCC could boost your semester GPA  even more than an “A” in an AP class will. 

A GPA boost is especially useful for Lincoln students, as they are limited to taking three Advanced Placement (AP) classes at most, due to the “interest of equity and access for all,” as stated on Lincoln’s SFUSD website. For this reason, earning a higher weighted GPA at Lincoln may be more challenging than at other schools, such as Lowell, where there is no cap on the number of AP classes one can take. However, taking community college classes can help Lincoln students make up for the potential GPA boost lost due to the AP class limit.

Of the Lincoln students who do take community college classes, most decide to enroll in either the City College of San Francisco (CCSF) or the Skyline College of San Mateo. Both community colleges offer free tuition for Lincoln students and a wide range of courses in all subjects. CCSF allows high school students to gain up to 11 units for the fall and spring semesters and up to 8 units for the summer semester. Skyline College allows high schoolers to take no more than 19 units in the fall and spring semesters and no more than 11 units in the summer. The number of courses Lincoln students can take at the two community colleges in different semesters depends on what subject the courses are a part of. It is also important to note that the more credits a student takes for a summer term or semester, the more their GPA increases.

When comparing college courses to AP courses, dual-enrollment courses are more versatile and time-efficient. During the school year, community college classes last for one semester, with classes that are usually held from only one to multiple days every week. In the summer, CCCs are usually only one or two months long. Because college courses only take place for a short amount of time, students can take classes in different subjects in the following school semester. Moreover, students are guaranteed college credit in the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) schools, provided they receive a “C” or above in the class. 

AP classes, on the other hand, are part of a student’s school schedule. At Lincoln, all AP classes are one year long, with the exception of AP United States Government and Politics, which is a spring semester course. In order to earn college credit for UC’s or CSU’s from AP classes, students must take the AP exam in May and achieve a score of at least three (qualified). However, many private colleges in the United States require students to earn at least a four (very well qualified) or a five (extremely well qualified) on the exam in order to receive credit.

It is also important to note that students may be able to achieve a passing grade in an AP class but not necessarily pass the AP exam for that class. All exams include multiple-choice questions (MCQ) and free-response questions (FRQ). AP history classes require essay FRQ such as document-based questions (DBQ), long-answer questions (LEQ), and short-answer questions (SAQ). Students may struggle to pass an AP exam, especially an AP English or history exam, due to the great length that they are assessed to. This is because the exams for these two subjects include having to quickly analyze texts and documents and completing timed essays.

While both community college classes and AP classes offer GPA boosts, Lincoln students need to consider the ease of earning college credits between the two and the AP class limit. Dual-enrollment classes should not entirely replace all of a student’s AP classes but rather complement the classes, allowing for the greatest learning opportunities, college credits, and grade point average.

By Matthew Tran

Rapid tapping on phone screens fills the room as my friends and I sit as a group. The screens light up our faces as we sit in the company of one another, but we aren’t doom scrolling— we’re looking for trendy dances that we can recreate.

In such a digital age, social media can hold a negative connotation. It’s often associated with addicted teenagers, high screen time, and cyberbullying, which are all real issues that surround social media, but I’d argue that social media is what we make it to be. 

Ever since middle school, I’ve turned to social media as a source of entertainment, but not in the way that you might be thinking. As a victim of the infamous doom scrolling phenomenon, I’ve also utilized social media to pick up new hobbies–such as drawing, crocheting, sewing, dancing, photography, and even as a source to find new music. 

Social media can be healthy when it's used to maintain connections with friends and family. It can also be a great place to find communities with similar interests and it opens up an opportunity to learn new things but however, balance is key.

It’s important to keep in mind that social media is programmed to be addictive. With constant ads, companies are trying to take advantage of our attention in order to profit and even sell our information, so it’s most important to be mindful and protective of your personal information. 

When we feed into offensive memes that are a detriment to the mental health of the youth, it creates a negative environment. Social media should be used as a healthy place to learn and grow, a place where we can learn from our mistakes and educate one another through resources like educational social media pages, and constructive criticism. 

We should view social media as assistance rather than relying on it for entertainment. Yes, it is quite entertaining, but it’s important that we set personal boundaries and utilize it as a tool to inspire.

Setting personal boundaries can look like limiting the time you spend scrolling, or it can be as simple as turning off your phone and facing it upside down. 

Making use of social media as a tool, rather than a main source of entertainment, can possibly shift one’s relationship with social media. Know what you’re looking for, whether it be a new hobby, beauty tips, sports clips, or cute cat videos. Once you find that, be aware of the time you spend consuming that content. 

I will admit that as a frequent social media user, it’s extremely easy to get lost and fall into a spiral, which brings me to my next point – be cautious of the apps you download. 

With apps like Instagram, Tiktok, Snapchat, X (Twitter) and Facebook, they all push content that’s meant to keep you hooked. 

But personally, I feel like Pinterest keeps you hooked but in a way that’s beneficial. Although it does involve scrolling through tons of content, it’s not as addictive. The whole concept of Pinterest is to “pin” your interests, so it’s already frequently used as a platform that encourages inspiration, whether that looks like starting a new project, making something out of clay, rearranging your room, and more. 

The main point I’m trying to make is to be aware. Don’t mindlessly scroll too often, but scroll with intention and try to be productive! Social media has so much potential to be a great thing, but it’s our actions that give it a negative connotation. Social media is what we make it to be, so make it healthy.

By  KhoiHoang Nguyen

In the cacophony of modern media, where echo chambers amplify divisive rhetoric and spread misinformation like wildfire, the need for a regulatory framework that ensures the equal balance of opposing ideas has never been more dire. Across the United States, Americans, old and young alike, yearn with hope and nostalgia for a time when the news was less sensational and the press was more impartial. The answer to this pressing problem lies in an old and obscure law created almost 80 years ago.

Modern problems don’t always require modern solutions. The Fairness Doctrine, established in 1949 by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), mandated television and radio broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. Its aim was simple yet profound: to ensure that the American public received a balanced and diverse range of perspectives and opinions, which is essential for a healthy democracy. However, its repeal in 1987, under the misguided belief that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of broadcasters, led to a seismic shift in the ways information was now presented in the media.

Since then, the media landscape has transformed drastically. The rise of cable news, talk radio, and social media platforms have provided unparalleled avenues for individual expression but has also paved the way for political polarization. With no obligation to present opposing viewpoints, media outlets increasingly cater to specific ideological demographics, deepening societal divisions in our nation and eroding trust in our journalism.

According to an annual Gallup poll that’s been conducted consecutively for 52 years, when the Fairness Doctrine was still in place in the early 1980s, around 70% of Americans reported that they had a “fair amount” of trust in the media. Today, that number is less than half of that, at 34%. Along partisan lines, there is an even starker difference: only 2% of Republicans and 5% of independents stated that they had a “great deal” of faith in the media, while the majority of Republicans said they had “none at all.” 

Younger generations are also less likely to trust traditional news media, and are increasingly turning to receiving news from social media instead, which is often rampant with misinformation—and disinformation. While regulating social media content is difficult if not impossible given the vast amount of information that exists on those platforms—with 1.3 billion photos on Instagram and 34 million TikTok videos shared on a daily basis—moderating a handful of news networks is much more feasible. 

To restore the trust of the broader American public and compel every single broadcasting agency in the country to eradicate coverage bias and fulfill their ethical and moral obligation of showing the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we must reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

By Mason Ngo

Transit ridership on Muni and similar services still remains lower than before the pandemic in 2019. While in Muni’s case, ridership is at 75% of what it was in 2019, various neighborhood bus routes such as the 66 have only seen half of their ridership return. This has fueled budget deficits at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), which is impacting the agency’s services, including Muni, for the next two years. 

The SFMTA has brought up potential closures of smaller neighborhood lines in the past, which would’ve cut off transit services for many vulnerable groups, including students. Because the SFMTA relies on riders and fares for its revenue, more ridership is needed throughout the system to prevent closures or other reductions of services. To encourage more ridership, specifically returning weekend trips, I believe that cheaper fares and improved discounts for transferring passengers from other transit services should be implemented.

Muni fares for adults are currently $2.50 when using Clipper. These fares grant riders two hours of unlimited transfers, which is great if you plan on riding for that length of time. When riding for shorter distances, especially if a return journey is not made within two hours, you end up paying a lot more for the distance you travel. If you only ride for a few minutes, for example, going to Stonestown from Lincoln, you still pay $2.50. Worse, if you do make a return journey a couple minutes after the first two hours of riding have passed, you end up paying another $2.50.

Fares should be reduced for shorter journeys to encourage more people to ride. This could look like one-dollar fares when riding for up to 20 minutes, with longer journeys having more expensive fares up to the existing $2.50 fare for two hours of riding. It can be implemented using the existing Clipper fare system by having users tap out at the end of a journey to be refunded for the amount of time they actually traveled. 

Such a system could mean that you would tap using Clipper normally, charging $2.50, but then tap out again when getting off, where a reduced fare could be calculated and be reloaded to your phone or card. It is similar to the system on Caltrain or the ferries, where a maximum fare is charged first and then gets refunded later when you exit. This would also mean that you don’t have to tap out, so you wouldn’t get stuck trying to re-enter the system, which sometimes happens on BART.

Another way to encourage ridership could be to make transferring between operators cheaper or free. Currently on Muni, riders only get a 50-cent discount when changing from another bus or train operator, such as making a BART to Muni transfer. A trip from Oakland to our school on BART and Muni, for instance, can cost around seven dollars, equivalent to the cost of the toll to cross the Bay Bridge, with the difference that on transit you have to pay that seven dollars twice. A remedy to this inconvenience is on the way, however.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is in charge of Clipper, bridge tolls, roads, and transit planning throughout the Bay Area, has been looking into subsidizing transfers through Clipper. They are planning a pilot program for a $2.50 transfer discount for traveling with multiple agencies within two hours. This would mean that for a trip from the East Bay to San Francisco, someone using BART and then transferring to Muni would only need to pay the BART fare; they would get a free transfer onto Muni to continue their journey. The MTC believes that this program would make transit more affordable and seamless when transferring, which in turn would increase the number of trips riders would make. This program is set to start sometime this year, alongside the upgraded Clipper system, which also allows payment through contactless credit and debit cards, among other new features.

While both of these plans would lead to a decrease in fares collected because they are decreased or otherwise not charged on some trips, I believe that increased ridership in general because of such programs would offset this issue. Additionally, the MTC’s transfer pilot program is expected to help transit agencies by compensating them for lost revenue from transfer discounts. 

Subsidies such as this one by the MTC for their transfer program support transit agencies and ensure that they will have a steady budget to support transit services that riders, such as students, use. They allow transit agencies to fund discount programs such as Free Muni for Youth, which many of us enjoy and rely on. More of these programs, such as reducing fares for short journeys and transfers, would encourage further ridership, which would in turn increase support for transit funding, eliminating the budget deficit problems plaguing our neighborhood lines.

By Melissa Yan

Our education system runs on the assumption of meritocracy, and that meritocracy is the fairest system. However, this does not take into account the socioeconomic factors that impact a student’s ability to perform outstandingly and consistently in school. The current grading system would be fair if everyone were operating under the same circumstances, but that is just not the case.

A student may not have reliable means of transportation, affecting their punctuality. A student may not have help with schoolwork outside of school, whether that be in the form of a tutor or access to learning resources, resulting in a lack of strong study skills. A student may be working an extra job to support their family, leaving less time for homework. A student may not have a designated study space at home or even a quiet environment to focus. 

Without consideration for personal struggles, a grading scale of 0-100 may unfairly tank a grade to represent one bad test-taking day, a chaotic family life, or a period of burnout and exhaustion, rather than a student’s actual knowledge of subjects in school. Instead of grading equally, we should grade equitably. 

Grading for equity is defined as grading based on an overall mastery of content instead of grading weighted heavily on punctuality, attendance, participation, and completion of homework assignments, to avoid the perpetuation of the achievement gap against students who are at a disadvantage compared to their peers. To alleviate the mental or emotional stress students may experience from their disposition, the 50% Rule is a reasonable and motivational grading practice that recognizes effort and encourages continuous improvement and holistic learning.

Our current grading system is set up disproportionately towards failure, with a failing grade of an F being anything below 60%, while the other passing grades are set up in increments of 10%. This makes it near impossible for students to recover their grade after one poorly done assessment or assignment that tanks their grade, regardless of how well they score afterwards. On the other hand, the no-zero grading policy would set the minimum score you can get on assignments—missing, late, or complete—at 50%.  Having a minimum baseline of 50% combats this disproportion, leaving the increment between an F and D as 10%, just as other grades do. With a 50% Rule, students are not stuck in a hole when trying to raise their grades. Instead, students who have fallen behind and are putting effort into catching up can see real progress in their recorded performance, providing students with the motivation to continue their efforts in education and the drive to recover from their failures and mistakes. 

“If you have a zero percent in a class, there’s no reason for you to even try because you can’t recover from a zero percent. But if you’re sitting at a 53%, there’s a chance that you can have a D, so it’s an inherent motivator for students,” Charlie Paulson, an AP Calculus and standard math teacher at Lincoln, says. 

Paulson, whose assessments are worth 95% of the students’ overall grade, awards 50% credit on all his assessments and offers test corrections, as long as the student shows they made an effort to attempt the problem and recognize where they need help. 

Neil Matsui, a Biology and AP Environmental Science teacher at Lincoln, also has a 50% grading policy and test revision opportunities for his classes, given that students are well-behaved and motivated.

“During that first year [of my teaching career] that I didn’t have [ a 50% Rule], I found that there was a large proportion of students that started to disengage from what we were trying to learn from the class,” says Matsui. “And now [with the 50% Rule], it’s just maybe one or two per class.” 

River Suh, a Biology and Biotechnology teacher at Lincoln, has a 40% grading policy. 

“For me, 40% takes care of anything that we as teachers don’t have power over, anything that students don’t have power over,” Suh says. “That’s kind of my insurance against whether or not I’m being reasonable or whether or not the grade really reflects whether the student is prepared for the next step.”

To take advantage of and benefit from the rule, students must remain present in class and show they are actively trying to learn. The implementation of a no-zero grading policy in a classroom is completely discretionary to the teachers, who may experiment with and design their own guidelines to adapt with their ever-changing classes of students. 

“My policy for the 40% is if you are disturbing the learning environment of other people, if you are negatively impacting the culture of the community of how we learn together, and if you’re just wasting your own time…I’m gonna mark that down to a zero because I want students to realize how important and dramatic it is if they were in a class that was less forgiving.”

The 50% grading policy is not a free pass for students, nor does it cheapen the work of students who have been consistent with their studies to receive an A. The effort of one student towards their grade remains independent of others’ performance, and a student having a better chance at a passing grade does not cause another student’s higher grade to be worth any less. Without the returned effort from students, a 50% still sits at an F.  

“I still fail students…I still have students who have less than 50%. That’s because they don’t take assessments, and they don’t show up or they don’t try,” Paulson clarifies. “It’s not super easy to get an A in my class.”

With clear expectations for guidelines and careful reflection on grading policies,  thoughtful implementation of the 50% Rule can prevent both teachers and students from being overwhelmed. 

If the ultimate goal in the classroom is to fuel student learning, why not offer students second chances? Even third or fourth chances? The 50% Rule allows teachers to account for the tribulations of student lives outside the classroom, encouraging advancement with empathy and recognition that all students deserve a fair opportunity for an accurate measure of academic achievement. Equity in the classroom starts with equitable grading, in which it fosters a learning environment that rewards perseverance over perfection.

By Lincoln Log Staff

The Lincoln Log classroom has the First Amendment’s right to freedom of the press, typed and printed in bold letters above the projector screen. It stands as a stark symbol for student journalists and their natural right to publish and share truthful information with their community even if the information isn’t easy to digest. 

Free expression is not about making things seem nice and pretty but about conveying truth and complexity. Ignorance is bliss, and if we choose to ruminate in the bliss and ignore the ongoing difficult conflicts and issues happening in the world, then we are not exercising our rights properly.

Recently in the world, despite what should be many student-run newspaper’s right to express their beliefs and truths freely, thousands of college students at some of the most renowned universities in the United States have not been able to exercise these same freedoms. 

Colleges like Columbia University, University of California Berkeley, and University of Southern California have recently used their right to freedom of expression in Pro-Palestine protest encampments, making national headlines. These protests have mostly been violently cleared out by police as they try to mitigate public defiance from students. 

This is just as equally applicable to students reporting on a local level. If bathrooms are broken and locked and causing immediate issues in student’s lives, then the newspaper should report on it. If a corner store that feeds a majority of the Lincoln population hosts a worker who has sexually harassed students, then it is vital that we truthfully report on the issues and publicate the voices and stories that want to be heard. 

Being students does not make the content of our writing any less important or valid. Our direction is not dictated by what administration or the Board of Education expect us to write about. We write what we see and we tell the truth. 

Student writing is not gilded in golden articles that try to hide the issues of a school or within the community, nor is it aimed to focus only on the negatives and ignore the positives. We as student journalists write about topics that are essential to the everyday experience here at Lincoln, as well as our opinions on subjects that interest us as young artists, writers, learners, and leaders.  

The Lincoln Log will not placate someone's anger, stifle demands of exposure, or write out someone’s traumatic personal experiences because they aren’t as pretty to the eyes of their readers. 

The Lincoln Log and its journalists prides itself on writing about the truth, as other high school publications around the world don’t always enjoy the same rights to voice our thoughts in the way that we have been able to for decades. It is a privilege to write freely without fear of being censored, but this privilege must stay protected. At the Lincoln Log, we stand by the idea that free expression is crucial to not just our publication, but to keeping democracy safe in America.