Opinions


The Atrocity of Procrastination

posted Oct 16, 2018, 4:41 AM by Jeffrey Wolf

By: Eddie Inchaurregui, Staff Writer

Posted October 16th, 2018


It’s no surprise that many people procrastinate in the modern world.  Everything we use has a heightened sense of convenience. Communication, entertainment, and knowledge are easily obtainable at the touch of a button.  None of this was ever meant to generate the degree of procrastination found in the modern society of today. Innovations have procured new levels of technology, simplicity, and accessibility for users of different backgrounds, and these users are unknowingly being babied into living more convenient lives. This creates a comfort zone of little effort that reoccurs in every facet of our lives.  What does it take to escape this “comfort zone”? It takes determination. It takes the will of the individual to rebound from this idle state that we so often traverse. Believing in ourselves is half the battle. The rest is just progression. At this juncture, we are are given an ultimatum. We can waffle the thought of completion and tell ourselves that it could be done another time, or, we can realize that our task will not take up the whole day, rather a portion of it. There is no point in crying over spilled milk. There’s no secret to losing habits of procrastination.  Progression is life, and there’s no changing that.

Different Views: Should the United States increase gun control legislation?

posted Mar 23, 2018, 4:48 AM by Jeffrey Wolf   [ updated Mar 23, 2018, 4:52 AM ]



               
                                   
                  

Gun control laws should be strengthened.
By: Autumn Morrow, Staff Writer
Posted March 23rd, 2018


At age 11, I was incredibly excited to finally take a hunter’s safety course and to be able to go hunting with my father and uncles.  This tradition goes back generations in my family, and is certainly one I value. I have shot a BB gun for as long as I can remember, and at age 11, I also learned how to shoot a rifle and a shotgun.  I, like many people, was taught to respect guns from a very young age. That said, the respect for firearms is not universal among all who wield them. This issue can be minimised if America enacts stronger gun control laws.  


To be clear, I am not advocating that the public is banned from the use of firearms, simply that they are relatively easy to obtain for those who are likely to handle them responsibly, and that they are much more difficult for those who are likely to handle them irresponsibly to get.  This issue has been made tragically important by the influx of shootings, especially in schools, over the last two decades. While gun control is not the cure all solution for school, or any other type of, violence, it, along with appropriate mental health care measures can help to reduce this public safety concern.


First, gun safety courses should be required before somebody is allowed to own a firearm.  Already, such classes are available; the economic effects would be negligible. Gun safety courses can be taken online, or administered by licensed teachers in person.  They teach people how to appropriately hold, care for, load, and shoot their weapon. These are all skills that are critical to safely handling a firearm, and it is clear that anyone who owns one should be able to handle it correctly.  This requirement would not be a great upheaval for many, as 70% of gun owners reported taking a gun safety course in a study done by the Pew Research Center, it will simply educate those who own guns about their new possessions.


Another measure that the United States should take is to prevent high risk individuals from obtaining guns.  Many gun advocates argue that guns do not commit crimes: people do. This statement is essentially correct, and for this reason, those with certain mental illnesses and those on terrorism watch and no-fly lists should not be allowed to purchase guns.  This is for the safety of the individual as well as the general public, as they may not be able to safely handle guns, and are at a higher risk of injuring themselves or others. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 89% of American adults are in favor of this measure with equal support from both those who own guns and those who don’t..  To achieve this, background checks should be required in all private gun sales. This will eliminate the notorious “gun show loophole” as well as allow the laws currently in place, in addition to those suggested above to be enforced. 77% of gun owners believe this should be the case, as do 87% of non-gun owners.


In summary, gun control laws can and should be strengthened in the United States without destroying the cultural value they provide.  This can be achieved by requiring gun safety courses before one is allowed to own a firearm, preventing those who are mentally ill or suspects of terrorism from owning guns, and ensuring that background checks are performed in ALL gun sales.  This may not prevent all gun crimes, but these measures, which are widely agreed upon across the political spectrum, will help make our country a safer place.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.


Gun control legislation is dangerous.
By: Henry L. Clark, Staff Writer
Posted March 23rd, 2018


In the wake of the most recent mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland Florida, the Democratic Party has once again started preaching into the echo chamber on gun reform. They say that we need to “protect our children from the baby killing semi automatic weapons”, even though guns don't kill people, and banning all semi automatic weapons in the U.S. would mean almost half of the weapons on the market today and owned by citizens would be illegal.  When it comes to the discussion of gun rights and the second amendment between the left and the right, there really are only two questions and one disagreement. Should the citizens of the United States be armed? And, what firearms should they be allowed to have? Many on the left say that the second amendment applies only to muskets or hunting firearms. They are dead wrong. This can be proved by taking a quick glance at the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution and do a little digging into firearm history and the Second Amendment.


The Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution. Now, just by reading this text, you can see that yes, the citizens of the United States have the right to be armed, and have a civic duty to be armed to protect the general populous. That answers question number one. As far as limitations on firearms and weapons goes, there should be none and here is why.  First, let’s take a step back and dissect every phrase of the Second Amendment. The first phrase A well regulated Militia” means a well trained, competent, and ready fighting force comprised of the people to supplement the military. Right there we see that the founding fathers wanted a militia and to have a militia, citizens must be armed. Next, “being necessary to the security of a free State”. This phrase means that it is the job of the people to fight against the possible tyranny of their own government to keep themselves free. When the Second Amendment was written, the founding fathers had just finished fighting a war against the tyranny of the British Crown to claim themselves as a free and independent state. To ensure that they themselves, or their replacements would never do to their own people what the British did to them, they put this phrase in the Second Amendment. Now, it would be pretty difficult to fight against a government such as ours with all of its highly advanced military weaponry with muskets and hunting rifles don’t you think? And besides, who is the government to say that they get all of these highly advanced killing machines and we the people don’t? We tell them what to do and what we can and cannot have, not the other way around. This is why the Second Amendment does not only apply to any firearm, but also to full out artillery. In fact, in 1812 President Madison signed a Letter of Marque to a private shipping company (Owned and operated by people like you and me.) authorizing their possession and use of cannons to attack enemy shipping. Not muskets or hunting rifles, but large caliber field artillery!  Another point, if you are implying that the Second Amendment was written solely for the possession and use of muskets, you must think that the founding fathers were so incredibly stupid that they never thought of any technological advancements in the field of firearms. In fact, many of those “evil assault weapons” that the Democratic Party say should be banned, actually had grandfathers that existed before or around the time of the Revolutionary War. Look at the Belton Flintlocks. This was a weapon that one man could use and could fire about 20 rounds with one pull of the trigger in about five seconds, and it was used in the Revolutionary War. Another example is the Puckle Gun which was an early Gatling gun produced 60 years before the American Revolution, and not only did the founding fathers know about these guns, they were hardcore fans of them! However I digress. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, basically says I or whomever else is a legal U.S. citizen of the age of majority, can have whatever weapon that they desire, and last but not least, “shall not be infringed.” means that you or whomever else cannot take away my weapons or prevent me from getting them unless I commit and am charged with a felony.


So in short, the Second Amendment is for all weapons, not just muskets and hunting rifles and saying that it is, is dangerous. If the government keeps restricting our rights and the ability to protect ourselves from their power, they will have much more control over the American citizen than any of us could ever realize. This is why it is paramount that we as a collective society, must send a message to our elected officials saying that any measure of gun control is an infringement on our constitutional rights, and a direct attack on and threat to our individual safety and freedom. God bless the United States of America.  


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.



Opinion: Mental Health Awareness Week Groundbreaking

posted Nov 6, 2017, 5:09 AM by Jeffrey Wolf

By: Chloe Schmidt, Staff Writer

Posted November 6th, 2017


Along with other students at the assembly, I thought this presentation was long overdue. Even just a small talk from the guidance counselors would be good, but to me, at least, it seemed like the administration just wanted to remain silent on the suicides and mental health issues our community have been dealing with for the past three years and counting. It was reassuring to me, though, that they did this in early October contrary to sometime late in the school year.


When we were first told about this assembly the week before it happened, I was relieved but nervous. I was excited that this issue would finally be brought to light. At the same time, I was nervous because of some of the rude comments I’ve heard in the past regarding suicide and mental illness. Luckily, I only heard one rude comment on the first day, and everyone else was excited that this issue was finally being talked about.


I thought the butterflies around the school and the announcements every day were a nice touch and built up to the assembly. It’s nice to see the Peers 4 Peers and administration paying attention to such an important issue and doing things to build up people’s self-confidence. It’s not going to change someone’s mental illness completely, but it could make them feel better for a day.


To me, the assembly sounded rehearsed so it wasn’t exactly the right presentation for me, but I still thought her experience with mental illness and her advice regarding it was interesting. I liked the Q&A part the best because it got the student body involved. Honestly, I was curious as to how my fellow peers would act regarding this issue. To my surprise everyone was compassionate and listening well. I’m sure that made kids that suffer with mental illness feel a lot more understood and comfortable.


Overall, I thought this was an important to be brought to light and the school did it justice. I just hope everyone’s not going to forget about it by next week, or the week after. This is a topic that should never be forgotten.



Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.

Different Views: Should the United States' immigration policy expand or be restricted?

posted May 26, 2017, 4:48 AM by Jeffrey Wolf   [ updated May 26, 2017, 4:56 AM ]



United States' immigration policy should be expanded.

United States' immigration policy should be restricted.

By: Nora Martin, Staff Writer

Posted May 26th, 2017

America has always been known as the melting pot. This is due to the fact that there are so many cultures present in American society. The questions about immigration presented by the current administration have threatened this nickname and the very principles America is known for. Everyone currently in the United States has either descended from immigrants or is an immigrant themselves unless they are a part of the Native American population. If immigration is denied to specific cultures, this will further damage foreign relations and will bring a negative connotation to America’s name and flag.


To begin, immigration allows new ideas to come to our country. This allows America to be the leader in innovation. For example, Joseph Pulitzer was an immigrant from Hungary. He brought with him a new type of writing and journalism. Because of his achievement in journalism and the influence it has left on America, he has the prestigious Pulitzer prize named after him. This shows the continual and beneficial influence that immigrants have on the progress of the US. Also, this fact demonstrates the importance of immigrants as they help strengthen the United States and its culture as new ideas make our society stronger. Additionally, immigrants help the United States’s economy thrive. This is due to the fact that the American population is aging as the part of the population that is a part of the baby boomers are more rapidly entering retirement. Also, the most commonly held jobs held by immigrants across the United States are housekeepers, agricultural work, janitors, construction workers, and cashiers. These jobs are often low in pay and jobs that many people would prefer not to do. An argument that is commonly used by the opposition is that immigrants are stealing jobs Americans should have. They often fail to realize that many of these jobs that immigrants take are ones that are very low in pay and barely sustain people. Many of these jobs can also be dangerous which causes less people to be inclined to take them. Both of these facts help to illustrate the need for immigrants within America’s society as they not only take the small jobs but also are a huge contributing factor to the economy as the population continues to age. People often forget the component of immigration also being a humanitarian effort. Many people immigrate to the United States in order to escape some terrible event that is occurring within their own country. They don’t just wake up and decide to move their whole life to an unfamiliar place. They are trying to escape something which could be but is not limited to political turmoil, drought, or famine. For example, many people criticize the high immigration of people from Mexico whether it is legally or illegally. In Mexico, there is a war on drugs which has led to many massacres of people and an extensive amount of police brutality. Another example is of the refugees in Syria. Currently in Syria, there is a civil war that all began with anti-government protests. This has evolved into the use of chemical weapons against the citizens as well as the use of bombs on its cities. Because this is happening within their cities, both Mexicans and Syrians need to be allowed access to the sympathy of the American people while still maintaining safe vetting processes. There are also many misconceptions when thinking of foreign countries. The current administration has fostered a mentality that has given foreigners and immigrants an image of being the villain. The President has even tried to create a travel ban several times over which would exclude the admission of people from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and Syria.This is ridiculous as according to CNN,   “0 refugees from the countries included in the President’s travel ban have killed anyone in terrorist attacks on American soil.”  Most of the countries on this travel ban list are countries with Islam as their dominant religion. Many are buying into this islamophobia, but this is unfair as in reality “9 people have been killed a year, on average, by Muslim extremists in the US since 9/11. 12,843 people are killed a year, on average, by guns in the US. 37,000 people die every year, on average, in traffic accidents in the US.” In comparison,many fewer people have died due to the inclusion of these people and immigrants into the country. This proves that many people are giving immigrants especially those of the Islamic faith a bad reputation when in reality they are just people trying to escape the terrors that are occurring in their native country. Because of all these factors, it is a necessity that immigrants are allowed into the United States when they pass the vetting process as immigrants support America’s progress and are allowed the safety that all humans should be guaranteed.


All in all, immigrants should be allowed access to the benefits of coming to America as they need America just as much as America needs them. The inclusion of many people of many cultures allows for the worldliness and knowledge of other cultures to increase. Allowing immigrants come into the country also fights the xenophobic nature that this administration seems to be enforcing. This allows America to be a more empathetic place as well as it allows for the hate in the world to be combatted. The relatives of everyone except the Native Americans in America were allowed to immigrate here so the present day immigrant should be able to too. This will allow America to keep its nickname of the Melting Pot and America will continue to be a role model for the world to follow.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.




Henry Clark, Staff Writer

Posted May 26th, 2017


Why is it that the Democrat Party feels the need to call the Republican Party racist and xenophobic bigots just because Republicans support extreme vetting and increased regulation of immigrants entering our country? I can hear them responding to that question right now. “We are a nation of immigrants and we are terrible people for turning these poor refugees away.”  It is an undeniable truth that we are a country of immigrants, however we are not a country of illegal aliens. The thought that conservatives are racists and xenophobes because we want to deport criminal illegal aliens is simply preposterous. Conservatives are not against immigration, we are against illegal aliens entering our country unlawfully. In fact, historically, it has been the democrats who have been against immigration and have been racist and xenophobic to those coming into our nation. Let’s take a little crash course through immigration and immigrant history in the 20th century.


It is 1917 and the U.S. has just entered WW1. Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) is president. In response to the German treachery in Europe, the banning of all German immigrants to the United States has been enacted. In addition, all illiterates, persons of psychopathic inferiority, men and women entering for immoral purposes, alcoholics, stowaways, vagrants, and the ill are sent back to their country of origin. Let’s jump forward to 1941. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, another Democrat, is president. After the events of Pearl Harbor all German, Italian, and Japanese immigration to America was suspended. In addition to halting immigration, President Roosevelt also had naturalized people of these ethnic origins thrown into internment camps.  These people could not come into our country or move about it freely simply because of where they were from. Even if they were legal citizens, they were interned because of their ethnicity. Isn’t that racism and xenophobia? The democrats were okay back then with banning those from troubled parts of the world and nobody complained. Now, when Republicans want a temporary travel ban of people from countries known to produce terrorists, we’re called racists and xenophobes. This is just another example of the Democrat’s hypocrisy.


Republicans are for immigration and naturalization of immigrants. What we do not support however, is the naturalizing of immigrants and refugees who come to our shores with no paperwork. Also, for the time being, from certain muslim countries known to house radical islamic terror groups. Republicans are repulsed by the terrorizing of innocent U.S. citizens by a faction of the muslim world know as radicalized islamists in the name of Allah. We need to put the safety of America's citizens first. Yes, our nation has been, and will always be a melting pot of different cultures and ethnicities. But in the late 19th and early 20th century, with immigration at it’s hayday, America had a process for immigration. Certain standards regarding health, occupation, family, and purpose in how they would help the country had to be answered. How did we get so far off that path to allow the unfettered entry of people into our homeland?


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.

Different Views: Should the Minimum Wage Law be increased to $15 an hour?

posted Mar 31, 2017, 4:24 AM by Jeffrey Wolf   [ updated May 24, 2017, 6:33 AM ]


The Minimum Wage Law has been a hot topic in politics for many years.  As of 2009, the Minimum Wage Law requires that people are paid at least $7.25 per hour.  Madeline Hoitink and Henry L. Clark explore the issue of increasing the Minimum Wage Law to $15 per hour in our Nite Crier series, Different Views.

The Minimum Wage Law should be increased to $15 an Hour.

The Minimum Wage Law should not be increased to $15 an Hour.


By: Madeline Hoitink, Co Editor-in-Chief

Posted March 31st, 2017

Over the past century, the minimum wage in America has been steadily decreasing.  The minimum wage of 1968 would be equivalent to a much higher minimum wage than the $7.25 per hour in today’s economy.  Although workers were generally paid more, the 1968 unemployment rate of 3.6% was still lower than America’s current unemployment rate of 5.0%.  This past occurrence is evidence that a higher minimum wage would be beneficial.  The minimum wage in America should be raised to $15.

First, a raised minimum wage provides more money for the workers -- people who will spend the money.  As a result, they will help improve the local economy by putting money into other businesses.  This increased spending would create more jobs, as larger profits encourage businesses to hire more workers.  In addition, decently paid workers tend to complete their work more carefully and efficiently, as they have more incentive.  The moral cause of America’s current minimum wage is also a major factor in the country’s debate on wage requirements.  No one should be in poverty while they are working full-time, even working at the minimum wage. However, the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is not enough to support a family, so many minimum wage workers in America are still in poverty.  Full-time workers fulfill adequate social responsibilities, so this should be enough for them economically, too.  With a family of two, the family’s income must be at least $30,135 per year to live somewhat comfortably.  With one working member of the family and with the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, this number is not reached; people have to rely on government aid (food stamps, Medicaid, housing assistance), which comes out of the pockets of other Americans through taxes.  A $15 minimum wage would bring more Americans out of poverty and result in less government assistance.  The American government can then spend money on other improvements or focus on ridding the nation of debt, which would plague later generations if it is not decreased.

Due to its potential to increase the number of available jobs, chance to bring Americans out of poverty, and way for the government to spend money positively, a higher minimum wage of $15 would be advantageous to America.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.




By: Henry L. Clark, Staff Writer

Posted March 31st, 2017


Recently, the Democratic Party and Liberal supporters have been pushing for wage reform and a raise of the federal minimum wage to $15.00 an hour. This is illogical and creates a huge economic danger for our country.


Hypothetically, if the federal government sets into law a $15.00 minimum wage, this is what Democrats suggest would happen; low income workers will have more money in their pockets to spend. In turn, the national poverty rate will fall and more people will be spending more money which will stimulate the economy. Now, the next logical step in this plan would be tons of people getting off of the government bandwagon of subsidies and federal aid because they would be making more money. This last part is counterintuitive to Democratic strategies as they prefer giving handouts to providing a hand up. The Democrats love entitlements, and want as many people as possible to be on them. That being said, this just goes to show how illogical their thought process is. They legitimize their ideology by professing it as morally correct.


Now, in actuality, this is what would happen. Immediately, employers who currently pay minimum wage to their employees would start to cut staff to cover expenses. This would cause, the unemployment rate to skyrocket. Since a large percent of the lower middle class and impoverished will not have jobs, they will have no money and the homeless rate will grow exponentially. Then, all of these homeless, jobless, and poor Americans will turn to Uncle Sam for subsidies which is exactly what the Democrats want. All in the name of “progressivism”. In addition, costs for goods and services would rise to cover labor costs, automation would replace workers and teenagers would be hard pressed to find jobs.Why hire a teenager for $15 an hour when you can hire someone with work experience? Remember, people have been let go or replaced due to labor costs.


Ultimately, raising the minimum wage will only result in more problems.The Democratic Party has gathered so much support because they attempt to be a party based on emotions and feel that an increase the minimum wage law to $15 dollars is a morally right thing to do regardless of any other consequences that their policies may inflict.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.

Eating healthy: How much are you willing to pay?

posted Mar 30, 2017, 4:52 AM by Jeffrey Wolf


By: Megan Cichon, Entertainment Editor

Posted March 30, 2017


Students will go through the lunch line and select what they’d like. Maybe today pizza is on the menu, so the student grabs milk, pizza, and a salad. When they arrive at the register, the lunch lady tells them they must take a fruit, or they will be charged extra. But why should you be charged more for taking less? I was wondering the same thing, so I decided to investigate. This led me to Cindy Fassbender, the director of the lunch program here at Slinger.


The Child Reauthorization Law states that a complete meal is reflective of the guidelines set in place by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) on a website called Choose My Plate. Most students in Slinger are quite familiar with this concept, but incase you’ve forgotten what it all entails, allow me to refresh you:


Choose Myplate is all about building a healthier eating style, and therefore reducing your risk of heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer. Myplate has replaced the Food Pyramid to tell you what you should, and shouldn’t be eating. Here’s what you need for a full, healthy meal:

  • 1 cup of fruit

  • 1 cup of vegetables

  • 1 ounce of grains (Approx. 1 slice of bread)

  • 1 ounce of protein

  • 1 cup of dairy

  • Less than 6 teaspoons of oil


Slinger High School, like many other schools, has a contract with the USDA that requires our lunch program to give students a meal according to the guidelines on Choose My Plate. So what happens when a student doesn’t want to take a “full” meal? The item is entered as “Ala Carte”. Keep in mind, that the extra cost will vary by what the student takes on that particular day and what’s on the menu. There isn’t a set in stone additional charge that is used when a student doesn’t take a fruit, vegetable, or otherwise.  Let’s go back to the pizza example I started off with to clarify:

  • If a student takes a milk, pizza, and salad: they’ll be charged extra because they’ll be missing the fruit portion of their meal.

  • If a student takes a milk, two pizzas, and a salad: they’ll be charged for two lunches because they took two pizzas.

  • Here’s the kicker: if a student takes a milk, salad, and fruit, they will not be charged more or less, because the items the student has taken counts for a full meal.

  • In addition, students on free/reduced lunch absolutely cannot take additional items. If they do, it’s confiscated, and thrown away due to contamination concerns. Students on free/reduced lunch are however, charged extra if they do not take a fruit; not charging them would be discriminatory.


The contract Slinger High School signed with the USDA provides the food service with money. If the lunch staff at Slinger doesn’t charge the students who don’t take a fruit more money, the contract with the USDA will be suspended, and the money to sustain the lunch program will come out of the pockets of taxpayers.


Just because the lunch staff enforces the rules however, doesn’t mean they completely agree with it. I told Mrs. Fassbender a story about a student who’d gone around collecting unwanted bananas from students who’d taken them to avoid being charged more money. At the end of the lunch period, he’d collected thirty or so bananas that would eventually see the garbage can. She told me about how Slinger had considered starting a Sharing Table program. The program enables students to give lunch items away that they don’t want, and then other students can come take it instead. This idea was mostly scrapped, after the realization that the food students would give away could be contaminated or tampered with. Compost bins cost thousands of dollars that Slinger simply cannot afford.


While the law in place does make a hearty attempt to force children to eat healthier, I believe that there is another option that won’t disrupt the pocketbooks of parents, and won’t also stuff our landfills with unwanted food.


For more information about Slinger’s lunch program, visit:

http://www.slinger.k12.wi.us/family/family_lunchmenus.cfm

For my information about Choose My Plate, visit:

https://www.choosemyplate.gov/



Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.


ACT and SAT - Which is best, and why take both?

posted Mar 22, 2017, 4:49 AM by Jeffrey Wolf   [ updated Mar 30, 2017, 4:52 AM ]

By: Korey Alder, Media Editor

Posted March 22nd, 2017


A few weeks ago, everyone at Slinger High School took the ACT test, as is now mandated by Wisconsin state law. Because of this, it may seem rather pointless to take the SAT test as well, and the majority of Wisconsin students likely will not take the test. A little over a week ago, however, I took the SAT test at the Mequon test center, and thought I would compare the ACT and SAT tests for those interested.


So, why would you want to take both tests? The answer is that, for some, it may be beneficial. If you’re planning to go to college out-of-state, you may need to take the SAT, but most Wisconsin colleges don’t require it. That doesn’t make the test entirely useless to those looking at in-state options, however. Many colleges, including some in Wisconsin, will take either the ACT or the SAT test, meaning that if the SAT seems easier to you, it might be better to take in addition.


While it’s against both the SAT and ACT policies to discuss test questions, I can say that both tests are very similar in the style of questions asked. The base SAT is shorter as well, but includes “subject tests” that some colleges require in addition to the main sections of math, reading, and english. Overall, the SAT was a much less stressful experience; more time was given per section, and questions seemed clearer than those on the ACT. The SAT is produced by the College Board, the same organization that creates the exams for AP classes, but the questions are thankfully much less specific and also much less difficult than those found on AP tests. Probably the best part of the SAT was how quickly the setup portion of the test was. Most of the registration is completed online, so there was only basic information like name and address to fill out in the test booklet, rather than the hour or more process completed for the ACT.


With this in mind, I would recommend the SAT for anyone who might have done poorly on the ACT and wants to try a different test that may be easier to understand and practice for, or those who would like to take the better of their two scores.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.

Should study halls be cut?

posted Jan 6, 2017, 4:44 AM by Jeffrey Wolf   [ updated Mar 30, 2017, 4:53 AM ]

By: Robby Timmler, Staff Writer

Posted January 6th, 2017


Study halls are a time for students to either get their homework done, do some T.A. work for teachers, or talk to teachers or friends. Students complain about how early they have to wake up to get to school on time feeling tired and drained of energy. What if study halls were cut to have a shorter day or more curricular classes? This would allow for school to start later and get out earlier. Taking out study halls could also allow for more room for curricular credits, so then students can graduate earlier and go into college or start their career earlier than before. Plus students can have more time after school to talk to teachers if they have a question on the homework.


On the other hand, taking study halls away could take away the resources like the Internet or a print that some students might not have or able to use at home. Also study halls have allowed for students in music programs to have more opportunities to do a lesson that helps them understand the music their given in class. Study halls also allow students to get homework done that couldn’t get done the night before or needs to get done that day.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Slinger High School or the Slinger School District.

Why Do We Make New Year’s Resolutions?

posted Jun 1, 2016, 11:33 AM by Jeffrey Wolf

By: Abbie Schmidt, Staff Writer

Posted June 1st, 2016


Recently, I sent out a survey of four questions to learn more about people’s personal resolutions. Being that the year is halfway over (wow!), I found it to be a fitting time to remind people of the goals they have set for themselves. The questions were: 1) What was your New Year’s Resolution? 2) Who made you want this as a goal? 3) How long did this goal last? 4) Have you attempted this goal before?


Now, I’d being lying if I say the results didn’t surprise me. It was interesting to see the goals people had set for themselves. They ranged from “lose weight” to “get a girlfriend” to “not get my heartbroken.” While some people had the goal of “making dank memes” I also got many responses about people wanting to “be happier”. Out of 100 people, 39% said working out was part of their goal.


Next, I asked who made them want this as a goal. People could choose more than one answer so it adds up to more than 100%. 21% of people were pushed by their family; 20% by friends; 14% by a significant other. However, the majority of people were pushed by themselves, a shocking 92%!!

Then, I asked how long the goal lasted; I was surprised to see that most people either dropped out right away, or stayed in till the end. 20 people ended the goal in January and 9 people ended their goal in February. 68 people continued through May. That leaves 3 people that stopped in March and April combined. This makes me think people are either very serious about their goal or don’t care at all. There doesn’t seem to be many people that “sorta want” to set a goal.


Finally, I asked them if they had attempted this goal before. 63% said yes while 37% said no. I found this interesting because it again shows that people are either “very serious” or “don’t care”.                             


Maybe people aren’t setting realistic goals if they need to repeat it year after year. Did you make a New Year’s Resolution? Now that the year is halfway over, ask yourself how you’re doing? Does your goal need to be tweaked or are you still going strong? Good luck!


To view the results of this survey go to: http://goo.gl/forms/lQro5Obf07Rl8mzn2

Modern Technology; A Blessing or a Curse?

posted May 16, 2016, 4:15 AM by Jeffrey Wolf

By: Hannah Stadel, Staff Writer

Posted May 16th, 2016


What I believe is probably the largest concern for us today is surprisingly overlooked by many. While there are countless benefits to modern technology, very little attention is on the actual effects of it. Now, don’t think I’m only writing this to bash on kids for being on their phones when they shouldn’t be, though that definitely is part of the picture. I want to reveal the truth behind the 6 or more hours each of us spend in front of a screen every day.


I’m not saying you’re a horrible person if you can browse the internet. In fact, I’m using Google to write this. There are a countless number of things we can accomplish in a remarkably brief amount of time these days. I used the internet about a month ago to save time and money that was necessary not 30 years ago to buy concert tickets. E-mail, texting, and Google alone open doors to a new kind of efficiency and creativity. Many people dive into this new world and are able to help incredible amounts of people, solve daunting issues, or create something wonderful at the click of a mouse. But maybe the endless amount of new things to learn and do with this new world of screens and computers comes at a price.


See, not all of us recognize this insane new amount of potential - especially in our generation. We’ve grown up around cell phones and computers, becoming more and more familiar with a digital world while growing less aware of the world around us.


The truth is, if you’re accustomed to receiving whatever information or item you want at a moment’s notice you’re giving up a vital part of learning, growing, and experiencing life. I’ve seen it happen in my own life. I get annoyed if my phone takes more than a couple seconds to open something up, and I’m sure you do too. Is it possible that we haven’t learned patience as well as those before us? The same question could be asked about hard work, creativity, or meaningful relationships.


Texting is convenient, time-saving, and a great way to connect with people far (or not so far) away, and reading the words someone typed is a very accurate interpretation of what they’re saying. Wait a second… that can’t be right. It’s a fact that ninety three percent of communication is nonverbal. That means gestures, tone of voice, and facial expression are the majority of what we consider human connection. Without this sense of genuine understanding, it’s not surprising that in today’s world people are feeling more and more lonely and anxious.


It’s so easy to accept this technology as progressive, innovative, and useful, but it’s just as easy to overlook the consequences. This is the ever-present question; should our goal be efficiency or a fulfilling life? And can there be a balance of both?e? And can there be a balance of both?

1-10 of 14