The Blade is absolutely right in saying that Ohio colleges and universities should not be in the business of remedial education. Unfortunately, you then proceeded to blame a familiar suspect, our public schools.
The chief villains in this story are the universities themselves. For at least three decades, they have been engaged in a contest to see who can increase their enrollments at the fastest rate, as if bigger were automatically better. Why? Because more students mean more tuition income, which in turn means more academic departments, graduate programs, "distinguished" faculty, etc.
One inevitable result has been lower admissions standards, leading to the need for remedial education. Several months ago, The Blade carried an article revealing that the percentage of freshmen enrolled in remedial classes at Ohio state universities ranged from 2 percent at Miami, to around 50 percent at Cleveland State, with BG and UT coming in at 25 and 29 percent, respectively.
The primary problem is not poor preparation of students by our public high schools, but admission of unqualified students who would be better served by other educational institutions such as community colleges and technical schools.
Yet an educational task force has now recommended to Governor Taft that our universities admit even more thousands of students, in the name of making Ohio more competitive in today's world.
There will always be high school graduates who, for a variety of reasons (primarily socio-economic) do not have good high school records, but whom college admissions personnel believe should be given a chance. No caring person can object to this. But 50 percent of a freshman class? Twenty-five percent?
Ohio's state universities serve neither our youth, our state, nor our nation, by admitting thousands of ill-prepared students, then devoting precious, limited resources to remedial (that is, high school) education.
I read with interest stories about bureaucrats in Toledo, Clyde, Arcanum, and other cities passing ordinances or rules banning concealed carry, in spite of a firm statement by the Ohio attorney general that their acts are illegal under Section 9 of House Bill 12.
Had the law-abiding citizens of Ohio acted as these city officials are, they would have begun to carry concealed firearms when HB12, HB274, or even earlier bills were introduced, instead of waiting until they were passed into law.
Furthermore, these bureaucrats constantly whine about being underfunded, yet seem quite willing to throw away taxpayers' dollars on certain legal expenses when they get sued.
This behavior is disgraceful.
CHAD D. BAUS
Congratulations! Your editorial concerning Pfc. Andrew Sting was correct. Private Sting is the "sacrificial lamb" for following orders from above: to protect all of us, our lives, and our freedom from the terrorists.