.
November 11, 2009
Joshua Das
Sometimes what is good for us isn’t the thing we always want. For instance, most students prefer an open campus during lunch, regardless of the side effects.
When on campus, students are far less likely to be tempted into some form of delinquency (i.e. messing around at the local Quikstop). How many times a year have you heard, “Hey did you hear about that fight in McDonalds?” Fights occur off-campus every year. Without proper supervision, the outcomes are unpredictable. If we disallow students from leaving the campus, there would be less violent encounters.
Also, the more new drivers get around in their cars, the more likely they are to get into an accident. With the parking lot mayhem during lunch, the new drivers are merely asking to test their parents’ auto insurance. Cars can crash into each other or into heedless pedestrians. Accompanying this worry, drivers would have to be wary of all the gas they spend. Sure, it doesn’t seem like much to drive to Subway and back, but the amount of used gas does add up.
A closed campus would ensure fewer tardies to class as well. Students wouldn’t have to deal with going to the Fremont Hub or farther locations, and having to hurry back before the second bell rings. The food at school would also be healthier, such as a salad, in comparison to a Big Mac. In fact, in the documentary “Supersize Me”, dieticians state that one should consume fast food only once a week, if at all.
In addition, with a closed campus, students may feel compelled to bring their own lunches. This would save them even more money, since they would not have to pay unreasonable prices for food that is half as good.
So even though a closed campus is not what everybody wants, the scenario’s pluses outweigh the minuses.
