students

It's not every day we report on a campus newspaper editorial here, but sometimes one is problematic enough to require a response.

The Georgetown student newspaper -- the Hoya -- published a disappointing editorial today, calling for the disempowerment of students while arguing that national leaders should be left to continue their assault on our generation.

...Student body presidents are elected to represent their peers in campus-specific proposals that are designed to make college life easier. National political representation, however, should be left to the congressmen and senators that many of those two million-plus college students elect of their own free will.

The campaign, which kicked off August 2, claimed to represent "our generation," but what it became was a grandstanding gesture by student leaders who saw a publicity opening. They got what they wanted: endless web, newspaper and television press, including buzz over a conference call with President Obama. The coalition expanded quickly, not because the student body presidents were being urged by their respective constituents to mobilize, but because they found company in their equally ambitious counterparts at other universities.

But in the end, what was actually accomplished? Elected campus leaders may have written a letter and filled the Twitter feeds of Congressmen with the now famous hashtag, but students did not march en masse in the streets of Washington. Student body presidents did not compel their peers to action by coordinating a phone-a-thon to congressional leaders. Nor did they solicit the cooperation of the College Republicans or College Democrats, two political forces on campus who may have been better equipped to take on Capitol Hill during the debt crisis.

While we understand GUSA's good intentions, it is important they remember their place as representatives of Georgetown students to the administration, not to politicians. GUSA executive representatives did not advertise a political campaign when they were running back in February. While Healy Hall and Capitol Hill were designed to mirror each other across Washington, GUSA leaders should stick to leading who they were elected to lead — our student body.

The editorial board disapproved of their fellow Georgetown student, student body president Mike Meaney, organizing a coalition of national student government presidents. The campaign--"Do We Have a Deal Yet"--was created to pressure Congress to stop bickering during the debt ceiling debate/budget crisis and to strike a deal with the next generation in mind, not the next election. It seems that the editorial board would have rather seen more of a focus on campus-specific matters than on "grandstanding gestures" protesting policies and discussions that ostensibly have no direct relevance to Georgetown students' lives.

Of course, the discussions and eventual compromise--if one could call it that--absolutely impacts the quality of life of each college student. For example, did you know that part of the ceiling deal takes money out of the pockets of loan-paying students? Grad students--used to being able to attend class without worrying about interest accruing on their loans--now find that reality taken away. Students who made 12 consecutive payments on their loans in a timely fashion used to be rewarded with a credit. As of July 1, 2012, that no longer exists.

Yes, these issues are made abstract and mind-numbing by the media, which generally aren't capable of facilitating a meaningful, substantive discussion on issues. And a system of higher education, resting on a bunch of siloed departments and divisions unwilling to cooperate, doesn't exactly serve as the best socializing force. Mix those together with an inability to see healthy conflict and a distaste for anything containing the word "politics," and we get the editorial quoted above, which surely represents something close to the views of many students.

What's sad is that this view--that officeholders are the experts and that students' roles are to merely take space on college campuses and exclusively agonize about matters like campus pub closures--is misguided at best and simply unaffordable right now given the problems we all face. Yes--there are problems on our campuses that student governments were elected to solve. But any student government with which I've affiliated is tasked with the responsibility of improving the lives of the students they represent. There is no such thing as a "campus bubble."

Various cultural, economic, and social forces infiltrate campus confines every second of every day. In taking on the task of representing students, student government representatives are obligated to lobby their local, state, and federal governments. Because politics is everywhere, the reality is that everyone is a politician, navigating various systems of power whether they like it or not--even the student journalists writing the editorial.

While compartmentalizing these systems would simplify the job of covering their campus, unfortunately things in the "real world" aren't that cut and dry. Yes, students are citizens of their campus and should have a say on something like a campus pub being slated to close. But students are also citizens of the town, state, country, and planet in which their campus is located. Policies passed at various levels of society impact the student experience, thereby creating a need for any elected student representative to serve as an advocate on and off campus; it also creates a need for student journalists to help their peers understand these impacts. Even though it might make these journalists' jobs a bit more complicated, that's what we need.

Students and young people are marginalized enough in our society; we don't need to do it to ourselves. If it were up to the Hoya editorial board, young people would go back to the kids' table and mind our p's and q's. We can't afford to take that approach any longer, however. The college student body presidents should be commended for 1.) observing the impact the debt discussion has on our generation--their campuses included--and 2.) for speaking out against the process. If anything, these student leaders had the opportunity to, and could have done more to stand up for their constituents, including broadening the number of participants to include the constituents themselves. I hope this collaborative activism continues and intensifies, and I hope to see the Hoya and other student newspapers cover it as they should.

Over the last few years, publications like Mother Jones and the New York Times magazine both have exposed us to the sugar daddy/baby phenomenon. Wealthy older men -- some married, some not -- plop their money down to entice young women to spend time with them, often with expectations of sexual activity.

However, as our economy has spiraled even further out of control, this activity is picking up steam. This past week we learned from the Huffington Post that the phenomenon has overlapped with the student debt crisis. The story describes several relationships borne out of economic strife and the desperation that accompanies the racking up of large amounts of debt to finance one's education. It also reveals that the increasing popularity of matchmaking sites like seekingarrangement.com have aided the sugar daddy/baby boom.

The Huffington Post piece spurred Bill Maher and his panel to discuss the issue last night.

The first thing that strikes me about this conversation is that it happened. We are so often saturated with positive portrayals of capitalism and what that economic system does for us (that whole American Dream thing) that when we hear personal accounts of the desperation it's wrought, our society -- particularly the establishment -- acts like it's some curious, extraordinary event. Now that the street economy is impacting elite college students, it's suddenly real and they are taken aback.

The second thing I am thinking about is the whole notion that American youth -- and Bourdain specifically mentions this at 5:15 -- just don't want to do jobs that they perceive as being below them. This narrative has been around a while, and it might be true of a certain demographic. But we're forgetting that most youth are in such a poor economic position right now that they simply can't live or survive on these jobs because they don't pay enough. And when there is a small number of other, barely better-paying jobs with benefits that are available, youth will hold out for those, even if they appear as a mirage on the horizon. And especially if they have the student debt that is simply no match for the low wage, no-health care jobs.

So, actually, the question Bourdain poses is unfair. "Why won't young people take jobs that are below them," should be rephrased: "Why won't young people take jobs that don't pay them enough?"

The question answers itself.

The sugar daddy/sugar baby phenomenon goes back to the need for (and absence of) well-paying jobs for young people. Imagine that.

Republicans just can't figure out what they want to do with young voters.

We see some momentum behind actually courting young people, which Sarah discusses in her most recent post. Conservative media outlets like Fox News, the National Review, and the Washington Examiner, are hot on Margaret Hoover's book (the great-granddaughter of Depression-inducing President Herbert Hoover), which argues that Millennials are sympathetic to the fundamental principles of conservatism and that the GOP should accordingly engage these young people. Sarah does a pretty good job of explaining why Hoover is misguided in her analysis, but the GOP establishment seems to be embracing her argument. And you know what? The civic engagement-enthusiast in me doesn't necessarily mind that; at least young people appear to be the target of some kind of outreach effort.

But while Hoover is feeling the love from conservative media, Republican officials across the country are doing everything they can to keep young people from exercising their rights as citizens. In the name of eradicating voting fraud (there are 44 one-millionths of one percent of votes impacted by voter fraud), these Republicans are actively intimidating and restricting the rights of the very same Millennials Hoover wants to attract to the Republican ranks.

The latest example? Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster, who is apparently clueless on election law.

Maine Republican Party Chairman Charlie Webster is claiming that college students who pay out-of-state tuition rates and vote in state are committing voter fraud.

At a press conference at the Maine State House, Webster gave the media a list of over 200 students -- their names redacted -- who paid out-of-state tuition rates but were registered to vote in the state.

[...]

...Webster provided absolutely zero evidence that the students -- the vast majority of whom were born in the late 80s and early 90s, based on Webster's list -- voted both in their home state and in Maine.

Webster doesn't understand that just because students are not originally from Maine does not mean that they aren't afforded the right to participate in the community where they live (provided they do not vote in their home state and in Maine). The Sun Journal, a Maine newspaper covering the story, describes it well.

According to Maine state law, students are eligible to register to vote in the municipality in which they attend school, as long as they have established residency there. There is not a period of time required for a person to establish residency. The University of Maine System has different guidelines to establish student residency. A student may only be granted in-state tuition if he or she has proven that she has established residency for reasons other than academic, regardless of the length of time that he or she has lived in Maine.

So yes, there are absolutely cases in which students, deemed as "out of state" by the University of Maine, would be legally and correctly registered to vote in Maine.

Again, all this is on top of other moves across the country to disenfranchise young people and minorities. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, for example, recently shepherded a law through the state legislature that would require young people to secure a photo ID in order to vote. And now he just announced the closing of 10 DMV bureaus, making it harder for young people to get those photo IDs. And it's not just a coincidence that most of these closures are happening in traditionally Democratic areas, while other DMV offices are seeing their hours extended by the governor.

Hoover might be persuading some of the Republican establishment that appealing to young voters is the trendy thing to do. But the GOP isn't about to persuade young people, who are seeing Mitt Romney-like waffling from the Grand Old Party. Are you interested in us or not? You can't have it both ways.

You've probably seen a story the last few days regarding students' poor performance in American history. In fact, alarmingly, a national test showed that students are least proficient in American history than in any other subject.

This New York Times writeup explains:

American students are less proficient in their nation’s history than in any other subject, according to results of a nationwide test released on Tuesday, with most fourth graders unable to say why Abraham Lincoln was an important figure and few high school seniors able to identify China as the North Korean ally that fought American troops during the Korean War.

Over all, 20 percent of fourth graders, 17 percent of eighth graders and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrated proficiency on the exam, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Federal officials said they were encouraged by a slight increase in eighth-grade scores since the last history test, in 2006. But even those gains offered little to celebrate because, for example, fewer than a third of eighth graders could answer even a “seemingly easy question” asking them to identify an important advantage American forces had over the British during the Revolution, the government’s statement on the results said.

Of course, we can sit around and lob grenades at the students taking these exams, describing them as lazy, disappointing, and the like. But the real perpetrator here is our education system, which repeatedly spurns history and civics education in favor of the more rational science and math. No Child Left Behind has only accelerated this trend over the last decade.

History advocates contend that students’ poor showing on the tests underlines neglect shown to the subject by federal and state policy makers, especially since the 2002 No Child Left Behind act began requiring schools to raise scores in math and reading but in no other subject. The federal accountability law, the advocates say, has given schools and teachers an incentive to spend less time on history and other subjects.

“History is very much being shortchanged,” said Linda K. Salvucci, a history professor in San Antonio who is chairwoman-elect of the National Council for History Education.

Many teacher-education programs, Ms. Salvucci said, also contribute to the problem by encouraging aspiring teachers to seek certification in social studies, rather than in history. “They think they’ll be more versatile, that they can teach civics, government, whatever,” she said. “But they’re not prepared to teach history.”

Salvucci's point is interesting, especially given that I and others here have called for more civic education. Perhaps history is being shortchanged.

However, we should be careful to not view history as some static set of facts that need to be deposited into students' brains. History is a set of complicated lessons and problems that, unfortunately, aren't mined at all. In my experience, for example, high school history classes are too scared to touch anything after World War II for fear of parental rage over indoctrination and the like.

Yet, the complex nature of our problems these days--created by many of those who use this study as ammunition to attack youth--demand students who can sort through the messy stuff. Yes, funding is limited, and we have already committed to investing much of it in science, math, and reading, but history and civics are also more important than ever. And we simply can't afford to watch this area of our education atrophy.

In my work with college students, one of the things I have observed is that anytime students hear the word "politics," they tend to exclusively link it with our national political discourse. With our national political dialogue and process failing to solve the large problems we face, we shouldn't be surprised that many students consequently develop a negative attitude toward politics and believe the political world is unproductive and difficult to access and navigate. Basically, trying to get through the large mess isn't worth the effort.

These observations have led me to question a few things.

First, isn't everything political? Politics isn't merely a game we play (the notion of someone "playing politics" is false and misleading); it's a reality that, if analyzed, reveals the power dynamics at work in our society that impact everything, from our national budget to whether a student or an administrator reads the morning announcements in a high school. If everything is political, we all bear responsibility as citizens to examine and critique not only the large-scale debates -- about job creation (for young people especially), education, climate change, voting rights, and social justice issues -- but also the smaller, seemingly insignificant and taken-for-granted aspects of our life. One does not need to be in, or thinking about, all things Washington, D.C. to be an activist or create positive change.

So, if we as young people adopt this view of politics -- that it's everywhere -- don't we produce more opportunities for engagement in politics, on a smaller, somewhat more manageable level? One challenge that young people and activists often face in working with local governments to create change is the community's adherence to tradition: "It's always been done this way, and who are you to drop in and suggest we change it?" Local elected officials have the least to gain personally from transforming the way they operate, as they believe they will be shouldering the blame for whatever might go wrong in the future. Yet, sadly -- and in a way, luckily -- the dire fiscal status of many local governments can serve as an opportunity to try new things. As the idea that moving forward in the same direction is no longer comforting to local officials, but actually a threat, innovation suddenly becomes more enticing.

In order to recognize and take advantage of these strategic opportunities, though, I propose that we need to begin with our local media, especially newspapers. Last week, a federal study reported that state and local reporting had severely weakened over the last few years, as news operations shifted their priorities elsewhere.

“In many communities, we now face a shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting,” said the study, which was ordered by the Federal Communications Commission and written by Steven Waldman, a former journalist for Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report. “The independent watchdog function that the Founding Fathers envisioned for journalism — going so far as to call it crucial to a healthy democracy — is in some cases at risk at the local level.”

On Thursday, Mr. Waldman is to issue a number of recommendations, none binding. Those include making actual in-the-field reporting a part of the curriculum at journalism schools, steering more government advertising money toward local instead of national media and changing the tax code to encourage donations to nonprofit media organizations.

Unfortunately, as the article goes on to note, many of today's local media outlets simply relay a politician's press release word for word, strengthening the government's power in its relationship with citizens, whether this official is a member of Congress, or a city council member. The lack of youth reporting in local media outfits is also troubling, and I believe this blame lays at the feet of young people, as well as these media operations. We need to wise up and understand that reporting on local news is just as civically critical as teaching in a challenging classroom environment or working in a low-income setting; simultaneously, local media also need to look for ways to shift funding to allow for a younger, fresher reporting staff, more familiar and comfortable with technology. Further, I would argue the copy-and-paste fest also leads to heightened use of Associated Press content rather than local reporting.

The problem with these tendencies is that citizens do not play on a level playing field with their representatives. Community members, lacking the "expertise" about local public affairs, self-select out of the political process because they receive little information about community issues, and the information they do receive is not properly vetted by the media.

If we as young people want to take advantage of these difficult economic times to create positive change, we must embrace our responsibility to critique, infiltrate, and strengthen our local media. We must be willing to voice our displeasure with its current product, pointing out where and how coverage could improve. We must accept strong, quality journalism as a critical component of active citizenship, incentivizing young people who choose to give back to their community through reporting on local current events. And we must beef up local journalism, exploring better ways to deliver local, scrutinized information to citizens to encourage their engagement (even if these local outlets are operated by larger conglomerates).

A more robust local media would enhance our efforts to beat back the tradition-minded crowd by allowing for the articulation of challenging questions and the examination of new ideas in our local politics. Politics is not an episodic game in which we can choose to participate or not participate. We are all engaging in politics whether we admit it or not. Improving the quality of our local media will make it easier to embrace the role we all have in our democracy and ever-present political world.

Update 2: Campus Progress has been working on this issue over the past day, creating an opportunity for us to directly e-mail Hamerlinck and demand an apology for his demeaning and condescending remarks toward young people.

You can visit the site here. Let him hear it!

Update: The Iowa State Daily has more on this incident:

...After the student representatives were finished, Hammerlinck [sic] gave a response. Hammerlinck told students to "go home" and that they were being used as props in the Democratic propaganda effort to increase state spending.

"We were shocked that he would say that," Knight said. "I was insulted, disappointed and upset that a public leader like himself doesn't like it when students [and] constituents, as well as taxpayers in the state, come and talk to their elected officials about what their votes would do to them. I don't understand why he would feel that way and much why he would say that."

[...]

Sen. Herman Quirmbach (D-Ames) was also present at the hearing.

"They talked very seriously about the quality of the programs, class sizes and [students] not leaving school in so much debt and [with] limitations on their career choices," Quirmbach said. "All the students did a bang-up job in articulating their views."

Quirmbach was shocked when he heard Hammerlink's remarks.

"It was unprofessional," Quirmbach said. "I hope to never see another display like that again."

Quirmbach believes that it was the students' duty to be there and speak as elected officials representing the students.

"It's not just disrespecting the students there, but all the students that they represented," Quirmbach said. "They were elected on behalf of the students to speak for all students."

Despite Hammerlinck's comments, the GSB will not discourage the student body from lobbying.

"Our plans aren't going to change just because one senator tells us to go home," Knight said. "If anything, it's going to strengthen our resolve to continue lobbying in Des Moines and continuing letting our representatives know both here and from our students' constituency districts what a seven percent cut to the regent institutions will do."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You would think someone who held the title of "Youth Field Specialist" in the Iowa State University Scott County Extension office, who developed and oversaw programs such as 4-H, and who currently serves as a college professor, would want students to be engaged in their communities.

You'd be wrong.

On Tuesday, Republican Iowa State Sen. Shawn Hamerlinck told five student government leaders from Iowa universities to "go home" and to not worry about the work the senate is doing in the state house. Think that's exaggerated?

Sadly, it's not:

The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee reported on this in their blog, explaining that Hamerlinck's hissy fit wasn't the only condescension students faced that day from Republicans.

North Carolina GOP state Rep. Mike Stone called it “unconscionable” and said “anger completely shot through me” when he learned that elementary school students – including his own daughter – had written letters to state legislators as part of a school writing assignment. And who could forget New Hampshire GOP House Speaker Bill O’Brien’s stunning admission that his party’s discriminatory voter ID bill was intended specifically to disenfranchise students, because “they are kids voting liberal, voting their feelings, with no life experience”?

Yet, we find out from the Iowa Senate Democrats that these students who appeared--all student government officers from across the state--did so as part of an already organized set of open hearings on the budget.

The students were invited to the Capitol as part of “Open Budget Hearings.” The goal of the hearings was to hear feedback from Iowans impacted by the proposed budget cuts, including the effects of what some have described as the Republican’s “two-year starvation diet for Iowa schools.”

The students testifying before the committee included President of Northern Iowa Student Government Spencer Walrath, Iowa State University Student Body Vice President Jared Knight, University of Iowa Student Government President Elliot Higgins, Former President of Council of Graduate and Professional Students Lyndsay Harshamn, and current Vice President of the Executive Council of Graduate and Professional Students Michael Appel.

The students testified that the Republicans’ proposed budget cuts making higher education unaffordable for many students and their families, increase class sizes, and reduce course offerings.

So this is why Republicans are failing so horribly at attracting political support from this generation of young people. And this is also why it's only a matter of time until we turn the tables on sad, fearful politicians like Hamerlinck and tell them to go home.

In the meantime, you should remind Hamerlinck that because of his party, students have more than enough life experiences to understand the real-world implications of budgets.

Call him: (563) 843-3922

E-mail him: shawn.hamerlinck@legis.state.ia.us

As the President prepares to speak to the nation Thursday regarding the need for comprehensive immigration reform, NAFSA: Association of International Educators has launched a campaign called "Reaching for a DREAM: Support a Path of Hope for Undocumented Students."

The campaign calls on as many people as possible to contact Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and ask her to make "deferred action" the formal policy for DREAM Act-eligible international students. If "deferred action," now only instituted on an ad hoc basis, was to become formal policy, students would be able to stay in the United States to pursue their studies without fear of deportation while Congress debates the DREAM Act.

At Connecting Our World, NAFSA's online community in support of international education, advocates can send a message directly to the Secretary, tweet about the campaign, and share their story with the community.

Props to NAFSA for launching this campaign. Here's to hoping that Congress gets this thing done.

You've read about this movement before here.

And now, it's taken another step forward.

After a failed student campaign a year ago, William and Mary students put together an organization called Students for a Better Williamsburg (SBW), an organization engaging local government in order to provide the best outcomes for students. This effort led to the amendment of a housing ordinance, making it more student friendly and eliminating an issue that divided the town and gown factions in the community for years.

This past spring, a student ran for a Williamsburg city council seat once more. Last Tuesday night, Scott Foster, a graduating senior, dominated the contest.

Foster was elected to the Williamsburg City Council on Tuesday night, becoming the first William & Mary student ever to do so. The 22-year-old said his win was a victory for town and gown relationships.

"Today, the people of Williamsburg demonstrated that our city is truly unified," Foster said Tuesday night. "When I decided to run for City Council, I hoped to receive the student vote. Now, I have been additionally honored and humbled to have received such strong support from across our City."

Foster received 1559 votes in the election, 741 more votes than the next finisher, Planning Commission Chairman Doug Pons, who also earned a seat on the council Tuesday night. Five candidates, including one incumbent, ran for the two open positions. According to Foster's campaign, approximately 67 percent of his votes came from students and the remaining votes came from residents.

Over 1000 William and Mary students voted for their fellow student in the election, ensuring that college students will have a strong voice in the city's government. Between this victory and the aforementioned organization of Students for a Better Williamsburg, William and Mary students have provided students across the country with a model for organizing within the system to produce positive outcomes.

How did Foster do it? Well, in textbook Millennial fashion. Foster used online social networking to spread the news, and then benefited from a student-coordinated voter registration and GOTV effort on William and Mary's campus.

Foster benefited from a coordinated get-out-the-vote campaign by William & Mary students. Earlier this year, student organizations, including the Student Assembly, worked to encourage students to vote in the election through a series of registration efforts. Approximately 300 students registered this year as a result of the drive. More than 2,100 students are registered to vote in the City of Williamsburg and early estimates indicate that roughly 50 percent of registered students voted in Tuesday's election.

On election day, the Student Assembly provided transportation for students between the Sadler Center and the Stryker Building voting location. Sarah Rojas ‘10, outgoing president of the assembly, also sent an e-mail to the College's students, encouraging them to vote in the election.

[...]

Much of Foster's campaign was run by students who utilized a website and social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. Foster also spent a good deal of time meeting city residents.

After his upcoming graduation, Foster plans to continue his studies at William and Mary in 2011, attending the William and Mary Law School.

Yesterday students from across the state of New Jersey walked out of their classes and descended upon Newark to protest Republican Gov. Chris Christie's education budget cuts.

The walkout and protest grew organically from the online efforts of Michelle Ryan Lauto, a Pace University freshman who attended high school in New Jersey, who used Facebook to propose the action. Students then used these same online tools to organize their own individual schools and collaborate on strategy:

They also used Facebook to trade advice on contacting newspapers and television stations to publicize their rallies, while Lauto logged on to urge students to keep their protests peaceful.

(...)

In Newark, students also turned to Twitter and text messaging to coordinate a walkout of thousands of students at schools across the state’s largest city.

The incredible organizing effort impressed some school board members:

Newly minted school board member Shavar Jeffries was on hand to support the students' protest.

"I'm very proud of our kids for protesting in a peaceful, disciplined way," he said adding that while the students were enthusiastic they maintained order. "They're organized, they're disciplined, they're beautiful."

(...)

School board member Nakia White also expressed her admiration.

"I think the social activism among our youth is incredible," White said. "They're absolutely defying the myth of apathy and not caring, and they're standing up for what they believe in. They believe in education."

Throughout the country Millennials have been self-organizing using online and mobile tools, from the student protests in California, the immigration protests in Arizona, and yesterday in New Jersey. As Republican policies hit young Americans harder the efforts will only increase. This level of engagement is a positive sign for the Democratic Party, both because of the energy and organizing as well as the further inclination toward the Democrats in reaction to these Republican policies. Young voter enthusiasm may not be the problem for Democrats that some say it is.

In article todays from the LA Times the first lady says people from less privileged backgrounds can succeed, using herself as an example.

In launching an international agenda of outreach to young people, First Lady Michelle Obama on Wednesday addressed students at a Jesuit college in Mexico with emotional remarks that were part confessional, part call to action.

Obama, a Princeton alumna with a Harvard law degree, told students that she entered college "filled with self-doubt."

She said she and President Obama came from families that were not wealthy, yet they prevailed despite "the sting of low expectations, the constant doubts about whether we could succeed, and whether we were even worth the effort."

I personally am so glad to see such an outreach to youth in general by the Obama Administration. Michelle Obama is a perfect example of someone who aimed high and accomplished great things, and now she is advocating for today's youth to do the same.

"Today, we're seeing what has come to be called a 'youth bulge,' an explosion of the youth population in nations around the world," Obama said. "And the fact is that responsibility for meeting the defining challenges of our time will soon fall to all of you."

Obama told the students that she intended to focus her international work on engaging young people.

In the coming years we will see how much youth outreach is actually done and how empowered youth are with this Administration but for now I say they are off to a good start.