@ www.theotherpress.ca

Opinions

 

Avro Arrow came back

And then it took an
arrow to the knee

By Eric Wilkins,
Staff Writer

here was recently an

intriguing proposal
floating around Ottawa
regarding the ever-touchy
subject of Canada’s Air
Force: bringing back the
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow.
The Avro Arrow was a
highly advanced Canadian
interceptor that was dreamt
up in the ‘50s and despite
the extreme enthusiasm
behind the project, it
was ultimately scrapped
by Prime Minister John
Diefenbaker on February 20,
1959.

Retired Major General
Lewis MacKenzie had
this to say in promoting
the resurrection of the
interceptor: “It’s an attack
aircraft. It’s designed for
attacking ground targets
and its stealth is most
effective against short-range
radar, protecting ground
targets. What we need in
Canada is something that

can go to the edge of our air
space, from a sovereignty
point of view, and be able to
catch up with intruders.”

Unfortunately for
Mackenzie and other
supporters of the
resurrection, Harper’s
government saw the
situation a little differently.
“While we appreciate the
sentimental value of the
Avro Arrow, which was
cancelled 53 years ago,
analysts looked at the
proposal and determined
that this is not a realistic
option,” said Associate
Minister of National
Defence Bernard Valcourt.
“The proposal to develop,
test, and manufacture what
would effectively be a
brand new aircraft is risky,
and would take too long
and cost too much to meet
Canada’s needs.”

I'ma proud Canadian.
Whenever there’s an
opportunity to toot our
country’s horn, whether
it be for a medal in the
Olympics or simply
why maple syrup is the
greatest thing since sliced
bread, I like to take it.

The Avro Arrow was well

before my time, but its
legend has lived on. And
so, despite it being long
before I came into being,

I feel proud of the Arrow;
to quote Valcourt, there

is “sentimental value.”
However, sentimental
value isn’t enough to

sway a multi-billion dollar
decision. I loved my baby
blue onesie when I was a
little kid, but that doesn’t
mean I’m going to strut
around campus in a similar
clothing choice just because
of the warm memories

it would bring back. The
point of the matter is, the
Arrow is a 53-year-old
aircraft. It really doesn’t
matter how advanced it
was for its time because 53
years means a massive leap
in research and technology
improvements.

The estimates for
updating and producing the
interceptor are supposedly
quite reasonable (less than
$12 billion), or at least
cheaper than the F-35’s ($16
billion), but this figure is
difficult to believe. I’m no
aerospace engineer, but I
imagine that there would
be a great many things to

[m not banking on rankings

Why college rankings
are rank

By Natalie Serafini,
Opinions Editor

he list of the top 200

schools in the world
was recently released, and
Canada did reasonably
well. In fact, the University
of Toronto and McGill
University both made the
global top 20. As shivering
with pride as I’m sure many
students attending the two
universities must be, I’m
not sure how significant the
ratings actually are.

To start, although it
may be impressive to have
McGill or the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology (the
world’s top university for
2012/13) as your place of
study, keep in mind that the
ratings change from year to
year. If a university is the
top in the world this year,
it may very well fall down
the ranks within a year.
Some universities will rise,
as is their goal, but because
all the universities are in
competition for student
money, it’s not a good idea
to bank on a school just
based on one year’s top 200
list.

I also have to wonder,
how much better is one
school than another? I get
that there are certain aspects
that are quantifiable, and
can be measured up to
make a hierarchy of the top

schools. But really, should
you feel bad just because
you're not attending one
of the top 20 schools in the
world? No, you should just
feel good about the fact that
you're attending a school
at all!

Besides, information
is information. You'll most
likely read similar textbooks
and learn similar truths
regardless of where you go.
Unless you’re attending a
school with no library, no
certified professors, and no
student rights, how bad can
it possibly be? I imagine it’s
pretty rare to encounter a
school that’s falling apart
in every way because, like |
said, they’re all competing
for your money. They want
you to come to their school,

change on the aircraft, and
not many things that could
be left the same. While it
wouldn’t quite be starting
from scratch, it would still
be an expensive endeavour
to get it up to speed. On
top of this, since when
have estimates ever been

so they will try to have
good professors and well-
kept campuses.

The list of the top
200 universities in the
world takes into account
a number of different
factors, including academic
reputation, employer
reputation, citations per
faculty (how much the
faculty is contributing
to their field), ratio of
faculty to student, number
of international faculty
members, and number
of international students.
Although there is a separate
list for the World University
Rankings by subject area,
I’m not sure how much
the world’s top 200 list is
based on all-around good
programs at a school. A

 

accurate? I recall the F-35’s
being significantly less

a year ago than they are
now. Given the choice, I’d
much rather have a proven,
brand-new, top-of-the-

line fighter than a revived
Canadian relic that could
conceivably cost more.

school can be the place to
go for a Physics program,
but be lacking in their
Philosophy programs.
Even the “best school in the
world” may not be the best
school for you.

What matters is that
you get an education, not
where you get it. What
matters is how hard you
work, not the school’s
ranking on the global top
200 universities. It may
look impressive that you
attended the top school for
2012/13, but the school isn’t
all that makes the person.
In a couple of decades,
the world’s top school for
2012/13 may be like Miss
Saskatoon 1976.

7