“Plastic silverware and paper dishes are one of the biggest sources of waste at campus eateries like The Village and Holmes Lounge. Those small plastic forks that everyone casually throws away add up. Though something as simple as changing the amount of silverware and plates certain eateries deposit into the trash doesn’t seem like much, protecting the environment is going to come through putting extra effort into changing all the small ways in which we are wasteful-for example, using No. 6 non-recyclable plastic cups in the library-and not from something drastic like converting the campus energy source to solar power. But, because drastic changes are unlikely, we need to make an effort to make as many small sacrifices as possible, and a way we can make a substantial impact is to change our dining practices.”

We’re pleased to see that Wash. U. and Bon Appétit have given students the option of reusable silverware. This will significantly reduce the amount of waste produced by students and help the University become more environmentally friendly. However, this is only the first step.

In 2006, we also mentioned that Wash. U. should add reusable plates, dishes and cups and have students put them in bins similar to the ones seen at places like Kayak’s and St. Louis Bread Co. We realize that the University will have to expand its dishwashing capacities, a process that will take space and money. However, if the University is truly committed to environmentalism, it will take these steps even if they are inconvenient. While reusable silverware is a great, encouraging start, the amount of waste the University still produces is unacceptable.

Additionally, it is not enough for the University to provide reusable dining utensils. While Wash. U. can provide these services, it is ultimately up to the students to take advantage of them. Students must take the initiative to use these services when they can, if they are to have a positive impact and reduce waste on campus.

Wash. U. is moving in the right direction, but there is still room for improvement, and we hope that Wash. U. will continue to expand upon its current efforts and also implement new environmentally-conscious policies.

What made W.I.L.D. so special in the past was that it was more than just a concert. It was a unique campus phenomenon.

How many campus concerts have their own Wikipedia page? The key to making Washington University’s students excited about the W.I.L.D. experience once again is distilling the event to its core and discovering modern and safe ways to incorporate those elements into the event.

The choice of music is what receives the most vocal complaints from the students. Many have shot down George Clinton as irrelevant and not a big enough name. While this argument essentially comes down to personal taste and a sense of musical history, the past gives us examples of amazing, and less than stellar, W.I.L.D. acts. For every show that teamed Outkast with Dispatch (spring 2000) there is one that featured Crazytown and Eve6 (spring 2001). In short, sometimes Team 31 hits a home run and sometimes they strike out when it comes to the music.

The answer is more focused student involvement. Not everyone will get the kind of music they want at W.I.L.D., but if they are able to more easily suggest acts and then see which acts were the most suggested and why Team 31 made their particular choice, students would be happier with, or at least more resigned to, the decision.

The couch aspect of W.I.L.D. is one that is quickly on the mend and Team 31 should be applauded for their efforts. The inflatable couches failed only in their numbers in the fall, and Team 31 has stepped up to the plate by buying more couches for the spring: 20 in fact, according to Student Union’s Web site. While this may not be nearly enough for everyone, the real root of this problem lies with clarity. According to Team 31′s policies on their Web site, students can still bring their own couches to the quad as long as they have pre-registered the couches one week in advance. Team 31 should do more to publicize the due date and encourage students to register couches by bringing registration to them. Set up a table on the South 40 or somewhere else on campus explaining the couch policy. Make a list of stores where couches can be obtained cheaply and make it available to students. This will take some initiative from the student body as well, but we should ease the transition for those who are unaware of the process.

The final essential element to W.I.L.D. is one that has dwindled recently (no, not beer), and while it still remains to an extent, Team 31 needs to bring it in by the truckload to create a magical experience for students (okay, maybe it is beer). In actuality, the last and most important element of W.I.L.D. is fun.

Firstly, Team 31 and students need to realize something: fun is not universally definable. For some it involves inflatable games and mechanical bulls and for some, quite frankly, it involves beer. What better way to get students of all ages on the quad early and keep them safe than to provide kegs of beer for those students who are of age and want it, and other activities for students who are not of age or don’t want it.

While there is no surefire way to completely subdue some students’ urge to binge drink before W.I.L.D., by making beer available from security personnel on the quad, it will make W.I.L.D. safer and more popular.

In the past, kegs floated around the quad unhindered. Institute the wristbands and ID checking that have made events like Bauhaus a success. The people manning the beer will be able to check up on the drinking students as they revisit the kegs. If there are cost restrictions, have everyone who wants to drink pay 5 or 10 dollars for a wristband. Students will be more than happy to pay if it will allow them to come to W.I.L.D. early instead of having to choose between the activities at W.I.L.D. or drinking at home.

Everyone needs to remember, W.I.L.D. isn’t about beer, as much as it isn’t about music. It’s about the campus coming together and having fun. Team 31 needs to focus on that fact and find ways to integrate all types of campus fun into the event.

Whether this means bringing back the picnics or movie screenings that defined W.I.L.D in its infancy, or finding new ways of involving students in the event, Team 31 needs to reevaluate what W.I.L.D. is about and how to make it special again. We aren’t there to hear the music. We are there to hear the music together.

The current structure gives executive groups little time to react to their proposed budgets and a limited ability to engage SU about the money they need to operate. The current process is unfair to Wash. U.’s executive student groups, particularly when they have received budget cuts that will prevent them from continuing to operate, and they have few ways to discuss the decision.

For groups facing potentially fatal budget cuts, panic ensues after the group learns the amount of funding SU will likely ask treasury to approve. Each group realizes it has only a few days to rally students to convince SU that it is a group worth funding. Students then show up to the treasury meeting en masse where the groups’ final sums will be determined. Throughout the year, different groups can appeal for more funding for specific items, but all appeals for all executive groups come from a small fund that most groups estimate will be insufficient.

While several executive groups have expressed disappointment with their allocations and the slash in the appeals fund is particularly worrisome, perhaps the most frustrating problem with the current budgeting process is the lack of transparency.

“Transparency is one of [SU's] major problems. They can basically do whatever they want. We’re never really sure exactly what to do. Sometimes they inform us about what’s going on, sometimes not so much. And even though they give us brief reasons why they won’t fund things, they’re not sufficient,” junior Jeremy Kaufman, the treasurer of WUTV, said.

KWUR experienced a similar problem attempting to work with SU and only found out about the proposed allocation through an unoffical leak.

“It could’ve been that we didn’t find out, and come Tuesday we would have had no idea, and it would have basically been too late. Student Union did not contact us, and it is frustrating that there was no second round. We went in, we proposed our budget, and there was nothing like a ‘hey, we’re thinking about cutting this, could you guys explain it more?’ When we found out we were completely surprised,” senior Michael Sandler, the former General Manager of KWUR, said.

The time crunch makes it virtually impossible for student groups to organize an effective response to the treasury decisions.

Groups find the future of their group in complete jeopardy or significantly altered, and they have only a few days to mount an effort to convince treasury that their group is worth funding.

Mr. Wash. U. believes that there was a misconception about their group that caused treasury to believe it was only about the 16 Mr. Wash. U. candidates and not about getting students involved in a greater St. Louis community service organizations. Because groups have no indication of how treasury is receiving their interview, they lack the ability to offer more explanation for items treasury may be confused about, and when their final number comes out, it’s incredibly difficult to get changes made.

“When I went through the interview, there was no mention whatsoever that [treasury] was going to change anything. As far as getting something presented eloquently to treasury, it’s going to be very difficult. I think I’m more frustrated with the fact that no help was offered at all. We don’t know what to do, so the best thing that we can do is try to be there [at the treasury meeting Tuesday],” Clint Morgan, treasurer of Mr. Wash. U., said.

Citing potential confusion and the possibility that numbers might change, SU denies the student body access to its preliminary budgeting information.

The money that SU will allocate to different groups comes from Wash. U. students, and students deserve to be included in the process of creating budgets. Including students means informing them about what treasury is thinking so students know whether they should contact SU to express their opinions.

Instead, students only have the ability to become involved in the budgeting process after it is completed, unless they are involved in the specific student groups whose budget is decided. Through its secrecy, SU has effectively crippled the student body’s ability to have a say in the use of its money.

Yewande Alimi, SU Vice President of Finance, explained that publishing the working SU budget would be irresponsible because it had not yet been finalized and “anything can change between now and Wednesday night when [the budget is] finalized.”

While Alimi is correct that budgeting changes can continue to be made, the process of creating changes should be one guided by the student body. And while students are allowed to have input in the final treasury meeting, the fact that the budget was kept secret before the meeting means that interested students don’t know whether this meeting, during the busiest time of the semester, is a meeting they need to attend.

Moreover, because Student Union gives student groups so little time to react to their proposed budgets and only cursory information about the reasoning behind these decisions, groups do not have the ability to effectively organize their responses.

The rushed decisions made by Student Union at the end of the semester have significant impacts on the student groups affected by those decisions. Both KWUR and WUTV expressed that the proposed allocations given by Student Union would undermine their abilities to operate, particularly if the trend of cutting the budget continues into the future.

“I don’t think we ask for special treatment. I think we ask for what we need. SU likes to apply blanket policies to groups, and this applies to all the bigger executive groups, not just KWUR, but when you look at those rules within the context of a specific group, the rules are just funny and don’t make sense,” KWUR General Manager Dylan Suher said.

At Student Life, we agree with the sentiment these groups have expressed.

We understand that the members of Student Union are students who have finals and lives and therefore do not have the time to be a perfectly efficient executive body, but the impact of cutting budgets for significant student groups is great enough that SU needs to find a way to be more accessible to the student groups it funds.

The current SU executives ran on a platform of making Student Union more approachable, but during the part of their tenure that will affect many students the most, SU has failed to understand the needs of the students or allow them full participation regarding budgeting.

This year’s SU executive board was supposed to be defined by putting the “you” back into the Student Union, but it has started its tenure by shutting the students out. We demand that SU find a way to let us back in.

SCI has gotten off to a great start by meeting with members of the University administration. SCI members say these meetings have been positive and the University supports their vision. But even if administrators say they support the vision, we worry that in specific situations (like the Obama decision that spurred the group’s formation) the University will continue to deny SCI requests while still claiming to support the broader goals of the group. In order to make sure the administration will truly work to incorporate SCI goals, the group needs to take specific requests to administrators to see whether these requests will be upheld. SCI needs to ask what specific, tangible steps the administration is willing to take. Students need to know if the administration has committed to the SCI platform in such a way that they can hold administrators accountable.

The lack of detailed, tangible plans also puts the future of SCI in jeopardy on a basic level. Given that SCI has taken on such a large project, and one which has been taken up in some ways by other student groups and Student Union, it will be difficult to measure the specific impact that SCI has on the University at large. But, if the group has very specific short-term goals that will allow for the achievement of long-term goals, students will be able to attribute successes to SCI and continue to stay involved with the group even after some of the current leaders graduate. To achieve this, SCI needs to set specific benchmarks for itself and for the administration. What tangible effects should we be seeing on campus in the next few months as a result of the group’s efforts? How about the next few years? How will we, as a campus, know that we have reached the underlying goals of SCI as a campus? In order for SCI to become an established, effective group, we need to know how to measure their successes.

In the same vein, SCI currently has very few student members. In order to take on such a big and important project as promoting civic engagement on campus, SCI will need to make sure to include more students in its efforts. With some of the already-small group’s members graduating, SCI needs to plan ways to recruit students ro increase its size. A larger group will ensure a larger campus presence for SCI and its dedication to civic engagement will last for more than a few years.

We only offer these criticisms because the underlying goals and motivations of the SCI are so important to the lives and experiences of students at Washington University. We hope to see the SCI grow and impact the University community in many tangible ways, especially in emphasizing the importance of local, as well as national, politics. Promoting civic engagement is vital to our campus, and all students have a vested interest in its success. We hope SCI will work toward setting specific, measurable benchmarks and goals for itself and for the administration so that it will succeed in its mission.

Public art first came into the limelight this fall when junior Zoe Hillenmeyer installed her “Child’s Play” piece for a day in Bowles Plaza, covering the entire area with bubble wrap. This display was made possible through the installation fellowship, a new Art School Council initiative funded jointly by them and by Student Union. Organizers intend to award this fellowship to two students every semester, giving them $750 to create art.

Diana Barbosa, a dual-degree senior, initially proposed the fellowship idea because she felt that she did not know much about her peers’ work and wanted to provide them with a venue on main campus to display their art.

We believe that the fellowship has been an overall success. Not only have students played with bubble wrap, but they spent a week lounging on Hillenmeyer’s bed outside the library. Barbosa is also currently installing and displaying her own fellowship work outside of Mallinckrodt and the library in the form of robotic cardinals in trees (she removed herself from the organizing committee so that she could be a candidate).

Others in the art school have been swept into this movement as well. Senior Colin Christy displayed two pieces of his Bachelor of Fine Arts sculpture thesis, an elongated grill and swing, on main campus at the same time as Hillenmeyer’s bed. Fellow senior Ilyse Magy also widely advertised her senior thesis, the collective nap at the Arch, on main campus.

All of these works share one common goal-to bring the work out of the studios on the southeast part of campus to more central locations so that everyone can see the beautiful and interesting work occurring in the art studios.

Works like Magy’s involve students in the production of art, a process that both teaches them about the specific process and goals of the particular work of art and engages them with the art school. Because the majority of students from other schools do not take art classes, public works give other students a unique chance to appreciate the work done by students in the art school.

Public art has also manifested itself in several nontraditional ways on campus this year. Events with political messages have become works of art, such as the tombstones for fallen soldiers in Iraq and the SustainabiliTree currently on display outside of the Women’s Building. Visual representations of pressing issues within our society such as these add power to these issues as concrete images are burned into our minds.

Even events that are not intended to be art, such as the EnWeek duct tape sculptures, add to this culture. They show creativity and dedication within the student body while spicing up the campus.

In many ways, public art has enriched the Wash. U. experience this spring. By encouraging deeper thinking about societal problems in nontraditional ways and making the walk through campus more interesting, public art has contributed positively to Wash. U. We can only hope to see these outreach efforts continue to add richness to our campus and make it a more unique place.

No doubt many of you have heard from tour guides and brochures that Wash. U. has an impressively small student-teacher ratio (7:1 to be exact). This abstract and aggregated statistic, however, offers little in the way of tangible or useful information. You can learn far more about what kind of classroom environment you can expect by investigating specific classes and departments in which you plan to participate.

A philosophy major and a pre-med will have different experiences with classroom intimacy and interaction with professors. Spend some time visiting classes that interest you and talking with the professors who teach them, and you will learn much more than a student-teacher ratio could ever tell you.

And although academics will be a central part of your college experience, you’ll only be in class for about fifteen hours a week, so ask around to find out what you can do with the remainder.

Not all colleges are identical when it comes to extracurricular activities and clubs. Do you want to be a member of the defending Division III national champion men’s basketball or women’s volleyball teams? Well, there’s only one place where you can do that, at least for next season. Maybe you prefer singing, in which case you’d be happy to learn that Wash. U. has several award-winning a capella groups.

Self-aggrandizement aside, you shouldn’t take these kinds of things for granted at the university which you choose to attend. Instead, you should make a real effort to investigate what kinds of organizations you can join to meet new friends, showcase and develop your talents and make a difference in your community.

You should also not underestimate the importance of the quality of the bare necessities-food and shelter-that are provided by your school.

Some schools guarantee that they will provide you with a roof over your head for all four undergraduate years, while others may stuff you into a forced triple and leave you to fend for yourself afterwards. Find out whether you have a reasonable chance of getting the kind of housing you want where you want it and whether the organization of the dormitories will encourage strong communal relations. Food may seem like an even more trivial matter, but you may find otherwise when you have to accept what they offer three times a day. Vegetarians and students who keep kosher should be especially careful to investigate the accommodations offered by their prospective school.

And finally, make an effort to discover what lies beyond the campus boundaries. Though you could survive all four years on most campuses without ever leaving, realistically the community surrounding your school will be an important part of your life.

Are students able to find internships in the surrounding areas? What types of opportunities do students have for political engagement outside of their university? Is there one movie theater in town or are there several types of entertainment venues? How accessible is the city? Ask students questions about the areas surrounding the universities you’re considering and find out what it really is. And as you consider Wash. U., ask students about the Midwestern influence on the university-many students are surprised, some pleasantly, to find that St. Louis is not New York.

We want your college experience to be the best it can be. In order to make sure you find the university that is the best fit, don’t just rely on tour guides to sell you the campus. Make sure you think holistically about the next four years of your life and find out the information that will help you make the best decision for your specific circumstances. After all, these are supposedly the best years of your life.

University administrators, working with the construction companies, need to provide students with a clear plan for current and future projects and alternative routes, parking options and substitutes for areas closed off to students due to construction. This communication is vital to students’ ability to plan their daily activities.

Current construction projects include the Danforth University Center (DUC), the new Wohl Center (in front of Liggett-Koenig), Village East (almost complete) and Seigle Hall. Future projects include the demolition and reconstruction of the old freshmen dorms and the demolition of the Brookings parking lot for the planned engineering complex.

All of these projects will certainly serve to improve University buildings, which should ultimately make life better for future students. However, the way the construction has been carried out shows little concern or forethought for the life of students currently at the University.

Liggett-Koenig residents, for instance, received warning that a fence was going to be constructed in front of their dorm, changing their routes to access different parts of campus, only on the day that it appeared.

Though the Liggett-Koenig incident is an extreme example of the University’s failure to inform students about construction that would affect them, the University has generally failed to notify students about long-term projects that significantly influence their lives.

These recommendations are especially poignant as the University is about to begin a number of new construction projects which, while improving the University’s physical plant, will make life more difficult for students next year.

One of the projects that will most interfere with students’ lives is the administration’s plan to rip up the Brookings parking lot, a project that has been slated for an unknown time. The parking garage under the DUC is supposed to replace the parking lot in front of Brookings. However, given the present difficulty of finding a parking space, notwithstanding several levels of the underground garage open, it is clear that parking difficulties loom.

Construction has a real and substantial effect on students’ lives, if only because it begins at 8:00 a.m., a time that is unknown to the vast majority of students.

More importantly, construction alters the space in which we live and study and blocks students’ access to important facilities and structures.

In order for students to navigate their daily routines, they need sufficient information about the construction obstacles they will face.

By informing students, the University can help prevent problems and help students plan around the ongoing work. The University owes students the ability to plan around its projects.

When Residential Life has a housing crunch, students wind up in situations that are far different from their expectations.

Students find themselves legitimately angry with Residential Life for misleading them. As a result, the promise of guaranteed housing feels very empty, even if technically Residential Life provides students with some housing option.

In order to be fair, Residential Life should reconsider what it means when it promises students housing for four years.

If it is impossible to meet students’ expectations of what that promise means, Residential Life should reconsider making that promise or clarifying what that promise tangibly entails.

This spring, Residential Life has dealt with a housing crunch caused in part by the larger-than-usual sophomore class. Because of this crunch, many students have been told that they will need to wait until the summer to know which housing options they will be offered. It is possible that many of these students will not be offered options on campus or with the individuals listed on their petitions. The way this promise is framed makes it seem like students will be guaranteed housing on campus.

Residential Life could also place students in housing they can’t afford while still claiming that it has offered students housing. There is a significant price difference between the cheapest housing and the most expensive.

For example, a traditional dorm double room costs $8,140 while a one-bedroom in Greenway costs $10,366. Many students who can barely work to afford cheaper housing may not be able to pay for the more expensive options. And while the financial aid office claims it will help students meet their needs to attend school and pay for housing, this could just mean that the financial id office will meet the students’ needs by offering them loans. Asking students to take out loans to live in a type of housing that will allow them to live on campus seems like a stretch of students’ understanding of a four-year housing guarantee.

Finally, Residential Life punishes students who originally enter the system but choose to seek out housing on their own because of the type of housing they are offered. Students nervous about where Residential Life will eventually place them and how much that will cost often choose to seek housing off campus even though this is not their preferred choice. The next year, instead of being rewarded in the lottery for getting forced into a less desirable housing alternative, students are penalized and receive lottery numbers far lower than the rest of their class. This system makes it significantly harder for them to find roommates and move back onto campus.

At best, Residential Life’s current method of housing stretches the meaning of guaranteed four-year housing, but at worst, and in reality, it is deceptive.

When students choose to attend a university, one of their top concerns is what their life will be like at that institution. An important part of lifestyle is where one lives, and living on campus offers a drastically-different experience from living off campus.

Students need to be able to foresee this possibility and take account of it when they apply to the University. This means Residential Life needs to better explain what it means by guaranteed housing for four years or it needs to find a way to make its offerings meet what students believe that promise means.

Most importantly, the University must ensure that students have adequate opportunities for involvement with the debate.

For many new freshmen on campus, the vice presidential debate will be their first real exposure to a political atmosphere. The University should encourage their participation by implementing the recommendations of the Student Civic Initiative (SCI). Formed by University students in response to the University’s refusal to allow presidential candidate Barack Obama to speak on campus, the SCI offers concrete plans for increasing political awareness and involvement among students. In particular, they have proposed that a program be offered during Freshman Orientation to encourage civic engagement and that residential advisors be trained to help their students register to vote. Measures such as these will go a long way toward motivating new students to become involved in the debate and giving them the tools to join in the political process.

Older students should also be given ample opportunity to participate. With the economy teetering on the brink of recession and the recent announcement of the 4,000th American killed in Iraq, this election is bound to elicit strong political opinions from many students.

It is crucial that students be given both the permission and the means to publicly express their views on the issues. This means that the University should provide open spaces for political demonstration and protest within a reasonable proximity of the facility that houses the debate. In addition, opportunities to volunteer for the Commission on Presidential Debates and both political parties, such as those offered at eRecruiting, should be widely provided and well-publicized.

The elections in November will also present opportunities for political speakers to appear on campus; such openings should not be squandered. In the past, the University has not allowed political candidates to speak on campus in a misguided attempt to appear nonpartisan. We agree with the SCI that this is a mistake.

The University should allow political candidates to speak while structuring the engagements according to the SCI’s recommendations. For example, the University should encourage question and answer sessions to help students become active participants rather than passive observers. We believe that such measures will allow political discussion on campus to flourish without the University unfairly endorsing any candidate or political position.

Students will make significant sacrifices in their quality of life as Washington University caters to the desires of those in charge of the vice presidential debate. Restricted athletic facility hours, strained parking capacities and other disruptions are likely.

In order to make the experience worthwhile, the University needs to ensure that students actually receive the benefits of attending a university hosting a national debate. This means students should have the opportunity to express their political opinions and to learn about the political issues facing our nation.

After witnessing the enormous turnout in this year’s primary elections, it is clear that college-age people are anything but apathetic. The vice presidential debate is a unique opportunity that should not be wasted to do these students justice.