In retrospect, I ascribe the reluctance to something more than the sheer amount that makes tuition stand out. Tuition differs from other types of payments also in that what we receive in return depends mostly on us. I know I get a pen in return for $3, a simple transaction. Provided that I use it, it is worth the $3. It’s easy to make it worth the money, but even if I don’t, the loss is small. Tuition is a five-digit dollar amount—something I cannot afford to let slip away—and yet it is tough for me to extract its worth. That was the source of my reluctance.

I’ve heard many times that college is not just about academics, but academics is what college offers that other places do not. That is what distinguishes universities in the end. If not for that, colleges wouldn’t ask for huge amounts of money. Out-of-class activities can add valuable experiences. Rests, weekend night parties or “having fun” in general can also help improve work efficiency. Yet, several tens of thousands of dollars need not be paid to load life with activities and certainly not with parties, rest or light pleasure. There must be better places for those. As soon as these start to victimize academics, the already submitted college tuition becomes a waste. Though everyone can and should occasionally relax, with a life cycle leaning toward leniency, one has no excuse to complain about what it costs to attend the school.

I don’t think I am paying the tuition money to spend my time with easy work, but rather to work more and harder—to challenge my comfort zone in academics, be pressured and learn things the hard way if necessary. That is ultimately what I came here to do. There is a way to make our tuition worth it. Earnest work stemming from a desire to learn is the first step, but we can also take more classes. Loading up credits is an unpopular idea as it brings up vague worries about miserable semesters, but misery doesn’t have to be the inevitable outcome depending on what priority one’s mind is drawn to. Being busy with a purpose can be rewarding, healthy and fun, even. There is nothing to lose for giving it a try. You can prove that the worry about misery was just a rumor in the air. With class registration still up for changes, take it into consideration.

College has almost become a rite of passage in society, at least in the middle to upper classes. But it doesn’t have to be, because colleges still ask for tuition, and they provide things that not too many other places do. This is particularly true of a school like Wash. U. While being here, we might as well try challenging ourselves further and extract more from the opportunity and the tuition by taking advantage of what this place can uniquely offer. If anyone else also felt reluctance when clicking the payment button, this is a way to legitimately feel better about paying and about ourselves and to make Wash. U. as valuable as possible.

Finally, if we can manage it, in the course of pushing ourselves more, we might have the option of graduating early. For those ready for it, an early graduation happens to save a semester’s or a year’s worth of tuition on top of providing a head start into other desires we might want to pursue—a win-win.

The Pell Grant program provides up to $5,550 to students based on their financial need, as determined by their FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) profile.

The Senate decision from earlier this month overrides an ongoing House resolution that would have cut 1.7 million students from the program in the coming year. The congressional body did eliminate part of the Pell Grant program in its budget for this year.

Washington University’s Student Financial Services (SFS) is committed to ensuring that future cuts do not affect students at the University.

“If Pell Grant funding is reduced, the University will pick up the shortfall. There will be no impact on student’s financial aid awards,” Bill Witbrodt, director of SFS, wrote in an email to Student Life.

Although only 5.7 percent of the University’s student body receives Pell Grants, University officials have noted that cuts to the federal aid program would be felt.

“This is a big deal because we have between 400 and 500 day school undergraduates eligible for Pell Grants,” Witbrodt wrote. “At this point, we are alert for details about what may transpire so that we can calculate the financial impact on the University.”

While students support the SFS initiative, some are not confident in its capacity to cover indeterminately reduced federal funds.

“I’m not sure how they will fund this, just because of the scale,” junior Harish Chamarthy said. “I think it’s a valiant effort, but at this point I think it’s just them trying to say something now and take action later.”

The Pell Grant program has seen major increases in federal funding every year since 2008, but earlier this year, the Senate cut an estimated $8 billion from its budget by eliminating the year-round Pell Grant program, which provides for students to receive more than one grant per year. This is typically geared at funding students for summer programs in addition to fall and spring tuition.

Cuts were made to other federal scholarship programs this year. Federal Work-Study funding was cut by 0.2 percent, Federal TRIO by $25 million, and GEAR UP programs by $20 million. The Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program—which funds state grant programs—lost all of its funding.

The Boot Hill Casino in Dodge City, Kan., is the first of its kind in the country—a casino where the slot machines and table games are all owned by the state. (Scott Canont | Kansas City Star | MCT)

The first time I gambled, my eyes anxiously followed the slot machine’s spinning cherries. It was stressful and exciting­­­. But it was also illegal: I was about 8 at the time. I was promptly escorted from the small casino and returned to my parents.

Since then, I’ve continued to respect the glamour, exhilaration and fickleness of Lady Luck only from afar. That is, until I made a trip to Lumière Place Casino, where I once again experienced gambling firsthand.

First of all, the place is massive. There are rows and rows of different types of machines and card-game tables that I’ve never heard of. Honestly, the casino can be a little intimidating unless you’re prepared for it. But there are simple steps you can follow to have a good time without losing the shirt off your back.

First, leave any money you don’t want to lose at home. You can always tempt your willpower, but honestly, it’s safer to bring only what you can afford. Second, beware of the reasonably priced drinks being sold by pretty ladies in short skirts. Sure, a few drinks are fine, but remember: cheap drinks lead to more drinks, which leads to less rational gambling. Third, know that despite the apparent variety of the slot machines ringing through out the casino, they are all essentially the same. But thanks to evolving technology, they no longer have levers and they print out paper vouchers instead of spewing out coins—in my opinion, a downgrade.

Fourth—and this is the big one—know when to walk away. There’s always a brief “Oh my God, oh my God” moment of pulsing adrenaline when you realize you have won. And it’s freaking awesome. But you have to quit while you’re ahead.

“It’s so intense,” said senior Colin Stomberski, after part of him told him to keep playing, and another part told him to walk away.

If you don’t really feel like gambling, there are other forms of entertainment at the casino as well. There are shows almost every night, and they range from Elvis impersonators to big-name bands. There are also several sleek bars with modern decors that are great for relaxing. You can also partake in my favorite casino pastime: people watching. You’d be surprised by the things superstitious people do or the things losers say.

The bright lights and promise of winnings at Lumière attract people like moths. If you’re over 21, check it out. It can give you a hell of an adrenaline rush. The 10 dollars I left with were the easiest I’ve ever made, but they were also the most nerve-wracking.

Other happenings:

Repeal of Prohibition Beer Festival: April 17

Schlafly Bottleworks, 7260 Southwest Ave., noon – 5 p.m. A beer festival with music and food. $30 at the door.

Cardinals’ Season Opener: April 12

Busch Stadium. Even if you don’t have tickets to the game, there will be events happening at bars and restaurants around the stadium.

Greater St. Louis Jazz Festival: April 16-17

UMSL, 8 p.m. See big names in jazz perform. Tickets $20-$35.

First, in terms of money, though the University pays Metro less than the $145 per pass than other students in the region pay for their passes, the administration pays based on how many people are on campus, not how many actually request them. Therefore, Metro receives payment for the one-quarter to one-third of those eligible for U-Passes who do not request their passes. Moreover, Metro now receives more money from the University community than before the U-Pass program, because drastically fewer Washington University community members used transit before the program began.

Though some feel that the University would evade paying the proposed sales tax to fund transit in St. Louis County, while the administration doesn’t, the individual members of the community will be paying this tax.

Money aside, the U-Pass program is important to the city and is certainly not a new idea. The University of Missouri-St. Louis was the first St. Louis school to offer a U-Pass program, though they do charge students a fee for the passes. Southwestern Illinois College also used to participate in the program. In Pittsburgh, several large universities have a similar arrangement with the local transit agency Port Authority. Students ride free on public buses and are able to access local attractions and cultural institutions and bring capital and foot traffic to neighborhoods across the city.

By maintaining the U-Pass program at Washington University, we keep students, faculty and staff connected to city attractions, jobs, their homes and other universities. This connectedness keeps the region alive, and will continue to bring bright minds to the University and throughout the city.

Louis is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at louisliss@wustl.edu.

I’ve encountered such a treacherous situation numerous times, often far too early for me to have my wits about me in any way capable of combating the investigating probes of my caring mother. How do you answer these questions? Delicately. Imagine explaining to your parent on separate occasions that you no longer have money for the following reasons: bailing a friend out of jail after he was wrongfully cuffed, paying a ticket and purchasing something that I’m going to choose not to name. Needless to say, this nameless purchase was not 15 Pointersauri after a good night at the casino. I’m not a gambler, though, so that idea is pure whimsy. One can only imagine how receptive the lucky woman on the other end of the phone was to these expenses. I had to try and convince her to believe me, let alone that this wasn’t some sort of chicanery or parental heist. The bottom line is that she was not happy.

This is not an article about my pecuniary mishaps. While my actions do not bode well for my future, college is a time when most of us achieve financial independence for the first time. Some of us may have help from parents or relatives, and some may support ourselves, but in either case, we are learning to be fiscally (ir)responsible. It’s a time when we have to learn to pay rent and gas on time and feel the consequences of not doing so. In most cases, there is no longer direct intervention on behalf of the almighty account holders. We are at a time in our lives when we make choices. Important financial questions cross our paths everyday: to Jimmy John’s or not to Jimmy John’s? Eight bucks and too much mayo later and you probably think to yourself that you should’ve saved the money. But that’s the point; it’s a learning process. Although, there is always the stop-tuition-payment card they play if you make too many bad decisions.

As we grow older, the decision-making process only becomes more difficult. Pretty soon we’re deciding between a martini and a beer instead of wondering if we should shell out the extra dollar for soda at the DUC. Instead of deciding whether to live on or off campus, we’re sitting down talking about a mortgage. These are formative years for our financial habits, and we probably shouldn’t be trusted with any money whatsoever. We’ll all leave school knowing how to close a bar tab, but hey, you have to start somewhere. Let’s not get all out of whack; always start with baby steps.

Becky Zhao | Student Life

On Sept. 17, 2009, the House of Representatives voted to approve the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (SAFRA) by a 253-171 margin, thus sending it on to the Senate, where it awaits further action. This issue has largely flown under the radar, which is unsurprising considering the fact that it affects only a small subset of the country. Other issues, such as the Iraq war, the complete failure of our banking system or the current American automotive industry crisis have garnered far more media attention and public awareness.

Despite a lack of mass appeal and public cognizance regarding SAFRA and its surrounding issues, the student loan system in the United States is an increasingly important matter. Regrettably, on college and university campuses, knowledge—or at least public and open discussion about the loan structure—is severely lacking. I cannot claim to be able to speak for the entirety of Washington University, but from what I have seen, there has been little to no dialogue regarding the current system, SAFRA or its ramifications. This could possibly be explained by the socioeconomic diversity of Wash. U. students. We have come under fire for having the lowest percentage of students receiving Pell Grants among top-ranked national universities, at 7 percent. Pell Grants are federal grants of up to $5,000 that are given to students who demonstrate financial need.

In the United States at this time, the Department of Education administers a series of loans, grants and programs designed to ensure that students from low-income families receive enough money to attend college. This patchwork of federally guaranteed bursaries is often distributed by banks (such as Sallie Mae, the largest student loan company in existence), which are given subsidies to provide loans for students. SAFRA would cut out private banks, which often make a killing—in taxpayer money—giving out the loans when students have difficulty paying them back. Providing direct federal aid instead of handing out loans through banks would save an estimated $87 billion in subsidies, which could either be used for additional loans or be funneled into other public welfare projects. One specific option that could directly affect Wash. U. students would be to increase the amount of money paid by the government via Pell Grants. In doing so, students who receive said grants would be less burdened financially by the extravagant collegiate tuition.

Despite the bill’s seemingly impeccable intentions and purpose, there has been opposition. Members of Congress have objected, saying that the bill merely expands the role of the government in our lives. Citing examples such as the automotive industry takeover and the semi-nationalization of many banks, they question whether direct government spending is really the best option for the provision of student loans.

Yes, it is, in fact. The system of student lending, originally intended to help underserved students and their families, has mutated into a multibillion-dollar industry run with the intention of turning a profit with government money. At this point, merely altering the system won’t do. A restructuring, from the ground up, is necessary. And that is what SAFRA would do.

One criticism often levied at the bill is that it would cut out approximately 35,000 jobs in the loan industry. When pressed, however, proponents reveal that the actual job losses would be roughly one-third of that. Companies have also considered bringing back jobs that have been outsourced; Sallie Mae alone is planning to move 2,000 back to the United States. In doing so, domestic job losses would be offset even more.

In many ways, the current student loan dispute mirrors the current economic crisis, with debate raging about the role the government should play and both sides slinging words at each other (including classic, loaded accusations of “socialism”). Much like universal health care, nationalizing student loans would increase efficiency, lower costs and allow the program to expand across a greater scope. If the Senate passes SAFRA, the first steps will be taken towards ensuring that cost is not a consideration when attempting to attend college.

As college and university students, many of whom are partially or completely dependent on various forms of financial aid, this issue pertains directly to us. As a result, a lack of knowledge or tenacious opinions about the matter amongst the student body is depressing and should be rectified.

The first method is a fan favorite. Remember when you were in Psych 100 and had to do six hours of psychology experiments for class credit? Well, many of those same psychology experiments conducted by graduate students offer cash payments of around $10 per hour. For those who have never done a psychology experiment, they usually consist of filling out surveys or performing menial word tasks on a computer. Considering that many of them do not last the full hour, boredom—with the occasional fun experiment—is a small price to pay for $10. For the high rollers, there are also some experiments that dish out around $25 per hour in exchange for MRI scans of your brain.

For any sports fans looking for a more exciting way to get cash, there are other options. The Intramural (IM) Office is always looking for students to serve as referees for a variety of activities from volleyball to football. If you love to play a sport but don’t know how to referee, don’t worry! The office will provide free training as part of the job. As a referee, you’ll usually make $7 per game and also get a free T-shirt and whistle.

Freshman Catherine D’Antonio, who referees for IM volleyball, said “It was enjoyable because [I] like volleyball, both playing and watching. It’s an easy way to make some extra spending money.”

What can be better than watching your favorite sports and getting paid for it?

If you prefer hitting the books over hitting baseballs, you can use your brain to fill up your wallet at Cornerstone. Cornerstone hires notetakers, or people to take notes in certain classes, usually at the start of each semester. Not the best option for holiday cash, but this is a good idea to keep in mind for next semester. The job entails attending all classes, taking thorough notes and sending them to the Cornerstone office after each class meeting. For $80 per class unit—$240 for a typical three unit class—the requirements are a small price to pay. If you’re an academic that happens to fulfill all of the conditions already, becoming a notetaker is a simple way to earn some extra money. Better yet, for those prone to skip lectures, becoming a notetaker will give you an extra incentive to go to class each day.

Cornerstone also offers qualified students excelling in a subject with an A- or higher a chance to become an academic mentor. While the application process is a little more difficult, with a minimum 3.0 GPA and professor recommendations required, the rewards go beyond just payment. As the Cornerstone Web site mentions, “mentors are paid and trained, but when discussing their work, they often mention that the greatest benefit to them is in the experience of teaching and working with their peers.” You can choose from a variety of courses and majors in which to become an academic mentor and strengthen your own understanding of the subject with training.

If you are still not sold on any of the aforementioned money-making schemes, the Student Financial Services Web site is a great way to find both local and on-campus jobs. Work ranges from giving massages to babysitting young children. The SFS Web site is updated often, so be sure to check constantly for new opportunities.

So, for those of us without steady jobs or work-studies, there are other ways to earn money on campus. Make sure to use your strengths in academic mentoring, sports or menial word associations when seeking money-making activities. Don’t get discouraged by the lack of “GET $100 FREE” signs on campus. If you look around closely, you’ll be able to find things to do.

Nanette Tarbouni, director of undergraduate admissions at the University, said that she does not expect the number of students applying to the University to fall. She anticipates that the number will stay relatively the same.

“It is too early to be able to predict what will happen with applications this year. We do expect the size of the freshman class to be in keeping with our usual range,” Tarbouni wrote in an e-mail to Student Life.

According to the U.S. News and World Report’s 2008-2009 Best Colleges rankings, a record number of 22,428 high school seniors applied to the University for the 2008-2009 school year. Just 3,887 applicants, or 17 percent, were accepted.

This school year, 1,338 first-time degree-seeking freshmen enrolled at the University.

According to the College Board, not only are record numbers of students graduating from high school, but more and more high school seniors are applying to college. Sixty percent of graduating seniors apply to college, according to College Board data provided to U.S. News and World Report this year.

The increasing competition and rising applicant pools have caused the acceptance rates of most four-year institutions to decline.

With U.S. wages flatlining and the cost of education rising, the ability to pay for higher education has become more difficult, prompting numerous high school graduates to turn to low-cost state schools and community colleges.

At the University, the average total cost for a Wash. U. education after receiving grants based on need is $26,590, a 48 percent average discount.

Despite these factors, none of the schools in U.S. News and World Report’s top 20 national universities, all of which are private, has seen a decrease in applications.

Gregg Walke, a guidance counselor for seniors at Stuyvesant High School in New York City, does not believe the number of students in the U.S., including seniors at Stuyvesant, who apply to Washington University will ever decline.

“With the continuing growth of the popularity of Washington University in St. Louis and the school’s steady position at the top of the rankings, the amount of students that are going to Washington University is most likely to rise,” he said.

Stuyvesant, one of the highest-ranked high schools in the nation, sends a large group of students to highly-ranked schools such as Wash. U. each year.

According to Walke, for the 763-member 2008 graduating class at Stuyvesant, nine students applied Early Decision to the University. Only two were accepted and another was wait-listed.

Of the Regular Decision applicants, 87 other seniors applied to the University. Of those 52 were wait-listed, 18 were accepted and seven were rejected.

Mo Shomrat, a current senior from Stuyvesant, initially thought about applying Early Decision to Wash. U. However, after witnessing the low acceptance rates of students from the previous year who applied Early Decision, he decided to apply Regular Decision.

Shomrat agreed with Walke that the number of students applying to the University will never fall—especially at Stuyvesant.

“Wash. U. more or less has become a dream school for many students here,” Shomrat said. “From the friends whom I’ve talked to, I’d expect the number of seniors applying to Wash. U. this year from Stuy to exceed a hundred.”

Of course you wouldn’t. How can you argue that? But wait—if you’re the 100 percent of people who say “No” to that statement, you’re suddenly a part of the Republican Party. That seems odd.

And, how about this: “Conservatives give MORE money to charity than Liberals, per capita” (see the comment from Caitlin on “The impossibility of hope” in the debate issue). Well hey, that’s a fact. They see it as a personal responsibility, not a governmental one—not only that, but they actually “think it is better to PERSONALLY donate the money, see where it is going and choose a cause that they think is just” (my emphasis). Conservatives actually care more about other people than liberals do.

Now let’s get real. People with lower incomes obviously start disadvantaged and can end up poor no matter how hard they work—your financial situation is a function partially of hard work, sure, but it’s also a function of where you started, how much support you got and pure luck. And GPA is a system made specifically to measure your merit. Food, shelter and comfort, on the other hand, were, in fact, not God’s way of separating the lazy from the industrious.

And of course conservatives give more money than liberals—they HAVE more money than liberals. But it doesn’t really mean their minds are on helping people any more often. How many conservatives were working with me this summer at United Way of America? Few.
Now, bashing right-wing folks isn’t my purpose in this column. Caitlin has some great points, about how the government does a poor job of doing good things with the money it gets through taxes (it puts them into random “programs” instead of into consolidated, efficient efforts) and how I was being unfair ripping conservative ideology as totally illegitimate (though I disagree that all conservatives have charity toward others as their utmost goal).

My purpose, rather, is to point out that you can take a minor, minor pearl of reality and convert it into a statement and even an argument that says whatever you want and that makes sense. My purpose is to point out that you can “say” anything.

This intellectual fellow, Roland Barthes, writes in his own silly autobiographical project that writing “subjects [him] to a severe exclusion,” because his language is not the “popular” language we see on TV and because his belief in “the inconsistency of the subject, his atopia” actually “makes all lyricism untenable.” Suddenly, “[w]riting is a dry, ascetic pleasure, anything but effusive.” Suddenly, writing is just the opposite of what we always thought it was. Hm.

And, naturally, he’s right. “Right,” that is. He uses a bunch of words, twists around some concepts—he becomes accurate. His statement is real. But what we thought originally was real too. And it still is. We’ve got two totally contradictory concepts, both accurate.

Every day, night, whatever, we see the same deal from presidential candidates. They say something—and it’s the case. Then the other guy says something—well, you have to believe that too (assuming you’re a neutral observer, of course). You can “say” anything. You can make anything make sense.

Most of us have relied on language our whole lives to get us to some really important places. It’s sad to think that we can just sit down and make distinctions upon distinctions, and they can all be right.

“Listen,” I might say, “this article is representative of my disillusionment with the world and with people’s unwillingness to try to actually represent reality—I’m done with language ever being reliable.” Or I could say, “I’m just mad at this Barthes character for trying to ruin an institution on which I so heavily rely.”

They’re both true. Am I over it?