Students and community members attending the three-hour Occupy meeting, called Occupy the University, in the basement of the Mallinckrodt Center had to relocate to a new room after two hours because another student group had booked the room.

Approximately 40 community members and students attended the meeting to discuss the motivations goals for the Occupy movement in relation to Washington University.

Fewer than a dozen of the participants, though, were actually students.

Senior Adam Hasz, who coordinated the meeting, attributed this to marketing and student’s busy schedules.

“We didn’t do that much outreach for this event,” Hasz said. “I think a lot of the students that had been coming [to similar meetings] had made plans or just weren’t aware that we were doing it.”

Hasz said that he and other student activists would like to get the University student body more involved in discussion about Occupy and the issues surrounding the movement.

“We are still trying to see what’s most [relatable] to the student community here and if Occupy is not the correct vehicle to transmit [our] message…we’ll explore other ways as well,” he said. “I think that [the] idea of Occupy right now is still somewhat foreign or uncertain to students.

“Having these conversations is essential for us to [be able to] understand how we can actually work together to create the results we want to see and understand what is necessary to move our society in a different direction.”

Junior Ken Kumanomido also said he would like to see Occupy expand its support base to spread its message further.

“A dialogue that will expand and include more students and community members [is] where I see it [going] for now,” Kumanomido said. “It’s our responsibility to make ourselves aware of the injustices we need to leverage our power and privilege as students of an influential institution to address the injustices around us and to not leverage that power is an unfortunate waste.”

Participants in Occupy the University also discussed the future of Occupy at the University.

Beyond reaching out more to the student body, many participants discussed the possibility of protests, walk-outs and teach-ins. Teach-ins are lectures or series of lectures given by faculty about various topics.

Ultimately, Hasz said he hopes the group’s efforts will get more students involved in the discussion over the issues that will affect their future.

“The goal for me is to have people more conscious about the world we are inheriting and how the problems that are touched on in Occupy, or just touched on in the New York Times or in the media relate to our lives,” he said.

Godiva Reisenbichler | Student Life

I concur with that, and I am glad it was written. Nonetheless, like other columns regarding rankings, or a closely related topic on the name-value that I’ve had a chance to read, it misses on another important attitude to take on these matters that I’ve wanted to address at some point.

I admit that I too care about the rankings. But ever since making the resourceful decision to entrust Wash. U. with my four undergraduate years, I’ve come to view it primarily as “my school” more than some school with a curiously long name a and national or worldwide ranking of 14th or 41st or whatever. Therefore, although I would visit www.usnews.com at the end of every August, the rankings were trivial when I could do things to contribute to the University’s procurement of higher rankings and reputation in future compilations, which would in turn benefit me as well.

I hope that that last statement didn’t immediately sound pretentious. All I meant to say was that since matriculation I’ve come to focus much more on doing my best as a student of Wash. U. and as a future graduate, which, in my opinion, also happens to be the best contribution I can make at an individual level to improving the school’s reputation, rankings and name-value. This shouldn’t be bewildering. It should be plain.

Students make up a huge part of the face of a university. Its rankings and reputations will in large part pivot around the students who attend the institution. People judge a university for many things, not the least of which is its students and their achievements.

Good, urge the University to improve graduate programs. They matter. Fine, care about rankings and keep yourself aware of them. We rightfully should. But never digress: The first and foremost goal for us is to strive for our own betterment and personal success, both during our time as students and during post-graduate life. If this is not why you came to college, you are in serious trouble. If it is, well, you just do that, and Wash. U. will be respected the way you want. People will think more highly of Wash. U. through you.

Some students here seem to feel an unexpressed insecurity against the Ivy League schools, but the Ivies’ fame was not a gift from heaven. People earned it for them through respectable personal and academic successes. People built the current Wash. U. reputation. If you aren’t cool with it (I am), or if you are but still desire a better reputation (heck yeah, why not?), know that you can strive for its betterment yourself, simply by giving your best, truthful endeavor for your own betterment. Note too that the Ivies are much older. Years from now, depending on us, maybe nobody will confuse Wash. U. for any other school with “Washington” in its name, just as hardly anyone mistakes University of Pennsylvania with Pennsylvania State University.

Naturally, a rise in ranking and reputation brings promising talents, who will then contribute to further University prestige. We, the current students, can and should be the catalytic propellant of this positive feedback. We can be a part of school history from which all current or future Wash. U. citizens will benefit.

If you simply cannot cope with Wash. U.’s current rankings or its name, stop prying and transfer to Harvard or Penn. No? Then life will be much better if you can learn to live with the status quo. I say the best way to do it is to focus on YOU, not the University, and try treating this place more as “your school” than as Washington University in St. Louis, the 14th best university in the United States. Regardless of the rankings and your insecurities about them, this is undoubtedly more than an excellent institution for you to better yourself.

Providing National Merit Scholars with university-specific scholarships is no longer the norm at other elite institutions, such as Harvard, Yale and the University of California schools. New York University is the latest to pull out of the program, bringing the total number of schools that no longer participate in the NMSP to nine.

There is a reason that schools like Harvard and Yale no longer accept the NMSP: they don’t give any merit-based aid but rather need-based aid only.

Schools like NYU, on the other hand, simply don’t think that giving national merit scholars money helps attract intelligent students. The University of California and the University of Texas-Austin have also stopped participating in the program because they don’t want to reward based on a standardized test.

The NMSP is something that Wash. U. has to pay out of its own pocket for each merit scholar, a total of $7500-$8000 per scholar. It is not paid for in full by a national foundation or similar institution.

We believe that the money that is currently going to the NMSP would be better served if Wash. U. simply expanded its own merit scholarship options to include entry to a similar program (that offered approximately $2500 to students) on the basis of more than just test scores from 11th grade.

With so many intelligent and competent students attending Wash. U., it seems silly to split hairs over aid based on a test. Merit should be rewarded based on more indicative and substantial factors than a standardized test.

We understand that Wash. U. still feels it needs to attract smart students in order to stay competitive with schools like the Ivies. While merit-based aid should not be abolished, it should be given where truly deserved, and the PSAT is not the way to determine that, especially given its controversial nature. These tests tend to reward people who can afford special SAT tutors and the test itself, making it counter-productive to the idea of aid itself.

Merit-based aid needs to be based on something more, something beyond performance on a standardized test. Merit should mean the full package, a student who has not just performed well on standardized tests but also managed to achieve a great deal in high school. There is a reason we are told to be well-rounded students, a reason we aren’t admitted based on test scores alone.

If we want to continue offering merit-based aid, it should be based on the same high standards that we require for students to attend the school, not only the success of a student on one test on a single day.

The three universities selected to host the presidential debates are the University of Denver, Hofstra University on Long Island in New York and Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla. Centre College in Danville, Ky. was selected to host the vice presidential debate.

The University hosted the presidential debates in 1992, 2000, 2004 and a vice presidential debate in 2008. It was also selected to host the 1996 presidential debates, but they were ultimately canceled.

“Wash. U. has enjoyed a really long relationship with the Commission on Presidential Debates,” Assistant Vice Chancellor Rob Wild said. “For the past few cycles, we’ve gone into this wondering if our streak would be broken because they do rotate these sites around. We certainly weren’t surprised we weren’t selected, but we were disappointed, of course.”

Washington University is the only school that has been chosen to host debates five election cycles in a row.

The University did not apply to host its first debate in 1992, but the commission needed to host the debate in St. Louis, so they asked the University to host it with one week’s notice.

The University applied, and was selected to host debates in the following four cycles.

During the 2004 presidential debate, then Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, Janet Brown, praised the University.

“This campus is the gold standard for debates,” she said.

Earlier this year, Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton told Student Life that he thought it was unlikely that the University would be chosen to host another debate.

“I think the prospects are low because we’ve been selected in every presidential election since 1992, but we’re ready to do it if we’re selected…but it has been proven that other places can do it well also,” he said.

Many students are disappointed that the University was not chosen to host this year.

“This year, the election is going to interesting. It would be interesting to see them talk,” junior Max Liu said. “I would have rather been selected.”

Students said they would have appreciated the excitement and discussion surrounding debates.

“I think that Wash. U. is a great place for the presidential debate because the school draws a large diversity of people and diversity of thought,” junior Rachel Tyroler said. “I think it’s a great way to engage the student body in politics.”

Others said they were not particularly upset by the announcement.

“I’m kind of unfazed by it. It’d be nice to have it here, but I’m not going to hit the streets and freak out about it,” senior Whit Chapman said.

In 2008 the University hosted the debate between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

In his Strategic Plan for Undergraduate Education, Dean McLeod said that the University’s mission to undergraduates is: “To build and sustain an undergraduate experience of exceptional quality where students, known by name and story, prepare themselves for lives of purpose and meaning.”

As an RA, I hear this phrase ad infinitum, but it stuck. Names are easy. I tried to know all of my residents’ names before the second day of orientation, and I think I got them pretty rapidly. The same goes for those of other folks I’ve met during my time at Wash. U. Of course, there are those brain farts when I see someone’s face that I know well and, no matter the effort, can’t dredge a name out of my brain — but putting a face to a name is something at which I think I’m generally proficient.

The stories of people are far more difficult. Do you know how much time it takes to get to know a floor of 40 freshmen?! And not just know them by acknowledging what schools they’re in, or where they’re from, but to know what they like and don’t like, what makes them laugh, what upsets them. Add to that my residents from last year and then to that the group of acquaintances I’ve made over the last three years. For all of us, these numbers are practically impossible to grasp. Look at your Facebook friends; how many of them do you actually know? How many more do you just brush past in the DUC every day, with barely a hint of acknowledgement?

I never knew Dean McLeod besides a friendly “Hello” around campus, the same kind of “Hello” that I give plenty of my fellow students. It’s a “Hello” to which I don’t want to be tied. The task to go beyond “Hello” with everyone we know is nothing short of Sisyphean But I want to make the effort. I’m as overcommitted as the next person, but I want to make it a goal in my senior year to make time for others, friends and acquaintances, and to get to know them—not just by name, but by their story.

In an email, Associate Dean of Students Jill Stratton said that Dean McLeod believed wholeheartedly in the “power of personal relationships” at our university. We cannot support ourselves alone. It is only through our interactions with friends, teachers, administrators, advisors, coworkers, and classmates that we can truly achieve our full potential. We do not only rely on this support system, we are a part of it; and we can strengthen it further by reaching out to those that we know by name and finding out their story, too.

I would like to expand a bit on the history that Davis Sargeant reported on “Civil Rights and Washington University: a complex history,” Stud. Life, 9/1/11.

In 1968, a confluence of events led the normally compliant WU faculty to set up a large number of committees to examine virtually all aspects of university governance. Among these was Committee #27. It was charged with presenting plans to increase substantially the number of students from minority and low-income families. I was privileged to serve on that committee.

The committee’s report opened by quoting S. A. Hendrick’s essay in College Board Review (Winter 1967-68): “It is my thesis that selective institutions—or to put it more plainly, most members of The College Board—are now operated almost exclusively for white students.” The report suggests that it would have been more informative to say white students from middle and high-income families. Committee 27’s report went on to reject the cumulative deficit thesis that low-income and minority students, in large measure, were so far behind by the end of high school that there was little chance that they would succeed at places like Washington University. The committee embraced an alternative idea that students of genuine talent could be identified by means other than verbal test scores and that, with adequate support, a large fraction would succeed at Washington University. The Committee set its sights high, proposing that 10-20 percent of baccalaureate degrees in the regular curriculum be awarded to students from minority and low-income families. Its report lays out in considerable detail a program for accomplishing this.

Unfortunately, neither my memory nor a brief scanning of my Committee 27 files allows me to report to you whether anything came of the effort. As an aside, it might amuse present students that WU was considered to be expensive; the total cost for a residential student was $3,600 per year; $27,700 when adjusted for the increase in the Cost of Living Index. Don’t you wish!

Daniel H. Kohl
Professor Emeritus, Biology
Campus Box 1137, Washington University
St, Louis, MO 63130-4899

But few other institutions were willing to axe their early decision programs, and with an ever-increasing environment of competition for top students, it would seem that Harvard and Princeton were forced to bring back early action as part of a prolonged effort to stay on top of the college admissions game.

In fact, other colleges have gone in the opposite direction, going to lengths to differentiate themselves from the competition. For example, Sewanee: The University of the South recently cut tuition in an effort to make itself more attractive to prospective students. Efforts such as Sewanee’s demonstrate that competition is a two-way street: While students work harder and harder to distinguish themselves as the best, top schools must also work harder and harder to attract them.

The interesting thing about Sewanee’s tuition cut is that tuition costs are, in certain respects, arbitrary. Washington University meets 100 percent of demonstrated need, which means that the cost of attending the University is, for many students, significantly lower than its sticker price. Sewanee currently meets an average of 96 percent of demonstrated student need. This suggests that the price of attendance, for students who receive financial aid, will not change. Instead, it would seem that tuition is being cut either to attract students who are turned off by a high sticker price or to draw those who would not apply for financial aid in the first place.

Harvard’s and Princeton’s elimination of early action stands in marked contrast to Sewanee’s recent move. While Harvard and Princeton eliminated early action in an effort to lead colleges into a climate of fairer competition, Sewanee lowered tuition to bolster itself in this competitive field. The failure of Harvard and Princeton to effectively lead the field demonstrates that no college—not even the best—can expect to be a model for other schools, if imitating its moves does not stand to give them a direct numeric benefit.

With so many schools at the top, the boundaries between them have blurred. For a student to choose one college over another, there has to be something that sets it apart—and increasingly, that something need not be the actual quality of its programs.

We already knew this to some extent, but these recent moves suggest more than anything else that there is more to a college’s appeal than its programs and the quality of its education, at least in the eyes of high school seniors. We would like to see a field of colleges whose admissions options are as fairly competitive as possible to allow students to truly compare programs—for example, one uniform deadline and relatively similar parameters for factors such as tuition.Thanks to competition, however, it seems that early admission isn’t going anywhere.

But insofar as influence is possible in the college admissions game, we encourage the University to market itself to prospective students on the quality of its educational programs, not on its admissions options or on the sticker price of its tuition. Instead of competing to attract a universal set of “top” students, we believe that each university should aim to attract those who will thrive best in its particular programs—and we hope that our own will continue to do so.

Johann Qua Hiansen

Then-junior Miguel Davis bats against the University of Wisconsin-Platteville on Mar. 27, 2010. Davis hit .315 and started all 32 games for the Bears last season.

“We’ve put in the work, and what I’ve been telling them all along is, ‘when it comes down to time to open the season…we need to have confidence in ourselves that we’ve worked harder than our opponents and that therefore we deserve to win because we’ve outworked everyone else,’” said Steve Duncan, the Bears’ first-year head coach. “I think they have that confidence, so…I couldn’t feel better about things going into the season.”

Duncan, taking over for Ric Lessman after his 17-year tenure as the Wash. U. head coach, has brought new expectations and higher standards for the team. He served the previous three years as an assistant coach with Johns Hopkins University, helping the Blue Jays to a 114-31 (.786) record and two trips to the NCAA Division III World Series.

“With Coach Duncan, he comes from a historically successful program, so he’s been to the World Series and he’s won regional championships. That’s exactly what he expects of us: essentially, to go all the way,” senior third baseman Miguel Davis said. “There’s no reason our team can’t go to a World Series, and I think everybody believes that.”

Expectations for practices and conditioning drills have risen as well. According to pitcher Bryce Hrovat, a senior, winter daily practices for pitchers were earlier than ever before, while the catchers often practiced twice a day.

“He [Coach Duncan] expects a lot of us, and he does everything he can to make sure we’re prepared, and, in turn, we give him that dedication,” Hrovat said. “I really don’t think he’s [overbearing] or tough on us. It’s a good mixture of tough love and motivation at the same time.”

Most of the team’s starters from 2010 are returning, including Davis, infielder Travis May and designated hitter Matt Bayer, all seniors. May batted .327 and led the team with 24 walks, while Bayer, one of the biggest threats in the lineup, hit .346 with nine doubles.

“It’s kind of unprecedented to have so many people coming in who have had so much playing time,” Davis said. “A lot of the guys that are going to be on the field this year have been playing for two or three years now, and a lot of us have been to the [playoffs], so we know what it takes to get there, what it’s going to take to go further than we did in the past, and I think we’re all preparing to take that next step.”

According to Duncan, though the team’s offense and defense should both excel, its success will depend on pitching. Hrovat and fellow senior Adam Merzel are expected to anchor the rotation, while the pitching staff is hoping to get a boost from sophomore Max Gordon and junior Brandon Rogalski,who played outfield for the Bears his first two seasons on the team.

“Pitching is going to be the question mark,” Duncan said. “Pitching last year struggled mightily and I think some talented pitchers struggled. Some guys…who didn’t really pitch very well last year, they look sharp and I think they’re ready to go, but they’ve got to go out and prove it now. Now it’s time for them to go and show that last year was the exception.”

Rogalski, one of the main contributors to the Bears’ offense in 2010, will take on pitching duties as well as a regular spot in the lineup. He hasn’t pitched in a game since his freshman year of high school.

“He’s a key player, there’s no doubt about it. I think everybody recognizes that from the offensive side and from pitching,” Duncan said. “Pitching an entire season is pretty strenuous on your arm, so there’s questions about whether he can handle that, but assuming he can handle that, yes, he is a difference maker…If it ends up that he’s just a hitter for us, he’d still be a major, major asset for us. He’s one of our best hitters.”

The Bears will take the field for the first time this season on Saturday at home for a doubleheader against Coe College. First pitch is scheduled for 11 a.m.

“Essentially it just comes down to playing well-disciplined, well-executed baseball, and that’s what we’ve been preparing for and that’s what we plan on doing on Saturday,” Davis said.

The proposal, if approved, would come into effect in the fall of 2012.

The plan was presented to the Undergraduate Council, which is composed of faculty and staff from across the University.

Rationale for increasing passing time stems from the fact that the campus has expanded since the seven-minute rule was set, and students need more time to get across campus, according to Vice Chancellor for Students and Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences James McLeod.

“It’s giving those who are having difficulty making it to class time to do that,” McLeod said.

Students do find that for classes on opposite ends of campus, it’s difficult to get to class on time.

Junior Ben Cutting has one class in Simon Hall and another right after in Whitaker Hall. He says it usually takes him about 10 minutes to get to his second class.

“It would probably be a good idea. Ten minutes is probably reasonable to get pretty much anywhere,” Cutting said.

Other students disagree.

“I think seven minutes is plenty of time—I tend to show up at class early,” junior Alex Barger said. “I don’t really think we need three extra minutes; I don’t think it will make much of a difference to anyone.”

McLeod hopes that even though classes will be three minutes shorter each day, learning will continue at the same rate.

“The hope is that fewer students will be coming in late, and there will be fewer disruptions to the class,” McLeod said. “We hope that that will compensate for the loss of three minutes of class.”

Some professors think that the proposed policy is fair.

“Almost always, there’s someone a little late,” said Assistant Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences Nicole Svobodny, who is also a Russian studies lecturer. “Ten is a rounded number that works.”

With additional reporting by Chloe Rosenberg and Michael Tabb.