Student Life Archives

The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (NCPPHE) gave Missouri colleges the worst grade possible in its “affordability” category of a state report card released earlier this month, entitled “Measuring Up 2004.”

In hanging this proverbial dunce cap over Missouri’s head, the non-profit agency compared the average amount that American families earn each year to the average costs of community, two-year and four-year institutions of higher learning.

The report divides its affordability category into three subsections. “Family Ability to Pay,” for instance, counts for half of each state’s grade and takes into account the percentage of total income a family spends on higher education. A middle-class family in Missouri pays on average $16,205 after subtractions for financial aid for a private four-year university-and, according to the report, that’s one-third of the income that middle-class families earn on average.

Looking back on previous reports produces even more disheartening news. In 2002 Missouri received a “D” instead of the “F” it received this year. The study claims things aren’t improving despite financial aid programs. The federal government shoulders much of the burden. For every dollar the federal government contributes to aiding families with college costs, the average state matches only 18 cents.

At Washington University, tuition increased 3.9 percent this year. If tuition continues to increase at this rate, this year’s freshmen class will pay $82,597.54 in 2031 when they are 45 and sending their children to their alma mater.

“College affordability measured in terms of efforts families must make has declined even when student financial aid is taken into account,” said James Hunt, chairman of the Board of Directors for the NCPPHE and former governor of North Carolina, when he released the report card to the public. “That just can’t be right.”

Started on March 17, 1998, the NCPPHE strives to gather information most useful to education leaders and distribute it to said leaders and the public. The Center’s distinguishing characteristic is that they evaluate states and the nation as a whole, rather than focusing on specific colleges and universities. They believe this idea makes their data more valuable to government leaders. With this report, leaders can make statements about the state instead of an individual institution.

Emphasizing the outcome of the study, Hunt said he expected the results of the report would “come as a surprise” to many.

Washington University’s Mallinckrodt Center became the scene of mass education this past Wednesday as students presided over collection tables and posters presenting facts about the Darfur conflict. Strategically placed collection sites on both floors of Mallinckrodt, along with the obligatory mountain of candy, ensured that the information would be noticed by passersby who might or might not decide to toss money into water-cooler bottles to help displaced Sudanese.

For the past week, members of the University community have been working to raise awareness of the refugee crisis and ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region of Sudan and to collect money to aid refugees and internally displaced persons in The Republic Chad. To date, an estimated 30,000 civilians have been killed and 1.2 million civilians have fled their homes to date, and a projected 10,000 civilians or more are expected to die each month due to famine, disease and violence, according to Amnesty International.

The goal of the campaign-called Change for Change-is to raise a total of $1,000 by the end of today. The money will go towards the Amnesty International Darfur relief fund and toward educating the community about the Darfur crisis. While the tabling campaign is over, certain residential advisors are still collecting money for the relief fund.

“A lot of people are very interested and very generous,” said senior Danielle Silber, who is a part of the University’s chapter of Amnesty International and ran the group’s tabling effort. “Also, a fair amount of people donate but aren’t interested in what’s going on. They say that it’s too depressing, and they don’t want to know anything about it. Others just walk by with blinders on.”

Darfur is a region of desert and savannah on the western edge of Sudan. It’s about the size of Texas, five to six million people live there and the central African nation of Chad borders it to the west. The civil war between the Sudanese government and rebel forces in southern Sudan has cooled after a peace agreement in May between the feuding parties, which followed pressure for talks applied by the United States. Peace in Sudan has become a greater concern for the U.S. government following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, as Sudan was a known place of residence for such terrorists as Osama bin Laden and Carlos the Jackal.

However, since early 2003 rebel groups have been conduct raids on government installations, which have been used as justification by the government for a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that has had negative results for civilians.

While the Sudanese government in the capital of Khartoum denies it, evidence collected by many human rights organizations and independent journalists indicates that the Sudanese government is conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Africans living in the Darfur region. Arab militias known as the “janjaweed” (“evil horseman” in Arabic) have been supported by the government in a targeted scorched-earth campaign against black farmers. While the antiquated Sudanese air force has proven ineffective at conducting precision strikes against rebel forces, the bombs from its helicopters and airplanes have destroyed many Darfurian villages.

The crisis in Sudan is becoming more acute. Refugees continue to scatter throughout Sudan and eastern Chad, where tensions are beginning to rise between the local population and refugees following an unusually light rainy season and gross overpopulation. The government has hampered the efforts of journalists and human rights workers trying to enter the country, preventing them from acquiring visas. The Sudanese government continues to deny their support of the “janjaweed” to the international community, claiming that they are attempting to put an end to the regional violence.

The United Nations (UN) and most western countries have backed down from calling the violence in Darfur genocide, but Secretary of State Colin Powell called it just that in a U.S. proposal to the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Sudan, specifically upon its fledgling oil industry. The proposal would also provide for international peacekeepers stationed in Darfur and create an international aid package to help stave off famine and disease in the region.

While Amnesty International itself has not yet called the violence in Sudan genocide, Silber says the University’s chapter agrees with Powell’s assessment. Templates for letters thanking Powell for his declaration to the Security Council were being handed out at the Change for Change tabling event.

“For the most part, people in Khartoum don’t care about what goes on outside their own lives,” said freshman Mohamed Abdel-Razig. Abdel-Razig visits Sudan regularly and will be returning over the winter vacation. “But maybe when I go back, they’ll be talking about it. I see what the administration is doing is helping awareness.”

The saga continues.

With just nine days until Washington University hosts the town-hall debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry, the meeting remains in a limbo of sorts.

Both candidates have agreed to participate in the debate, but because the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has refused to sign the campaigns’ agreement, either candidate could pull out at any time.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Bush-Cheney campaign is considering doing just that. The Post and the New York Times reported that if the campaign does withdraw from a debate, it would likely be from either the one at Washington University or the third debate, which is to be held at Arizona State University.

The CPD refused to sign the candidates’ debate agreement, but in a statement posted to its Web site on Monday, the commission committed to enforcing the debate rules largely as outlined in the memo. The CPD wrote that no changes to the rules in the memo will be made “without prior consultation with and approval by the appropriate campaign representatives.”

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that one area where the commission may want to change the rules agreed to by the campaigns is in the selection of the participants in the University’s town-hall debate. The CPD had originally proposed that all audience members be undecided voters, while the campaigns demanded that the participants be composed of 50 percent “soft Kerry” supporters and 50 percent “soft Bush” supporters.

Regardless of what the CPD might like, Steven Smith, a professor of political science, said he doubts the method of selecting participants is likely to cause the debate’s cancellation.

“I think if either candidate backed out over this issue, it would not look good,” he said. “I think that this issue will be successfully negotiated.”

Steve Givens, who is chairing the University’s debate planning committee, said Tuesday afternoon that he had still heard nothing official from the CPD about the status of the debate.

Students can now get a firmer grip on politics with WUTV’s newest show, “Political Bearings.” The student-run production aims to present issues fairly and with a campus focus.

“We’re hoping that this semester, with the election, the show will appeal to students who are politically interested-not only people who are involved with political organizations, but also people who are casually interested or less active,” said sophomore Evan Susser, the show’s producer.

The premiere is scheduled to coincide with the week of the presidential debate to be held at Washington University. WUTV modeled “Political Bearings” after the format of “Meet the Press” and other Sunday-morning political programming. According to Susser, the show has a unique “Wash U. spin” and will combine interviews and debates.

After the presidential debate and election, “Political Bearings” will continue to run in its 3 p.m. time slot on Sundays. By presenting issues of concern to college voters, the staff of “Political Bearings” hopes to help educate students about making conscious decisions in the political arena, especially when choosing the next commander-in-chief.

Politically active students expressed excitement for the show, while those with other interests grumbled about the Sunday afternoon time slot.

“I think it’s exciting and it gives students another opportunity to get involved in not only political science but in journalism and news production,” said junior Jackie Graves, president of College Republicans. “It’s a great way for students to get involved in the media.”

Freshman Jon Wolff also noted the show’s potential to introduce students to non-mainstream politicians.

“I would watch a show like this,” said Wolff. “I love argumentation, and I love politics, and I can’t think of a better combination of the two for a Sunday afternoon. I feel it will be very insightful-yet as the campus maintains a very liberal attitude, it may not overcome the bias held by the viewers. I would like to see Michael Badnarik, the libertarian candidate for president, as one of the guests on the show.”

While some were concerned with the show’s timing, junior Quinton Lucas brushed aside the conflict with NFL Sunday football.

“Some may complain about its timing opposite NFL football, but I think it could be a great addition to our campus dialogue,” said Quinton. “I think it would greatly enhance their current lineup and I’d enjoy seeing them get opinions from the average student [and] not just the politically informed.”

Students with access to cable television can tune in for “Political Bearings” on WUTV Channel 22.

Failed a test recently? You’re not alone. In a recently released ranking, Washington University scored a 50 percent in the “Fire Safety” category of The Princeton Review’s 2004-2005 survey of campus life.

The University scored an 80 on a scale of 60 to 99 points. The questions dealt with statistics such as the percentage of rooms equipped with a supervised fire alarm system, the percentage of rooms equipped with an automatic sprinkler system, the number of hours of student fire-safety training provided by the school and the procedures that campus security and the fire department employ when responding to activated fire alarms.

The Princeton Review developed the survey in conjunction with the Center for Campus Fire Safety (CCFS), a watchdog group that collects and publishes data on campus fire statistics.

Steve Hoffner, director of operations at the University, expressed dissatisfaction with the University’s fire safety results.

“I would certainly hope that we would be ranked better,” said Hoffner.

The fire safety ranking is a new addition this year to The Princeton Review’s wide variety of surveys. According to Eric Olson, the company’s director of guidebook publications, the point of the fire safety analysis is to help prospective students distinguish between institutions in an area that many don’t necessarily consider when selecting a college.

“[We] want to ask questions that you may not want to ask or know to ask when you visit,” said Olson. “This is another way students should compare schools.”

According to the CCFS website, 66 people have died in college-related fires since January 2000. Ed Comeau, director of the CCFS, recommends that students investigate a school’s fire safety record before making a decision about which school to attend. Posting rankings on The Princeton Review’s Web site will make the data easily available to a large number of prospective college students.

“The more information people have when they’re trying to select a fire-safe school, obviously the better it is,” Comeau said.

In comparison to the University’s 80 points, other area schools such as Saint Louis University and Webster University received 92 and 90 points, respectively. The University of Missouri-St. Louis did not submit a completed survey for publication, and thus scored the minimum 60 points. According to Olson, about 700 schools provided data in this category.

Student Life was unable to obtain a copy of the University’s completed survey. Keith Steinbrueck, an admissions analyst responsible for submitting the University’s surveys to The Princeton Review, was not able to locate the name of the person who filled out the fire safety form.

According to Ralph Thaman, associate vice chancellor for facilities planning and management at the University, nobody came to ask for the technical information that would have been required to complete the survey. None of the safety or facilities officials contacted by Student Life were aware that such an evaluation had occurred.

Safety Coordinator Paul Landgraf and Thaman agreed that a possible reason for the University’s low score was that the survey covered all University-owned housing, from freshman residence halls on the South 40 to off-campus apartments.

The University now owns more than 1,000 beds in off-campus housing. Thaman said that these off-campus apartments are not connected to a supervised fire alarm system, meaning that the students living in the building are responsible for reporting a fire. One of the questions in the survey clearly referred to the number of fire alarms able to automatically notify a central station of an incident.

“I guess we feel that the smoke detector in the ceiling alerts the resident, who can then make the call,” said Thaman, adding that the University is “in the process of doing upgrades,” although no timeline has been set for their completion because the apartments are “acceptable for living.”

Hoffner said that the preexisting conditions of the off-campus buildings also make it difficult to bring the housing up to the standards of the newer residence halls.

“Some of the buildings are very old and probably aren’t suitable for sprinkling without considerable expense,” said Hoffner.

According to the CCFS Web site, the lack of automatic sprinkling systems is a common link between many fatal fires in student housing. Other frequent problems include smoking, missing or nonfunctioning smoke alarms and the consumption of alcohol.

Senior Martin Repinecz is a resident of the on-campus Millbrook Apartments. Like the off-campus apartments, the Millbrook buildings are not equipped with automatic sprinkler systems.

Repinecz said he finds the University’s low fire safety rating “a little disturbing,” and expressed interest in receiving more instructions on how to operate first-response equipment such as a fire extinguisher-an interest amplified by a recent brush with flames.

“We had a small fire in the suite the other day [involving the toaster],” said Repinecz. “My roommate tried to get the fire extinguisher, but the fire extinguisher would not come off the wall.”

Landgraf says that while students do receive fire safety training from a variety of sources, the administration recognizes that not all students retain the information presented to them.

Hoffner echoed Landgraf’s views about student participation in the fire education process.

“We can talk about fire safety and urge people to do the right thing, but too often it doesn’t get the attention it deserves,” Hoffner said. “I think overall we have a good fire safety program.”

Another key factor in the University’s fire safety policy is the once-a-year fire drill required by the fire code. This year’s set of drills occurred during the third week of September. Landgraf worked with members of the maintenance staff and the Clayton Fire Department to evaluate student response to the activated fire alarms. During the drills, Landgraf paced the buildings, looking for code violations. In one dorm, he removed a set of doorstops that prevented the fire doors from automatically swinging shut when the alarm was activated.

Overall, said Landgraf, “we had exceptionally good fire safety and evacuation drills in all the buildings.”

The number of fire evacuation drills conducted was another component of The Princeton Review’s fire safety survey. Because the University conducts the minimum required number of planned drills, it is likely that this is one part of the questionnaire that would have unfavorably affected the final score.

Ultimately, Thaman sees a positive side to the University’s low score.

“The good thing about [the ranking] is that you can take steps to improve it,” said Thaman. “We are going to put together a plan.”