Students at Wash. U. are no strangers to an annual comprehensive bill that is fast encroaching on $50,000. The University has done a commendable job distributing financial aid and scholarships and is known for its generous grants that steers Ivy-bound students towards the Midwest. But the administration and the board of trustees need to address smaller costs that can quickly make the school unaffordable for low-income students.
In keeping with this year’s “Higher Sense of Purpose” theme, I would like the University to ask the following question before endorsing expensive add-ons to tuition and room and board: What would Mark Rank do? In a world where paying nearly $45,000 a year to go to school might already be a bit morally dubious, is it really necessary to charge students $6 for a box of cereal at Bear Mart? Low-income students who might save significant amounts of money by going to an in-state, public institution are not likely to be swayed to move to St. Louis when they see that Wash. U. charges $44,240 a year and has the gumption to charge for services like the gym, internet and visits to the health center that are free at publics.
Much of the debate over costs at Wash. U. last semester focused on ResTech’s terrible Internet service. These arguments have all been made before, but they are worth repeating: the Internet is unreliable, the lack of wireless in dorms puts Wash. U. at a competitive disadvantage with other elite institutions and, most importantly, charging an extra $270 for a service that has become essential to students and is free at almost every other college is outrageous. Charging for printing is equally offensive. At my high school, many of the pages that came through the library printers were rap lyrics and porn. Either students at Wash. U. are exceptionally good at hiding their Jeezy lyrics and Jenna pics in a layer of anthro readings or they are printing materials that they legitimately need for class. The library has set up yet another roadblock to learning for the economically disadvantaged.
For now, at least, students are able to go elsewhere to print. Not all of these expenses are optional; Wash. U. requires all students to enroll in its $660 health insurance plan. The basic plan does not cover regular check-ups, eye and dental exams, most prescription drugs and a long list of other obscure medical problems and situations (someone else will have to pay for your sex changes and injuries sustained while hang-gliding). Although low-income students are more likely to need insurance, those who already have insurance will be forking over a substantial sum of money for overlapping coverage. Making the insurance plan optional might inconvenience Student Health, but it would not force students into purchasing something that they may not need.
Excessive charges seem to have become something of a school policy. Witness the changes enacted to the study abroad program in 2001. Beginning that year, all Wash. U. study abroad programs were revised to have costs comparable to spending a year at school. One of the many appealing aspects to studying abroad is that higher education is relatively cheap elsewhere compared to the United States, even including room and board and other expenses. For instance, King’s College in London charges Å“11,402 (about $22,000) in tuition per year for international arts and science students. Even taking into account exorbitant London rent, cost of living, health insurance and air travel, the total does not come close to Wash. U.’s $47,842 price tag. The University argues in a Record dispatch from Feb. 18, 1999 (when the changes were announced) that the extra funds will go towards “more faculty involvement, more funds for program development, review and redesign, as well as some funds for scholarship support.” The impression I get from this bureaucratese is that the University has arbitrarily raised costs in the name of standardization.
There are other areas that the university could stand to moderate costs – Bear Mart, with its $5 12-pack sodas, and the campus bookstore, with its overpriced office supplies, both dutifully exploit their respective monopolies – but I recognize that running a university like Wash. U. on a budget is a very difficult proposition these days. At the same time, the wealth of Wash. U. students has not escaped the attention of college guidebooks and therefore prospective students; Princeton Review notes that although most students don’t flaunt their wealth, “This is a rich school” and “many Washington students come from boatloads of money.” If the University continues to pay lip service to making higher education affordable to all students, it needs to address costs in ways that scholarships, loans, and grants do not.
Ben is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at bmpaviou@artsci.wustl.edu.