Jonathan CampoAmong those who make the daily walk from the South 40 to campus, most have noticed the plasma TV screen displayed prominently in the entryway of Cornerstone. It is a puzzling scene-the otherwise modest study spot on the ground floor of Gregg, dedicated to providing academic support for undergraduates-features a sleek and pricey TV.
The Arc, Olin Library’s newly-opened technology center, boasts not one but two plasma screen TVs. At both Cornerstone and the library, the TVs serve as welcome signs and do little else. Recently, a Student Life staff member walked into Cornerstone to be greeted by a picture of a stick figure riding a skateboard. Not exactly a scene requiring a $6,000 display on the cutting edge of television technology. Regardless of how impressive the screens look, it is absolutely unnecessary that the statement “No food is allowed in the Arc” be displayed in the highest quality resolution.
The costly TVs may seem like a trivial point, but they serve as daily reminders that Washington University is spending what seems to be an excess of money-from Olin Library’s copious cherry wood paneling to the decorative glass dome that will sit atop the building upon completion. There is no student on campus who has not seen an example of money being wasted somehow.
Although the University seems need-blind in terms of buying things it does not need, WU, ironically, is not a need-blind institution where admissions are concerned. Schools with need-blind admissions policies admit students without any consideration of the degree of their financial need-essentially, need-blind schools accept students without looking at ability to pay as a criterion.
Presently, all Ivy League school use need-blind admissions policies. Brown University, which only recently became need-blind and was the last Ivy to make the switch, did so to increase its volume of applicants, something WU is always looking to do. In addition, most of WU’s rival schools, such as Tufts University, Emory University, and the tied-for-12th University of Chicago have need-blind admissions. What’s more, many schools with need-blind admissions have smaller endowments than WU’s.
In 1994, Congress created an antitrust exemption to the Improving America’s Schools Act, designed to essentially reward schools for using need-blind admissions. Entitled Section 568, it allowed institutions practicing need-blind admissions policies to cohesively agree on basic principles of financial aid. Five years later, 28 top-ranked institutions came together to form the “568 Presidents’ Working Group,” led by college and university presidents committed to strengthening need-based aid programs. WU, obviously, is not among these 28 schools.
With the recently faltering economy, some top-ranked need-blind institutions, including Yale, Stanford, and Princeton, have made it even easier for candidates to qualify for financial aid. The more lenient aid policies are aimed at increasing the yield of admitted students in need of financial assistance. With such an effort being made by the Office of Admissions to recruit students, it seems that having a clearly inferior financial-aid policy can only hurt WU in its ongoing effort to climb the ranks of the Princeton Review.
Why, when money is openly being spent on unnecessary electronics and upscale library shelving, does the University allow prospective freshmen to choose other schools that will offer them more aid?
The money could be spent improving the financial situations of individual applicants, as well. Take the money wasted when WU’s Top Care workers spend hundreds of hours each fall re-landscaping the South 40 specifically for Parents’ Weekend-to impress the parents of students who already attend-and create stipends for scholarships. If the idea of going need-blind really doesn’t appeal to WU, then at the very least, perhaps the university should consider charging less tuition to the students who already attend.
Granted, the students of WU are used to the best. Fancy new dorms, the best college food in the country, and stellar academics are among such luxuries. But no one, not even undergraduates pampered by so many amenities, would admit to an academic lack had the plasma TVs stayed at Best Buy. Simply put, until the University is doing all it can to accommodate the financial needs of its students, it should not be wasting its money.