At the undergraduate tuition panel hosted by Alpha Delta Phi and Washington University for Undergraduate Socioeconomic Diversity last week, the administration attempted to explain why, in the face of continually increasing tuition each year, the University has failed to provide a greater amount of financial aid to incoming students. We view the given explanation as logical but insufficient, failing to mask the administration’s attempt to beat around the bush when it comes to the pressing issues of socioeconomic diversity at this school that have been ignored for several years.

The panel itself was meant to shed light on how the University utilizes its $2.3 billion operating budget (which is over twice as large as the budget for the city of St. Louis, although around two-thirds of that figure goes toward the medical school), which has mostly been devoted toward the construction of facilities and the improvement of the University’s reputation as an institution.

Regarding the financial attention given to improving the University’s reputation instead of its financial aid capability, Provost Holden Thorp did not express regret, merely stating that the University hoped to admit more low-income students in the future and push its number of Pell Grant recipients toward the middle of the pack compared to other universities. His failure to offer a concrete plan for doing so and the University’s general lack of regret for sweeping this issue under the rug for such a long time, however, is unacceptable.

We understand the need to build up the University’s reputation as an institution before devoting attention to improving financial aid offerings, but the fact that it has taken so long to get to a point where the administration publicly acknowledges our lack of socioeconomic diversity as a problem is disturbing. The time has indeed come for the University to start prioritizing socioeconomic diversity over prestige.

It has been established that Wash. U. is a great university with many educational opportunities and fantastic facilities. We are happy with projects completed and on the way, but our reputation is rendered less meaningful unless we can increase accessibility to all the great opportunities and resources here.

Thus far, the administration has offered evidence of marginal progress supplemented with platitudes. Thorp commented that the population of students eligible for Pell Grants has risen from 6 to 8 percent in his 2 1/2 semesters at the University and will continue climbing. We still need to hear the details of how and when—how will Wash. U. get to the middle of the pack (and why not more ambition?) and when will we go need-blind (not if)?

The conversation over socioeconomic diversity and financial aid will not end simply because Pell Grant numbers are gradually increasing. Even when enough low-income students are accepted to prevent us from being an outlier on New York Times graphs, we will have to discuss how to make campus accommodating for people of all financial backgrounds.

The University is in phase one of a longer movement, and we praise Alpha Delta Phi and WU/FUSED for bringing these questions to administrators. We hope to see similar panels with a variety of faculty administrators and students in the future along with a more concrete outlining of goals.