Many of us would like to push for a "flatter" flat-tuition. What are you thinking? Is this part of the solution, or a quick fix?
Well, can't we just give everyone a few thousand more in scholarships and grants? What would it take for everyone to get an extra $5,000? Is that goal reasonable or difficult? Let's look at a hypothetical situation. (An extreme example will be shown) Easy or Hard?
Not so easy! We have trained career professionals who fund raise for a living, and building our endowment is their passion and lifeblood. Let's put our faith into helping our School be proud of our accomplishments so that alumni may see a bright future ahead!
7 comments:
Way to go, Niko! I like the direction your heading in!
Hey Niko,
I'm a GS student and I've been a big fan of yours for quite some time now. However, I have to say that I have a big problem with one of your video statements.
What exactly do you mean when you say that "the very students who need" a loan-free life "the most" were GS students--"students who were mothers, who are workers, who dream..."?
Are you aware that there are lots of really poor kids whose parents come from hopeless broken homes that go to CC and SEAS only only because of those scholarships? These are kids that were born without options, period. Were it not for programs like need-blind admissions at CC and SEAS, many of these kids would still be around the drugs, violence, police sirens, and constant heartbreak they grew up in. They weren't middle class suberban kids, like many GSers, whom wanted to "experience life and dream" after the graduated high school; if they were lucky enough to graduate high school, were it not for need-blind admissions, they're lives would be wasted.
So are you saying that the mothers at GS, those students whom had the OPTION of travelling the world after they graduated high school, or whom are lucky enough to be born under the right circumstances to get jobs after they graduated high school, are you saying that these students deserve loan-free lives the most? According to that logic, we should all go get jobs and/or have kids right after graduation since it will put us in the "most-deserving" pool of financial aid plans. Does this make sense?
I beg to differ. I think we ALL EQUALLY DESERVE loan-free lives: GS students, CC students, SEAS students and Barnard students. I don't think your message should be that we deserve loan-free lives the most, but that GSers ALSO deserve loan-free lives. I do, however, think that you have to take parent's social standing and race into consideration, for if you're poor and black, chances are no one in your family even qualifies for the private loans needed to go to Columbia.
I sincerely hope you reconsider your position on this issue.
Thanks!
A Friend
P.S. I'm not leaving my name because I have lots of followers and I wouldn't want them to not support you before giving you a fair chance to address this issue. If I see you in person, I'll let you know who I am. Take care and good luck.
Dear Anonymous -
You're 100%, absolutely, unequivocally right. There is not even a shred of debate to be had. Deserving students should be offered the education that makes America great without regard to ability to pay - IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. Take a look at some of my other blog postings, and you'll see where I stand clearly. I grew up in inner city Detroit in a black/immigrant European household.
http://nikocunningham.blogspot.com/2007_04_03_archive.html
We didn't have a lot of the "good stuff" that the haves had in the suburbs. But, what my sister and I were blessed to have was a two-parent home; one in which our mother sat down with us after a ten hour shift, and did our homework with us and read to us, and took us to the discount stores to get books.
I still remember the day my father saved enough money to buy us a set of encyclopedias. Despite the violence, the killings, and the generally decrepit city we know Detroit to be, education was important in my family - more so than it was in many other families who had a lot more than us. So when I speak of a new vision for GS five, ten, fifteen years from now - it makes more sense to me to analyze why someone like my sister,who now has a family of her own, can dare to dream big and finish school while raising four young boys and working at the same time. Because that is what I saw in Detroit. It makes sense for me to think about a friend of mine who is raising children, and is a homeless student in GS, and it makes even more sense to me to educate these older students who have a desire for greatness so that their own children can learn from the greatest role models life has to offer - their determined parents. GS makes dreams come true - it certainly has for many of my friends. For so long now GS has been a school for students with good credit who can qualify for the loans, students with decent savings, or students with work or military education benefits. We see a day on the horizon that Columbia University allows GS students to start their "Life Part II"and sit down and learn from those students who are blessed enough to be in school at a traditional age during "Life Part I".
The story of my sister, her son and I is at
the Tuesday April 3 posting here on
blogspot.nikocunningham.com
For those who do need help to finish school and not have a nervous breakdown in the process because of the stress of FINANCES, FAMILY OBLIGATIONS, etc., I hope that each one can get whatever extra help could be made available. It's difficult to stay upbeat and do well in classes when you have to worry about how you will be able to pay for school - - let alone purchasing books, transportation back and forth. I wish us all good luck and strength.
while i certainly admire your platform, and your desire to engage the GS population in a meaningful discussion of our future during this election season, you do not address one central key point: GS is treated as the redheaded stepchild division of the university.
as such, GS students receive less not just in monetary terms, but in psychic terms. disparaged at every turn, whether through explicit policies or implicit treatment by the remainder of the student body.
use of videos to underscore the significance of the monetary factor of our experience here at columbia is rather intelligent at communicating the issues on the surface. however, please consider the following:
* GS students are a cash cow. when CC/SEAS cannot fill enrollment due to other divisions not wanting to 'dilute' the 'quality' of their incoming freshmen, GS steps up to the plate, and fills the funding gap. examine the statistics regarding CC/SEAS enrollment compared to GS enrollment. the GS number has trended slightly upwards in 2005 and 2006, while CC has remained relatively stable, and SEAS has shown a slight drop. the key function of undergraduate admissions is to balance out admittance and profit -- we fill the seats.
* GS students have a higher cost per credit, on average, because of columbia's desire to achieve a higher turnover rate of the more desired product that they offer. there is no incentive to allow GS students to progress through the curriculum at a faster rate. however, as the admissions statistics show, there is not a shortage of well-heeled potential freshman admits to other divisions. GS applicants are significantly lower, whether on a de jure (an implicit doctrine of less positive public exposure of GS as a division of columbia) or de facto (many people believe GS is some sort of extension school, or night program) basis. it logically follows, from the basis of a lower average course load, that restrictive enrollment practices at GS result in the ability for students in other divisions to get pushed out of columbia at a much more efficient rate.
* GS endowment is smaller due to restrictions placed upon donations to the university. as i understand it, some donations are made with the proviso that the funds be used to specifically fund one division of the university.
niko, i feel that you're raising a straw man in order to distract us from the greater issue at hand -- parity within the columbia system. and, as i wrote about, it ain't just about the money. after reading the candidate platforms for this current electoral cycle, nobody wants to address this issue, at all, period -- everything is cast in some sort of attempt to translate, or dumb-down, the relationship between GS and the rest of the university. is this done in order to make it more palatable to the masses? i don't know. should we be informed, instead of playing games which serve to incense and inflame without raising awareness of the deeper issues at hand? i don't think we should. by basing the argument around money, you assume that we should automatically have financial parity with the university, stemming from various endowment funds, and this simply will not happen. if we had financial parity, and were treated as equals as you'd like us to believe, we'd also be recipients of the new practice of eliminating loans to incoming students who come from low-income familiies.
is this wrong? hell yeah, it pisses me off, especially when i read articles in the spec that coyly state that GS is getting screwed over in terms of money yet again. it's not fair, period.
given what i've stated above, i'd love to hear your thoughts.
again, as i stated at the beginning of this little note, i admire and respect your desire to engage the student body in this sort of discussion -- and at least someone cares about the way GS is headed. thanks for that.
mr_acavano [at] hotmail dot com
(ps, totally would have wanted to run for a GSSC position this year, but i'm new at this school.)
I wish we could work together more than just the few times we did this year. Parity is always an issue worth examining from the inside and outside. The great leaders have always taught me that to serve without desire; to offer yourself without pecuniary interest shows our true love for man. If everyone cared as much as you did anonymous, there would be no parity issue at all. You have given careful thought to how this University treats its most vulnerable students, now I ask you to engage others to give like they've never given before to fight inequality at every turn. We win by giving. We live by giving more. And we die when we feel we have nothing to offer. Choose YOUR tradition.
Post a Comment