I had the fortune of having lunch with a gentleman who created scholarships in memory of his mother at a luncheon on Tuesday in the Ballrooms. He was a '57 graduate, who spent his life helping others, including as a pastor on the South side of Chicago in the 60's. The story of his mom was really inspirational, as she was extremely active in the community and it was truly honor an to receive a scholarship named in her memory.
The man was so proud to be a Wartburg alum and it was touching to see that Wartburg meant so much to him. It got me thinking about all the people I've met and the memories I've had during my short time here, and felt fortunate for the experience.
Then I resorted back to my pessimistic self as I heard one of the members of the administration thank all the donors for their generosity as it helps make college affordable for students in the face of rising college tuition.
I'm not disagreeing with what this administrative member said, as I am grateful for all the donations that alumni and friends of Wartburg provide, especially those who may be struggling financially, but still manage to give, but he forgot to mention that Wartburg itself is the cause of the high demand for these scholarships.
He went on to state that Wartburg has a goal of creating 100 more scholarships over the next 2 years and this really pissed me off. I'm upset that I have to keep paying more to go here, but I lost it when I saw first-hand Wartburg manipulating the generosity of so many in their quest to make a buck.
These donors could give their money elsewhere, but they choose to invest it into Wartburg, and while I'm sure the Wartburg Administration appreciates their acts of charity, it's for the wrong reasons.
They want to keep raising tuition, so they need as many life preserves (scholarships) as they can get to keep students here but still make bank off of the students.
I'm frustrated that the Wartburg does not do more to help students out financially, but it's really disappointing to see them take advantage of others' generosity instead of learning something from it.
I'm especially interested in the thoughts of those who were at the luncheon or attended a similar setting in the past.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm speaking as one who attended a few of these in my earlier years at Wartburg. The development office, now called the advancement office, used to bring faculty along to the road show presentations. I've always felt uncomfortable asking people for money; I honestly don't understand how those who do it for a living do it. As Jack Ohle explained it to me, 90% of endowment comes from 10% of the donors. And in my world that's a part of Joe's "rant" that is under-appreciated--namely, at the same time that college costs are soaring, the middle class is shrinking, and its capacity finance their kids' college educations is increaseing at a far higher rate than is there income. Now at least one ethical issue in this is that the diminishing middle class is largely a function of government fiscal policy. When the highest marginal rate for the wealthiest in this country was well above 50%, we had a robust middle class. Now, we have families feeling an economic pinch in part because of unfair tax policies which shrink the middle class and heighten the ten per cent who give 90% of the donations to schools. Plus the colleges exploit the income inequality by citing the income expectations of those who graduate from college compared to those who don't. So shame on the college! Not only does it benefit from the immoral and growing economic inequality in the country, it uses it as a fear lever to get middle class families to mortgage their own futures by sending their kids to the same schools who get most of their endowment money from the very wealthy. It's a vicious circle and it's gonna burst. Today's piece on college after tenth grade may well prove to be the first step in "correcting" the market for higher ed costs. Note that the kids who pass their tests are able to attend community colleges, and those who want to attend a four-year private school with selective admission will still have to take the college prep classes in their junior and senior years. Thus the program looks like a sneaky way of getting the non-academically oriented high school kids out of high schools and in junior colleges. My guess is that this is a sneaky way of training those kids for trade-type jobs that four-year schools or high schools don't prepare them for. It'll improve high schools in the junior and senior year, and it'll make the kids entering Wartburg more well prepared. But it'll likely cost schools like Wartburg many applications from those kids whose parents realized their goose is cooked without a college degree. It'll increae our academic profile; it'll likely do the same for high school. But it will serve to train the least academically oriented for jobs that are now being filled by immigrants. Or that's how it seems to me. I'll need to look at the tests before I'm confident about this interpretation.
ReplyDeleteOn tax policy...
ReplyDeleteHere in Colorado, education funding ranks 47th in the country, despite median income ranking much higher. TABOR and other policy tools used to bleed government of funding, while creating the myth that it empowers the voter and taxpayer, have put CO in a major budget crisis. The major symptom of the budgetary problem seems to be that the tax base is drastically insufficient to fund even the basics like education. TABOR is touted as a middle-class, populist policy. In fact, it is deteriorating the middle class' access to public services like education, or more accurately thier ability to access a quality public service.
The narrative that slashing taxes will make the country more propsperous is flawed. In CO, small businesses who sell goods are taxed, but those who provide services are tax-exempt. What sense does this make, especially in the service-oriented country we live in?
The real losers are our generation who cannot hope to realistically achieve success without a college degree, but who have to hand over an arm and a leg to pay for that same degree.
Justin and I had a conversation about the recent "Thank the Donors" campaign the alumni office put on. Essentially, the fliers said that after February, the school runs out of the funds that are provided by students (which is 91% of the budget, by the way) and the rest of the college's finances are covered by donors, therefore, we should thank them by signing a large banner.
ReplyDeleteHere's the problem: First of all, I don't think 91% of our budget which comes from students is used by February. Secondly, Justin and I (along with several other students) are tired of hearing people talk about how students don't really provide financially for the institution; that we should constantly be thanking our donors for all the money they pour into the school.
So here's my question: When do we, as students, get our "appreciation dinner"?