Admin bucks no trends, but students will
By Elli Bloomberg
Education Not Debt Coalition, Student-Worker Alliance
On Jan 2 of this year, American University’s media relations department released a statement entitled, “AU Bucks National Student Debt Trend.” Citing statistics from the university’s financial aid office, the statement’s author concludes that because “only four in 10 students graduate with loans and the average debt for AU’s Class of 2012 declined 8 percent from the previous year,” AU is a trailblazer in making college more affordable. Rejoice, silly activists: the student debt crisis is over.
But is it, really? Even ignoring the fact that a few of the statement’s statistics can be contested—some estimate that around 60% of AU’s student body graduates with debt, not 40%--this self-congratulatory press release does not reflect the reality experienced by many students here.
For example, the author claims that “AU has worked to improve financial literacy among its students, prospective students, and their families by facilitating access to U.S. Department of Education tools that help those considering private loans estimate their monthly post-graduate loan payments before they add to their total debt.” While the infamous AU Central may indeed point applicants to the Department of Education’s website, it also deceives students by offering them inflated financial aid packages when they enter as freshmen, only to decrease the amount over the next four years. If prospective students are not given accurate information about their financial aid, how can they truly make informed decisions about the amount of money they need to borrow? AU’s statement does not address this, choosing instead to paint the financial aid office as a benevolent institution that hands out “Kerwin Money” like those complimentary mints at restaurants.
This specific complaint, while vitally important, passes over the most fundamental problem with AU’s statement: by congratulating itself on supposedly decreasing the amount of money owed by its students, the university is saying that any amount of debt is acceptable. This is not true. By forcing people to take out loans, AU is contributing to a growing national student debt crisis. The total student debt now stands at over $1 trillion—more than the national credit card debt. And behind this statistic are thousands of real people—students who entered college with dreams of a great education and a bright future, only to leave with the nightmare of having to scrimp, save, and starve because a large portion of their entry-level paycheck is going back to the school, the banks, and the federal government.
Education should be a right, not a commodity available only to the very rich. And honestly, it seems odd that school should be so expensive in the first place. If people like GOP darling Joni Ernst could pay for college with a few summer jobs, why can’t we? According to Josh Freedman of The Atlantic, it all goes back to how colleges choose to spend their money.
These days, schools are focusing their attention on “new buildings, administration, or ‘amenities’ spending.” Amenities take especially high priority, as they boost a school’s status in those U.S. News and World Report rankings consulted by so many beige-clad parents. While students also value their time in the classroom, Freedman writes, they are more likely to attend amenity-rich schools. Because colleges that spend more money tend to rank higher, and students like sports arenas, universities have taken amenities spending to ridiculous extremes. To remain competitive, colleges are trapped in a “spending arms race,” blowing ever-increasing amounts of money on new buildings and Starbucks franchises instead of investing in financial aid and teacher salaries. AU is a perfect example of this—we’re investing in a new East Campus (what’s it even for? Seriously, no one has been able to tell me) and hiring more overpaid administrators while 30% of our professors are underpaid adjuncts.
Because of their high levels of spending on construction projects, colleges rely far too heavily on high tuition. This is why the populations of universities like ours are comprised of so many high-income students—schools actively recruit people who can pay the entire sticker price, and save comparatively little for scholarships for low-income students. In this frustrating problem lies a solution to the tuition crisis at AU: if our university gave up on useless construction projects and refocused its energy on what really matters (giving students enough money to attend, and compensating our educators), the budget could be balanced far more easily.
These are the things that the university doesn't want us to think about. By releasing this statement full of arbitrary statistics and platitudes, they are attempting to placate us. But it isn't going to work. When President Kerwin writes, "We are doing everything we can to ensure students do not leave here with debt that impairs the quality of their lives,” he invalidates our experiences as students and motivates us to act. We cannot depend on the administration to change this university unprompted; grassroots change is the only solution. We refuse to be placated. We will campaign tirelessly until the administration and Board of Trustees pledge to stop making an education at this institution less and less affordable with each passing budget cycle.
When the time comes to vote, we will ensure that the right decision is made.
Education Not Debt Coalition, Student-Worker Alliance
On Jan 2 of this year, American University’s media relations department released a statement entitled, “AU Bucks National Student Debt Trend.” Citing statistics from the university’s financial aid office, the statement’s author concludes that because “only four in 10 students graduate with loans and the average debt for AU’s Class of 2012 declined 8 percent from the previous year,” AU is a trailblazer in making college more affordable. Rejoice, silly activists: the student debt crisis is over.
But is it, really? Even ignoring the fact that a few of the statement’s statistics can be contested—some estimate that around 60% of AU’s student body graduates with debt, not 40%--this self-congratulatory press release does not reflect the reality experienced by many students here.
For example, the author claims that “AU has worked to improve financial literacy among its students, prospective students, and their families by facilitating access to U.S. Department of Education tools that help those considering private loans estimate their monthly post-graduate loan payments before they add to their total debt.” While the infamous AU Central may indeed point applicants to the Department of Education’s website, it also deceives students by offering them inflated financial aid packages when they enter as freshmen, only to decrease the amount over the next four years. If prospective students are not given accurate information about their financial aid, how can they truly make informed decisions about the amount of money they need to borrow? AU’s statement does not address this, choosing instead to paint the financial aid office as a benevolent institution that hands out “Kerwin Money” like those complimentary mints at restaurants.
This specific complaint, while vitally important, passes over the most fundamental problem with AU’s statement: by congratulating itself on supposedly decreasing the amount of money owed by its students, the university is saying that any amount of debt is acceptable. This is not true. By forcing people to take out loans, AU is contributing to a growing national student debt crisis. The total student debt now stands at over $1 trillion—more than the national credit card debt. And behind this statistic are thousands of real people—students who entered college with dreams of a great education and a bright future, only to leave with the nightmare of having to scrimp, save, and starve because a large portion of their entry-level paycheck is going back to the school, the banks, and the federal government.
Education should be a right, not a commodity available only to the very rich. And honestly, it seems odd that school should be so expensive in the first place. If people like GOP darling Joni Ernst could pay for college with a few summer jobs, why can’t we? According to Josh Freedman of The Atlantic, it all goes back to how colleges choose to spend their money.
These days, schools are focusing their attention on “new buildings, administration, or ‘amenities’ spending.” Amenities take especially high priority, as they boost a school’s status in those U.S. News and World Report rankings consulted by so many beige-clad parents. While students also value their time in the classroom, Freedman writes, they are more likely to attend amenity-rich schools. Because colleges that spend more money tend to rank higher, and students like sports arenas, universities have taken amenities spending to ridiculous extremes. To remain competitive, colleges are trapped in a “spending arms race,” blowing ever-increasing amounts of money on new buildings and Starbucks franchises instead of investing in financial aid and teacher salaries. AU is a perfect example of this—we’re investing in a new East Campus (what’s it even for? Seriously, no one has been able to tell me) and hiring more overpaid administrators while 30% of our professors are underpaid adjuncts.
Because of their high levels of spending on construction projects, colleges rely far too heavily on high tuition. This is why the populations of universities like ours are comprised of so many high-income students—schools actively recruit people who can pay the entire sticker price, and save comparatively little for scholarships for low-income students. In this frustrating problem lies a solution to the tuition crisis at AU: if our university gave up on useless construction projects and refocused its energy on what really matters (giving students enough money to attend, and compensating our educators), the budget could be balanced far more easily.
These are the things that the university doesn't want us to think about. By releasing this statement full of arbitrary statistics and platitudes, they are attempting to placate us. But it isn't going to work. When President Kerwin writes, "We are doing everything we can to ensure students do not leave here with debt that impairs the quality of their lives,” he invalidates our experiences as students and motivates us to act. We cannot depend on the administration to change this university unprompted; grassroots change is the only solution. We refuse to be placated. We will campaign tirelessly until the administration and Board of Trustees pledge to stop making an education at this institution less and less affordable with each passing budget cycle.
When the time comes to vote, we will ensure that the right decision is made.