Regarding tuition, we need less pomp, more circumstance

financial aid commitments, the Gateway to Success needblind policy, and, puzzlingly, a notice that WashU’s endowment had a return of negative 10.6% in 2022.

On Feb. 1, an email pinged into the inboxes of Washington University undergraduates: annual tuition increase! Students weren’t surprised; everyone and their families get this email every year. The message is short: we will now pay $61,750 for a year at WashU, 3.9% more than the current price of $59,420. Housing, dining plans, and the wellness fee will be notched up as well. The grand total for the full package is somewhere between $80K and $83K.

Below the numbers is a section titled “TuitionRelated Frequently Asked Questions.” The paragraphs address, unfortunately, neither topics that directly relate to tuition increases, nor questions that Student Life believes students are most likely to ask upon learning their tuition has increased. To be clear, the Q&A section does reference policies that are commendable: the highlighted initiatives cover the University’s new (as of the last couple of years)

One question that is not answered in the FAQ section is perhaps the most obvious: what, exactly, is the increased tuition income actually going towards? The information sheet seems to suggest that the money is going towards financial aid, and that maybe the loss of endowment money means that the University is extra-strapped for cash this year. Or possibly, the 6.5% inflation rate in 2022 means that WashU has to inflate tuition to match; if this is the case, we hope that maintenance workers, dining staff, and instructional assistants are also receiving increased wages.

Following last year’s tuition increase, The Source published another FAQ, but this, too, fell short of sharing a tangible breakdown of where the hiked tuition will be spent. The article gestures at the “cost of operating an institution like ours” and mentions that tuition dollars allow WashU to “attract the best and brightest students and faculty, maintain and add to the quality of our academic programs and facilities, and continue our rich tradition of excellence.” These goals, while commendable, are abstract. In what ways will the increased tuition benefit students and faculty? What programs and facilities will be enhanced?

The issue is, students and families don’t know exactly where their money is going, or how it’s being used, nor are we privy to any information about how tuition increases are calculated each year. We are asking for a detailed breakdown of University expenses, broken down by general category. How much tuition money actually goes towards the financial aid packages highlighted? If the endowment performs poorly, does tuition increase more? In 2021, the endowment returned a staggering 65%, allowing for the Gateway to Success needblind initiative. Yet tuition still increased by 2.9%, suggesting that the two factors are not necessarily correlated.

The same day as the tuition increase email, it was reported that WashU bought seven buildings — including Pin-Up Bowl — and two parking lots from Loop real estate giant Joe Edwards. Did student dollars help finance that deal? Without more transparency, we’ll never know.

Hearing that we have to spend more year after year is painful, and without knowledge of exactly where our money is going, we end up speculating. Maybe our tuition is going towards the WashU Pledge, or maybe it’s going towards those thousand-dollar lawn chairs that dot Mudd Field.

We ask the WashU administration to cushion the blow of the annual tuition increase email by providing more clarity into the inner financial workings of the University. Transparency would be a sign of respect for students and families that continue to pay tuition or take out loans in order to educate themselves or their loved ones. We ask the administration to cut the vague flowery language about novel programs and exciting opportunities and simply reveal the circumstances that surround each year’s inevitable tuition increase.

No taxation without representation — unless you’re under 18?

JORDAN SPECTOR STAFF WRITER

At 17, I got my first job. I was paid to work remotely, phone banking voters across the country, praying that the next person I called didn’t immediately curse me out and hang up. At the time, I had close to zero idea how money worked. But what I understood was that by filling out my Form W-4, the income my employer would be giving me had the potential to be taxed. At first, I thought: “I shouldn’t have to pay taxes, I’m not even old enough to vote!” (No matter how liberal I am, I am still entertained, for a moment, by a lousy excuse to not have to be involved with taxes). But then it hit me that I had it backwards — I should be able to vote because legally, in certain circumstances, I can be required to pay taxes.

With this realization, I went back to the internet to look up an organization I’d heard of, Vote16, reading through its essays and research in a completely new light.

Research has shown voting to be a habitual practice. And throughout history, the youth vote (ages 18-24) in America has had the lowest turnout, in part due to lack of habit formation. Lowering the voting age would develop voting practices sooner, helping increase the 18-24 year-old turnout — and, subsequently, the turnout rates in older age groups as well.

Beyond the public gain of increased voter turnout, there is also individual gain for young people to be considered. Students have become major voices in large political campaigns such as March for Our Lives and Fridays for Future. This is in part because, like many other groups, youth have the ability to mobilize, strategize, and express their own opinions, but also because many of today’s policies will have the largest impact on young generations. Extending the right to vote would be an individual victory for young people, helping turn their serious movements into civic action.

Young people are smart, active members in our country. And yet, despite understanding the benefits of decreasing the voting age, there’s one big question I still had to ask myself, which you might be thinking too: won’t most young adults just vote however their parents or mentors vote? However, as shown in an extensive literature review conducted by the organization Vote16, in partnership with the University of Maryland, “multiple studies found that household influence on politics is roughly the same for all members of the home, and while schools may play a role in encouraging civic and political engagement, they do not seem to bias young voters.” The influence of people close to you is equal in all directions — whether that be from a spouse, child, parent, sibling, workplace, classroom, or friend.

In truth, this main criticism of outside influence is so concerned with how people vote that it distracts from the real issue of not allowing people the right to vote in the first place. 62.5% of Americans have not received a degree from a program beyond high school, and 8.9% have not received even a high school degree. Further, 10.9% of Americans have cognitive disabilities. These are groups who, like youth, are often presumed to be impressionable — however, rightfully so, we do not determine who can vote based on perceived cognitive abilities or educational level. The right to vote exists as representation for everyone in our democratic republic, no matter the party they choose to vote for or the personal factors that influence their decision.

At a local level, and in select countries around the world, this revelation has hit, and changes are being made.

Within the last two decades, several European countries have lowered the voting age for certain elections, and five Maryland cities have lowered the voting age to 16. National support has yet to emerge because something so simple — an extension of the long plight for equal representation in this country — is always viewed as radical in its early stages.

This country was built on the principle of “no taxation without representation.” And yet, contributing members of our society have continually been denied proper representation. Young people face subtle degradation in a world that paints them as not old enough, not ready yet, still learning — as if adults are not constantly learning, growing, and adapting to change too.

OUR VOICE:

Editorial Board

Staff editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of editorial board members. The editorial board operates independently of our newsroom and includes members of the junior and senior staff.

As reported in Student Life, the University recently unveiled a state-of-the-art sports performance center (SPC). This is a much needed and well deserved addition to campus. Vice Chancellor Dr. Anna Gonzalez and Chancellor Dr. Andrew Martin have celebrated this new center of “healthy excellence” and I applaud their vision in creating such a facility. I have been fortunate to work with some of our Division III athletes as they study and work on projects in computer science. They are among our most dedicated and disciplined students, and this new facility will hopefully serve them well, training them not only to excel in their sports, but also to prevent injury.

Unfortunately for its faculty and staff, the University has not shown this level of generosity in providing a free exercise facility for its employees. As a faculty member of over 30 years, and an avid workout enthusiast, I began to use the Washington

Managing Scene Editor: Via Poolos

Managing Sports Editor: Clara Richards

Managing Forum Editors: Reilly Brady, Jamila Dawkins Chief of Copy: Ved Patel Senior Scene Editor: Alice Gottesman

University open workout facilities when I arrived. In 1991, that much smaller facility was actually shared by faculty, staff, students, and all sports teams. It was modestly equipped and very crowded compared to both the Sumers Recreation Center and the new SPC, but it was available at no cost to faculty and staff.

A community of early morning workout people developed in that facility. If one of us didn’t show up for a few days, an email might be received checking on that person’s health. When Sumers opened in Fall 2016, we gladly moved upstairs and into the beautiful, new space. The University is now charging faculty and staff $200 a year to use the new facility.

When I visited the then-director of the center, he told me the center was more like a health club, so the University felt justified in charging for membership. I pointed out that health clubs had free parking and did not close during semester breaks. The availability of the center improved, and I had to park on campus anyway, so I was happily a regular member there until

YOUR VOICE: it closed due to COVID-19 in 2020.

Sumers did eventually reopen for our students, but not for our faculty or staff for over a year. I personally appealed to Provost Dr. Beverly Wendland and our School of Engineering drafted a resolution, asking her to make the facility available to faculty and staff for the good of our physical and mental health. The University was unmoved by those pleas, and so my colleagues and I found gyms elsewhere. By trading down from a red parking permit and joining the Center of Clayton, I save $1000 a year (and the University loses about $1600 from me a year), so there is no financial incentive for me to return, even now that employees are again able to pay to use the facility.

Here is my point: such a facility should not only be available and free to employees, there should be incentives in place to encourage its regular use. A healthy workforce is in the University’s best interest. Exercise boosts the immune system, regulates mood favorably, and helps prevent injury. This is surely known by a university with a top-11 medical school.

When I was working out at Sumers, I would regularly see Professor William Pickard, advanced in years even then, but still coming almost daily to the gym. He would greet me by saying, “A healthy mind in a healthy body,” translated from the Latin phrase. He was right. We should make Sumers freely available to all employees.

We welcome letters to the editor and opinion submissions (or op-eds) from our readers. Submissions may be sent to forum@studlife.com and must include the writer’s name and email for verification. We reserve the right to print any submission as a letter or opinion submission. Any submission chosen for publication does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Student Life, nor does publication mean Student Life supports said submission.