Regarding the Jan. 21 article “More GW students are graduating early,” (p. 2) perhaps the administration and the financial aid office should take into consideration that it is through some of their own regulations that some students are forced to graduate early.
By stipulating that certain scholarships will only be maintained if a student completes a minimum of 15 credits per semester, someone who has several credits from Advanced Placement tests or summer school may not have any other option than to pursue early graduation.
Because I came to GW with several credits and have subsequently taken 15 or more credits per semester, I would have only a couple of requirements left to fulfill if I did not graduate a year early. Because of this, it seems more sensible and certainly more economical that I take extra classes during the summers or the semester, therefore cutting short my college experience.
The school’s provisions on some scholarships makes early graduation the only logical choice for some students. I already regret planning to graduate a year early. I hope GW will implement changes in its scholarship regulations to allow students to take advantage of all their time at college.
Profiting from points
Up until now, the greatest moment of joy for a GW sophomore has been realizing that it is the final year of being stuck on a meal plan. Well, not anymore. Starting next fall, on-campus juniors will have no choice but to be subjected to two more semesters of forced J Street dining. But we should be satisfied knowing that the decision to require juniors to “participate” in the meal plan was made with the concerns of us students in mind. Yeah, right.
The administration’s justification for the new points-only meal plan has a fundamental flaw. Al Ingle, associate vice president for business affairs, is quoted in the Jan. 21 issue of The GW Hatchet as saying the new system would “allow” students “to spend their money where they want, when they want,” (“GW shifts to all-points meal plan,” p. 1).
How could this possibly be the case when the University will be forcing juniors to spend their money on a meal plan? I just don’t get it.
And as for the University’s motives for expanding the system to include juniors (which The Hatchet dubs “a mystery” in an editorial in the same issue), I offer this theory: forcing juniors to pay for even the least expensive meal plan will account for lost revenue when the University is no longer profits from the many unused “meal credits” that won’t exist under the new system. Nobody seriously believes that all those meals that don’t “carry over” simply disappear, right?)
The bottom line is that money spent on a meal plan would go much further if spent off campus. And that’s the last place the University wants us students spending our money. I do appreciate the administration finally acknowledging my right to spend my money where and when I want to. Now let me spend my money for food how I want to – at Safeway, not the MC Store.