fter not even a full year at GW I am repeatedly astounded at how poorly tuition money seems to be allocated. The ineffective GW bureaucracy seems to be disgracefully efficient at mishandling funds and leaving student interests at the far end of their list of priorities. So personally, I’m not surprised to once again see that student interests are being overlooked as University officials consider terminating the Collegiate Readership Program. The program provides students with free copies of three major national newspapers: The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post.
The benefit of the program is that by supplying students with newspapers the University allows them to remain informed and educated about events in whatever field they may be studying. When reflecting on the implications of the elimination of this program there are many consequences.
The most obvious potential effect of this program’s elimination would be a less informed student body. In some areas of study where current events are not as crucial the effects would be less profound, but almost every Elliott School student as well as every political science major would find the quality of their discussion-based classes deteriorating.
Currently it’s impossible to walk into any large international affairs course and not see copies of The New York Times strewn on the floor among notebooks and overpriced purses. It’s inspiring to see a $400 bag stuffed with the international section of The Times. GW may have a reputation as being a school for spoiled brats but at least we keep our spoiled brats informed.
In an interview, international affairs professor Dr. Henry Nau presented another serious consequence of this program’s eradication. He stated that its elimination would be a “huge mistake” due to the way that it would downplay one of GW’s greatest assets: it’s location. Nau suggested that striking the program would send prospective students the wrong message. By not appealing to students interested in international affairs and politics by providing them with a way to stay informed, GW would seemingly deny them the true advantage of being in the nation’s capital.
The reason for the elimination of the Readership Program is being cited as part of a $640,000 budget cut of Student and Academic Support Services. The program itself costs $90,000 a year, and according to a May 17 Hatchet interview with Johnnie Osborne, associate vice president and chief financial officer of SASS, it was only taken advantage of by 20 percent of students.
Yet if in fact 1,760 students (20% of the 8,800 students at GW according to the GW Admissions Web site) took advantage of the program and saved 35 cents every day, five days a week, for nine months, then the program saved students $110,880. This is a low-end estimate accounting for only the cost of The Washington Post. If you add The New York Times and USA Today, each costing 35 and 50 cents, respectively, then students would save much more.
So now the question remains: Is it more important for the University to save over $100,000 for students who actually care enough to stay informed? Or should they cut this program and keep around pointless programs with no educational value like free massages during “Stress-Free Week”? This institution, supposedly first and foremost dedicated to education, should reconsider its priorities and not eliminate funding for one of the few programs truly benefiting those who wish to take advantage of everything this University and this city have to offer.
-The writer, a sophomore majoring
in international affairs, is a Hatchet columnist.
