2008 Woodie Awards
Are new fees, recreation center fair deal for students?
University should choose more cost- effective alternatives
Cameron Naramore
Staff Writer
Issue date: 2/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Other than being able to say "Yay! We have a new rec center!" why do we need it? All the current facilities are in fine working order. The work out room has all necessary equipment and is never over crowded. The only thing that students are really missing is an indoor pool.
The recreational center may cost the University upwards of $27 to $28 million, according to Dale Adams as quoted in the Jan. 22 edition of The Vanguard. This seems to be a little bit of overkill.
It seems most students will treat the new center similarly to the respect of receiving a postcard, "Awesome, a post card ... I'm gonna go make a sandwich."
The positive responses to the shiny and new aspect of the center are only worth its construction and do not reflect the students' actual utility of the facility. Like many things shiny, new and not worth its utility, the novelty of the new and improved recreation center will soon wear off.
The only substantial change that the building of this new recreation center will bring is a greater emptiness in the students' pockets. To help offset the cost of the new facility, an extra $50 a semester will be tacked onto every student's fees. It does not matter if a student will ever use the recreation center; he or she will still have to pay. Even handicapped students will have to pay for workout equipment.
Whatever happened to keeping the "need to make sure our institution is [financially] accessible to our students" as a top priority, as Gordon Moulton claimed last June?
A $50 fee increase next year, another 4% increase in tuition the year after, followed by more increases after that and next thing you know our University will not even be accessible to those of us currently enrolled who wish to be able to afford to graduate.
It is more important to keep cost down than it is to have a new state-of-the-art recreation center. Adding an indoor pool and possibly renovating the current center would be much more cost effective. This should be able to be done for a fraction of the cost of building a completely new recreation center.
If the administration is going to be so adamant about building this recreation center, the least they can do is share the cost not only among students who won't be using it, but with others that might.
Under the current proposal, both students and faculty will have full access to the recreation center, but it seems as if only students are being asked to pay for it. Other universities with similarly expensive recreation centers share the cost among students and faculty by charging the faculty small usage fees.
The recreational center may cost the University upwards of $27 to $28 million, according to Dale Adams as quoted in the Jan. 22 edition of The Vanguard. This seems to be a little bit of overkill.
It seems most students will treat the new center similarly to the respect of receiving a postcard, "Awesome, a post card ... I'm gonna go make a sandwich."
The positive responses to the shiny and new aspect of the center are only worth its construction and do not reflect the students' actual utility of the facility. Like many things shiny, new and not worth its utility, the novelty of the new and improved recreation center will soon wear off.
The only substantial change that the building of this new recreation center will bring is a greater emptiness in the students' pockets. To help offset the cost of the new facility, an extra $50 a semester will be tacked onto every student's fees. It does not matter if a student will ever use the recreation center; he or she will still have to pay. Even handicapped students will have to pay for workout equipment.
Whatever happened to keeping the "need to make sure our institution is [financially] accessible to our students" as a top priority, as Gordon Moulton claimed last June?
A $50 fee increase next year, another 4% increase in tuition the year after, followed by more increases after that and next thing you know our University will not even be accessible to those of us currently enrolled who wish to be able to afford to graduate.
It is more important to keep cost down than it is to have a new state-of-the-art recreation center. Adding an indoor pool and possibly renovating the current center would be much more cost effective. This should be able to be done for a fraction of the cost of building a completely new recreation center.
If the administration is going to be so adamant about building this recreation center, the least they can do is share the cost not only among students who won't be using it, but with others that might.
Under the current proposal, both students and faculty will have full access to the recreation center, but it seems as if only students are being asked to pay for it. Other universities with similarly expensive recreation centers share the cost among students and faculty by charging the faculty small usage fees.
Be the first to comment on this story