Keeping up with the Joneses

'U' should refrain from frivolous spending

Even with the upgrades to the Central Campus Recreation Building and the planned renovations to the Intramural Building, the University's recreation revitalization plan pales in comparison to some of the things that are being installed at universities elsewhere in the country. According to The New York Times, some universities across the country are going so far as to build theme parks on campus in hopes of attracting top students. Climbing walls, waterslides, hot tubs and other amenities that you would expect to find at a Club Med are popping up all over the place, and the costs - monetary and otherwise - are high.

Although wealthy alums are contributing some of the funds for these projects, the universities mentioned in the Times article are paying for these new attractions, which ultimately means that students are paying for these new attractions. While an indoor white-water rafting facility might make the drab days of summer orientation more interesting, it would do nothing to improve the quality of education at an institution of higher learning.

This University has more pressing issues to deal with when it comes to allocating expenditures. If the sort of funding required to install a hot tub adjacent to the Posting Wall, for instance, fell out of the sky, the University would be far wiser to use it to devise a more rigorous training program for graduate student instructors, to renovate the abomination that is the Frieze Building or, ideally, to give every last cent to financially needy students in the form of scholarships and grants. Fortunately, University President Coleman believes building refurbishments are a pressing need.

Paying no attention to the budget crises on both state and federal levels, many college administrators are coming up with yet another way to waste money and neglect the exploding tuition rates that have prevented so many students from completing their degrees. It simply is not logical for any university to raise the cost of tuition without first making every attempt to improve its quality of education. The race to see which school can acquire the most exciting recreation center is detrimental to higher education in this country. Available resources should be dedicated to investigating how to lower the cost of higher education, not planning extravagant ways to raise the cost.

The University should never attempt to keep up with the Jones' when it comes to superfluous recreational attractions. In the short run, many students might find the additional perks a nice benefit, but when their tuition bills and those of future students inevitably rise the justification for these expenditures will appear a little less legitimate.