Editorial: Dropping the ball on student priorities

When one fails, one must try again. That seems to be Fairfield’s mantra when looking back on the garden apartment plan, which failed early this summer due to insufficient funding.

Although it is said that a new plan will be devised by a special committee, time is of the essence. Once the new plan to expand on-campus housing is developed (and no one can know exactly when that will be), it will need to endure a lengthy process before it is approved by various University and community figures, let alone enacted. And while this whole process is continuing on, housing woes are worsening.

One of Fairfield’s greatest selling points is guaranteed housing throughout a student’s four-year career. However, it is unrealistic to expect juniors to live in facilities that are equivalent to freshmen dorms at many other universities.

There is clearly a housing problem at this school that extends far beyond just another townhouse basement plan. Students are living in dorms equipped in the most rudimentary fashion for tripling. It is unfortunate that the garden apartment plan was promoted as the answer to our housing problems, so to speak, but is no longer feasible. And in the meantime, students will continue to be subjected to overcrowding and uncomfortable living spaces.

Yet another student priority that seems to be overlooked is that of academic scholarship amounts.

With other schools offering full rides for academics and Fairfield failing to do so, the huge overall cost of $33,340 has many of the smartest Stags stretching their brains.

Fairfield has lost a competitive advantage to other schools that offer full academic scholarships. Other schools show evidence that providing substantial scholarships to the most academically inclined students increases competition.

Our University must couple a rising tuition with increasing scholarship amounts to further alleviate a growing financial burden.

In addition, Fairfield offers full rides for student-athletes but not for its other students. If we are enrolled in an institution for education, why should athletes have the opportunity to receive more aid then our top scholars? Many student-athletes devote the same level of commitment to athletics as academics, so why are non-athletes excluded?

The University should reassess its priorities and consider how many students will attend Fairfield in the future if costs are rising but academic rewards are stagnant.