Education for a Just, Sacred, & Sustainable World

Like so many others right now, I am currently applying to graduate schools. I’m sure I am not alone in being reminded of the headache (and financial burden) that requesting transcripts require.

Why does it cost so much to verify that I attended or graduated a college? Why must I pay–often over and over again–for a service that only benefits me for a brief moment to get me through a checkpoint? It feels a whole lot like a bribe.

I am a nontraditional student and have attended four different schools, so when I must submit my transcripts somewhere it costs around $35 (plus shipping and handling)! Keep in mind that this fee is for every program I decide to apply to, and that some admissions offices require that you submit multiple copies. Furthermore, registrar offices have a tendency to be languid in their turnaround time, so to be safe, many students will pay for rush delivery on top of this. Requests quickly get expensive, and this makes it harder for students to ensure that they get into the best schools available to them. Granted, students who attend a single undergraduate institution only have to pay for one transcript to be released, but prices do vary, and this does not guarantee that the process will ultimately be more affordable.

Getting transcripts is a bit of a chore at all four of the colleges I have attended to date. The first is a community college where I have not set foot on campus in over a decade–so long ago, apparently, that my social-security number student ID was no longer legally acceptable, and so I needed a new one. Predictably, the system experienced an error when I requested one, and it took four(!) calls to actual human representatives to get the credentials needed so that I could log in to they system merely to request that my transcripts be sent out. I paid for a fast turnaround.

The second college closed back in 2008, but still provides transcript services for its former students. Ironically they were the easiest school to work with, and they sent me a bundle of transcripts within a couple of days.

The third school has outsourced its transcript request services to a company with a non-functioning website. I wonder if that’s even legal. How many hours can a college not make transcript requests available for their students before it becomes criminal negligence? It took more than eighteen hours of regular attempts to finally get to the page where I could type in my information, another six before I could actually place it.

The fourth school is on the quarter system and seemed to have taken a break for the holidays, but wasn’t really inconvenient beyond that–though it did cost ten dollars per transcript.

"That's what this country needs– more Nathan Hales."

So many students bemoan the monotonous dishes that cycle through their college dining halls, claiming that by the time they get it, the food is already cold. Others gorge on tater tots and greasy pizza, eschewing the weepy salad bar and the skinned-over soups for what might pass as comfort food for a hungry student willing to compromise. Admittedly, it can’t be easy for a dining hall to provide three meals a day for campuses of [often] thousands of students. There’s a lot of food to cook, and as students arrive at different times, dining halls may have to prepare some of it in advance, causing dishes to be less inviting when the students get them on their plates. The situation is far from ideal, but things don’t have to be this way.

What I propose is that there would no longer be dining halls– at least not in the way people are presently used to. What if instead, local eateries could opt-in to a national student “meal-plan” in which students could dine, paying for their meal with a “meal-plan” card? This could be a pre-paid debit card charged each term by financial aid or personal funds, and individual restaurants could determine how many of their items they would want to make available for purchase with this card, or what constitutes a “meal”. For instance, a sandwich shop might provide a sandwich, drink, and a piece of fruit for one meal at a flat rate, while an Italian restaurant might price a plate of pasta as a whole meal– requiring students who want a beverage to cough up a few extra bucks, or else stick with water. Coffee shops and teahouses might let students make numerous small purchases as they buy biscotti and refreshing caffeinated drinks through an epic study session, or might elect to charge a whole meal’s amount for a visit, and independently keep track of refills and extra snacks throughout a student’s visit. And students who don’t live on-campus could use their meal-plan card to purchase groceries at participating stores and markets.

Why initiate such a radical meal-plan? Firstly, this would liberate students from the rigidity imposed by their college dining halls schedules, which frequently end dinner before many families ordinarily sit down to eat, leaving students to fast or otherwise fend for themselves for the next twelve-plus hours until breakfast. The freedom to eat at one’s personal convenience would empower students to schedule their classes however they want, knowing that they won’t be forfeiting a meal (nor the money which they have already paid); and also get to choose where to go and what to eat. If there is a play in the city, perhaps a bunch of students will have dinner near the train station. If there’s a sunny day, a trip to the delicatessen and students have the makings of a picnic. Group meetings can become business lunches, and professors might even be able to schedule standing reservations at particular restaurants that can accommodate class meetings– allowing courses to be taught while the class eats dinner together in town. Lastly, if employed throughout a state or nationwide, students would be able to use their meal cards while visiting other institutions, which would decrease the financial burden that is already choking the nation’s students. 

People should not need to worry about where the money will come from for their next meal, period. This plan would not solve the problem of systemic poverty and hunger, but helping to alleviate these concerns for students would address a sizable population, reducing strain on social programs and making it easier for those who need help to get it. Furthermore, while this proposal calls for a radical social embellishment of food provision, this is not a handout– it’s a loan. By ensuring that students have the food they need, they will be better equipped for academic success, which in turn has economic implications for students in terms of their futures. This meal-plan money must be repaid just like any other college loan, the only difference being that it would be guaranteed to all students attending an accredited college within the country.

I dream of an America that does not spend billions of dollars on advertising each election.  Each candidate champions their own causes and vows that if they are elected, America will change.  I ask, why wait?  Why must America elect a particular person as president in order to see them enact meaningful change?  What if instead of a lengthy campaign trail full of the customary barrage of television advertisements, mountains of literature and posters, and smarmy visits to communities across the country, the candidates simply put their campaign money where their mouth is, and used it to improve America?  

The method of advertising presidential candidates should be fundamentally redesigned so that instead of voters being forced to listen to empty promises, lies, and rebuttals, candidates achieve notoriety and publicity as they make a difference in their country.  Rather than perpetuating the polarizing “two party system” and allowing third party candidates to be shut out of the political process, this system would engage the media, giving news coverage to any of the candidates who are working to better America.  Campaign contributions, grassroots organizing, and community service would be utilized by the candidates and it would then become a competition of values: an informed electorate would be empowered to know which candidate is willing to publicly support causes that are important to them.  

Imagine struggling inner-city schools receiving proper funding overnight, or alternative energy sources being implemented on a wide-scale.  Clean-up and repair work arriving in the immediate aftermath of environmental or natural disasters, not at the end of a court-battle determining responsibility.  The national debt could begin to be repaid, jobs could be created, and America could be filled not with words, but with deeds.  This system would also soften the divisive nature of American politics- each candidate may have radically different ideas as to what America needs, but as they independently use their campaign to improve the country as they see fit, America will win as whole.  The mindset of “us versus them” would be replaced with introspection- voters must ask themselves what issues are the most important to them, and which candidate has demonstrated that they share those beliefs.

In the aftermath of an election, there are invariably hurt feelings, bitter resentments, and a feeling of powerlessness for voters who backed a losing candidate.  By changing the system, those who supported a candidate that did not win can still have made a difference by helping the candidates determine which causes to physically support.  Instead of a “winner takes all” situation, voters will discover that there is significant overlap in the issues that the candidates support.