| |
    
|
Mandatory computer purchase plan is unnecessary, unaffordable
by Laura Walbrink
A top complaint of students at the University is the spiraling cost of tuition. As state funding continues to decline, students must subsidize the resulting monetary gap. When a land-grant institution begins to price itself out of the reach of the average citizen, though, it should at least offer its students the appearance of budgetary restraint. Instead, beginning in 1999, the starry-eyed administrators behind the University 2000 proposal plan to target students' pocketbooks again and demand that they each purchase a portable computer.
That's right. Students, some of whom can barely afford to attend the University as it is, will have to pay for the privilege of owning technology to which they already have access. Computer labs are everywhere on this campus, and we currently fund them with our tuition. And, as we know, tuition isn't the only charge on our fee statements. Most of us in IT are also assessed $100 per quarter for access to IT computer labs, and let's not forget the $160 or so we pay for student services fees each quarter. So, on the whole, IT students pay $780 per year to the 'U' in addition to tuition.
Still, if the administration wants to further contribute to our mounting debt, it must have a reason good enough to justify the cost of a computer. At the Crookston campus, students have been paying a mandatory $260 quarterly technology access fee since the 1993-94 academic year to lease an IBM Thinkpad. Let's take a look at how the "technology initiative" works there.
Now, one would think that students who had already bought a computer would be exempt from this fee, but they're not. According to the Crookston web site, "The technology access fee provides you with the most current hardware and software technology . . . [and] ensures that you are on the cutting edge-learning the technology currently being used in the workplace." It sure is nice of Crookston to make sure that its students pay for only the best technology, even if it forces them to pay twice for computing equipment they already own.
Imagine you're a Crookston student. You have access to computer labs, you may own a computer, and you're most certainly $780 per year poorer than you were before, but now you also have an IBM Thinkpad.
Any other advantages? The administration reports that "in accounting . . . students were much more interested in doing accounting problems in the computer than . . . trying to do the problems in the book. In communications, the student papers are presented in a more professional manner."
Granted, there are some interesting possibilities for incorporating technology into the classroom when everyone has a portable computer. Information technology can enhance student learning if used creatively and appropriately. This is a state school, though, comprised mainly of working- and middle-class students who are already juggling classes and outside jobs so they can pay for their education. If students have to work more hours to pay technology fees, further sacrificing their studies, the academic benefits may be outweighed by the disadvantages.
University administrators should consider the costs of their plan more carefully. After all, this campus isn't exactly mired in the Stone Age. We all have access to reasonably up-to-date technology, and many students own computers. The majority of students at the 'U', however, don't own a computer; could it be that they don't have the money to buy one? Sure, it would be nice if every student were truly computer literate and courses were a little more dynamic and interactive, but for many of us, these are not affordable luxuries. If piling on hefty technology fees means that some students can no longer pay to attend the 'U', then administrators are in danger of creating a student body that is not only technologically elite, but also financially elite.
