McGill TribuneWhen I graduate this June, I’ll be in a far better position to be hired than I was four years ago. Moreover, I’ll have accrued great memories and incredible experiences, and I’ll feel much more ready to be hired than I felt right out of high school. I thank McGill for forcing me out of Rez after first year, encouraging me to engage in conferences, and for sometimes making me take two final exams in one day. I thank McGill for making things challenging.
The university has provided much more than what I could gain from a public library card. I’ve learned how to articulate myself, how to persuade, how to be a better person. Most importantly, I’ve learned how to learn: I can absorb information, extract meaning, and theorize more efficiently than four years ago. The phrase “raw talent,” often used to describe prominent athletes emerging from high school, is just as applicable to any 18-year-old; after four years, the unrealized raw becomes progressively, but no less magically, real.
Every high school graduate deserves this type of progressive experience. I’m not more deserving than the next person. Provided one is accepted into a given university, one should be able to go there regardless of means. For some, the only way to ensure this is through free or relatively low tuition. I fail to understand why a blanket policy of free tuition for all is the only means by which this can be attained. After all, there is a return to this investment, and those capable of paying for their education should do so.
Perhaps if bursaries, scholarships, and zero-interest loans did not exist, I would be more understanding of the idea of free tuition for all. But they do exist, for the very purpose of mitigating the issue of inaccessibility. These are the things for which SSMU should exercise greater efforts in lobbying. Not only is it far more practical, but it addresses the issue of inaccessibility in a direct manner. Inaccessibility is a problem for those who can’t afford university tuition, not those who can. When student politicians argue against tuition hikes, they consistently point to those who will be unable to afford an education once these hikes come into effect. Instead of walking out of meetings and thinking we can overthrow a democratically elected government that isn’t “progressive,” let’s concentrate our efforts on helping these students directly.
The student movement will never be successful until it is truly representative of what the students want. Students at McGill are compassionate: they care about the fact that some people their age don’t have the financial means to attain a university education. And some—myself included—are fine paying a little more, so long as it’s ear-marked for the financial aid of others. You and I stand to learn more in a community of students from diverse socio-economic backgrounds, as opposed to one that represents only an affluent elite. In fact, doesn’t this model share the same logic and virtues of the “progressive” tax system?
Perhaps SSMU can continue with its protests and flash mobs and advocate for a system which is neither economically practical nor representative of its constituents. Or perhaps they can stop making us feel guilty for paying tuition for an experience that some of us deem priceless, and instead focus greater attention directly on the students affected. More bursaries, more scholarships, more loan forgiveness. Am I crazy thinking these are attainable and more representative of the views of the student body? With a bit more rationality, we can put the progress back in progressive.
Cathal Rooney-Céspedes is a U3 student in Economics and Political Science, and the 2010-2011 Speaker of SSMU Council. He can be reached at [email protected].
