The senior class has been under attack for the past five months. Unique from the regular bombardments of schoolwork or nagging parents, we have been subjected to a firebombing of phone calls, Facebook reminders, emails and social functions intent on receiving donations to the Hopkins Fund. This assault is being conducted in the name of the Senior Class Gift, and after five months, it has achieved success with 286 students. I am not one of those students. Allow me to explain why.
The literature that we have been sent during the past months gives six reasons why we should donate to the fund. Among these are that, “The giving participation rate [of graduates] is an important indicator in the U.S. News & World Report rankings,” and that, “Our peer institutions have senior class giving rates of 20 to 40 percent higher than Johns Hopkins.”
I disagree with these as reasons to donate to the Hopkins Fund for two reasons. First, if the percentage of students that donates demonstrates the level of respect, loyalty, or positive feelings that graduates feel towards their institutions (as its consideration in rankings would suggest), then there is a problem at Hopkins that goes beyond the simple decision to give 20 dollars on the way out the door.
Perhaps students are unhappy here or perhaps don’t respect this institution. Launching a campaign that changes the senior class gift from a school improvement to a donation collection in the name of these rankings is simply combating a symptom of a more deeply rooted issue. I suggest instead that this energy be focused on creating an institution that inspires respect and loyalty in its students. Which brings us to the question, and my second point: how interested are we in pursuing what U.S. News & World Report defines as meaningful?
In an attempt to play the game that U.S. News has designed, it has been decided that instead of pooling money to fund something that we see as bettering the school, we are being asked to donate money to the fund. The senior class gift committee has even disparaged the idea of pooling money to buy “something tangible,” quipping that such purchases would only amount to “a bench or a flagpole.” Far from a flagpole, let me remind the senior class gift committee that the Class of 1998 used their money to create Café Q.
The senior class gift is meant to encourage a student led collaborative and entrepreneurial search to better the school in a way that each class finds meaningful. Our class is instead being encouraged to leave our mark on the coffers of an institution that has already seen a nice chunk of our change. And instead of collaborating, we are told to give to the individual club or department of our choosing. If we are going to forsake our collaborative, entrepreneurial opportunity in the name of U.S. News & World Report, an opportunity for senior class input would have been appreciated.
My hunch is that the Office of Alumni Relations has more to do with this decision than the members of our class and that it is this same “run this academic institution like a business” mentality that is responsible for the emphasis on administrators over academics, showy buildings over departmental development, and childish PR ploys over meaningful communication with prospective students.
In speaking with my fellow seniors about donating to the Hopkins Fund, the most common objection has been simply that we already pay an exorbitant amount of money to receive our education, which many of us will continue to pay for into the foreseeable future. The literature that we receive, however, tells us that our tuition fees cover only 70 percent of our education, but we are never told where our tuition money actually goes. If this figure is correct, then this University is grossly inefficient. I am uninterested in helping to maintain a decadent bubble of billowing costs and the emerald lawns and “all-you-care-to-eat” buffets that go along with it. I signed up to take part in a serious education, not a country club.
On the topic of country club, Hopkins is cultivating a paternalistic culture within the student body that is deleterious to the institution as a whole. It is no secret that money can buy you a place at an elite institution, and while the encouragement of a donation does not in itself promote that, we should be mindful of the institutional culture we condone. At the launch party for the Senior Class Gift, a friend of mine even claimed that he would donate to Hopkins annually until his children are admitted.
At the suggestion of another senior I’ve spoken with on the topic, if we are going to donate money to a cause, particularly given the state of the economy, is Hopkins really the place our money should be going? As he put it, “Think of the marginal utility of 20 dollars for Johns Hopkins; it would be much more useful elsewhere.” While I don’t think marginal utility should always be the rule of thumb for deciding where to donate one’s funds, considering the amount of money we have already paid Hopkins and the already plump state of Hopkins’ finances, I would feel much more comfortable sending my 20 dollars elsewhere.
On a final note, I understand that seniors have the option of directing their donations to help students whom Hopkins may not otherwise be able to, and I must make myself clear that I deeply value the provision of such financial aid. From what I have been told by members of the committee, however, making Hopkins a possibility for a greater number of students is not the goal of the Senior Class Gift. It is simply a ploy to cater to the U.S. News & World Report rankings and to create a paternalistic circle of donors that will continue to provide Hopkins with lifelong donations.
So let’s be clear in understanding that these are the trends and values we are supporting by donating to the Hopkins Fund, and let’s ask ourselves if we are satisfied with these aspirations. I, for one, am not. My 20 dollars will be going to the Maryland Food Bank.
