Jed Pressgrove is a graduate student in sociology. He can be contacted at [email protected].The Friday edition of “Student Express,” an online newsletter to MSU students, was disappointing in its attempts to address student issues.
This particular edition featured a question-and-answer session with MSU President Robert “Doc” Foglesong. And while I like the idea of the president directly responding to student queries, some of the answers were incomplete in their evaluations.
The first question reads as follows: “Doc, how have recent tuition increases impacted MSU students?”
To begin, Foglesong refers to a factual error in the Sept. 11 edition of The Reflector, which stated that tuition has increased by $1,000 each semester since 2003. Foglesong indicates that tuition has only risen by $1,000 each year since 2004.
However, the response goes downhill after this needed point. Instead of actually answering the question, Foglesong merely conveys what the university plans to do with the money coming from increased tuition. We don’t get one sentence on how recent tuition increases have made it harder on students to attend this university.
Sure, it’s important to have better faculty, facilities and academic resources. Yet the first priority should be the students’ ability to pay for college without accruing incredible debt. Opportunity must precede excellence.
The second question was “Where does the university’s money go?” In this case, “money” refers to the funds provided to MSU by the state government.
The most interesting part of Foglesong’s response is the final paragraph, which argues that the very appearance of campus can provide feelings of pride and professionalism. Well, I don’t receive a feeling of professionalism when I see two welcome signs separated only by the road between them. For that, I receive a feeling of monotony. It’s like stacking two welcome mats by your front door: pointless and wasteful.
As for pride, it seems we’re assuming pride is a good thing in the first place. If we are, then there’s something else that should instill more pride in everyone: the knowledge that young Mississippians and others have ample opportunities to attend MSU.
If it appears I’m implying that the campus’ appearance is unimportant, please erase the thought. Having an attractive campus is valuable, but appearance should never come before meeting the needs of students. Coincidentally, “needs-based scholarships” received one sentence from Foglesong, while the appearance of campus received seven.
The third question addressed the controversial issue of parking: “What’s the deal with parking on campus?”
Foglesong’s response to this question was satisfactory. Throughout the response he acknowledges the problem, informs students on how the university will deal with the problem and correctly emphasizes the importance of the shuttle system.
The fourth and final question doesn’t read like a traditional question: “Dining services changed. Explain why this happened and what it means for students.”
Like the third response, Foglesong’s fourth response aptly clarifies the topic at hand, mentioning the incoming changes in food services. On the other hand, the response fails to elucidate the current complaints about the changes that have already taken place in food services.
At one point, Foglesong says we “can expect to see some changes in the cafeteria.” Yes, you can expect to see changes in the cafeteria-if you’re willing to pay a ridiculous fee at the front door just to walk inside.
In sum, the responses to these questions contain some information that should interest students. At the same time, the responses avoided some necessary and negative points about the university and downplayed the personal financial needs of students. This analysis is not an attempt to bash the president but simply an effort to evaluate the priorities evident in these specific responses.