The Deli Counter: Conquering Kamchatka

Over the past couple of days, I've been hearing some talk around campus. Incredible talk. Talk that is so ridiculous I wondered if the talkers of the talk were actually talking or if I was just hallucinating again. No, they were talking. They were saying that capitalism is bad. "Phooey," I thought, "who would say such a thing seriously?" That was when they told me who they were. They called themselves "socialists." They were waving newspapers and asking if I would be interested in waving newspapers with them. I thought long and hard, and then realized that newspaper waving was not my sort of niche in life; capitalism was.

Capitalism is good. Without capitalism, there would be no "Monopoly." Without "Monopoly," my Saturday nights would be shot. And without my Saturday nights, I would shoot someone. Besides, without capitalism little children would not be able to carry their unique lunch boxes to school. When I was young my friend Justin brought a green "A-Team" lunch box; Jessica brought a pink "Care Bears" lunch box; Janine brought a lavender "Hill Street Blues" lunch box; and I brought a yellow "The Muppet Show" lunch box. Without capitalism, every child in this nation would be forced to bring a red "The Marx and Engels Eater" aluminum lunch box. They would also be forced to eat coal.

Capitalism serves several purposes for us. First, with capitalism, balding men can go through their mid-life crises with ease by simply buying a BMW 6000 F series. It breaks my heart every time I see a bald man take public transportation. Here's a guy who might be depressed because not only is he bald and half of his life has slipped away, but he is also fat, ugly, and impotent (not to mention that his wife cheats on him, his mistress is not putting out, and his housekeeper does not know how to make filet mignon). Such a man should not be further degraded by taking a train amongst other "people." I say, "Go drive old man, go drive!"

Second, with capitalism, we can all live a life of luxury like the folk of "Falcon Crest." We all have the equal opportunity to belong to that country club. Or that CD club.

But I am aware that this talk I heard the other day is just "talk." This anti-capitalism thing is probably a recent fad much like swing dancing and martini drinking. And if this is the case, it's definitely worth getting into. So I guess to summarize my argument: "socialism," like conquering Kamchatka in the game of "Risk" is definitely the smart move.

-Dave Marcus

Curmudgeon's Corner: Admissions and Aid

There has been a lot of turmoil on campus lately - and, from what I've read, in the recent past as well - about the concept of "need-blind admissions." What the term means, basically, is that admissions decisions do not take into account an applicant's ability to afford an Oberlin education. The decision is made solely on non-financial criteria: grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, recommendations, community involvement, etc.

The controversy, as I see it, is over the move from need-blind to "need-sensitive" admissions. In need-sensitive admissions, the degree to which an applicant is going to require financial aid is also weighed in the selection process. On the surface, this seems like a terribly crass and materialistic thing to do. Carried to the extreme, it effectively bars students from low-income families from higher education - creating a permanent underclass. But note how I stress "carried to the extreme." Oberlin is certainly not saying, "Got money, come on! Got no money? Bugger off!" If they were, I wouldn't be here to write this.

What they are talking about is very simple economics. We have X dollars in the financial aid budget, and not a penny more. And when that amount has been apportioned among our present and incoming students according to their financial need, the cupboard is bare. (Sometimes I think that a lot of people forget that we have a heckuva lot of returning students already drawing from that oh-so-finite account, and we plainly cannot pull their aid out from under them to increase the kitty for new admits.)

What need-sensitive admissions do is try to balance our desire to bring in just the kind of new class we want - capable of doing Oberlin-class work, possessing artistic/athletic/musical/ whatever talents that will (hopefully) enhance Oberlin life, with the right gender/ethnic/racial/ whatever mix to honor the college's commitment to diversity - with the amount of financial aid that remains in the kitty after the returning students have been supported. Their dilemma is real. Do we spend $30,000 in aid money to fund one student who has nothing, or two students who need $15k each, or three who need $10k each, etc.? Do we give an edge in the admissions process to an applicant who comes from a wealthy family and won't need financial aid, so more money is left for the ones who do? Is it better for the college to give $21k to an all-state quarterback or award-winning artist and say "sorry" to three poor schmucks who are only three grand shy of being able to pay for it themselves? This is a juggling act of biblical proportions, and probably requires a Pentium III ouija board and Maalox in 50-gallon drums.

The bottom line is that need-blind admissions won't work unless you have a multi-billion-dollar endowment like Harvard, and are theoretically capable of funding the entire student body 100%. There is simply no sense in admitting a student whom you know won't matriculate (for whatever reason). All that does is push someone who probably would matriculate if accepted down into the Wait List - where she or he may acknowledge the "bird in hand" adage and accept an offer from a lesser school rather than take a chance and wait to see if a spot opens up at Oberlin. When I was applying to colleges, Brandeis offered me admission and financial aid that came up $3,000 short of what I'd need. Since I didn't plan on taking an Exco in cat burglary to make up the difference, I had to say, "Thanks, but no thanks." Why did they even bother, when their examination of my financial records had to show that I couldn't come up with the missing $3k? Need-blind admissions: It helped their statistics, and let them pat themselves on the back for offering admission to the weird old home-schooled lady. The money Oberlin has to give out in financial aid is finite, and I certainly don't see any students volunteering to take cuts in their awards, or faculty or staff offering to take salary cuts, so we'll have more to give to new students.

And it is also vital for the people pointing fingers at the admissions and financial aid offices to understand that neither office can create policy. Policies concerning admissions and financial aid are made by the General Faculty Council - and the admissions and financial aid people have to implement them no matter how they may feel about those policies personally. Don't blame the messengers.

-Mary Margaret Towey