LETTERS: Fin. aid grants are no free ride

To the Editor: It is almost inconceivable that his undergraduate education at the University of Pennsylvania has not imparted in him the realization that households who do not possess a disposable income of $30,000 are not in their present situation because they choose "not to work as much." Fiore is referring to households that have presumably instilled values in their children that have driven them to excel academically, to excel in their extracurricular pursuits and to earn acceptance to one of the top undergraduate programs in the country. Certainly, it would be rather difficult for a "lazy" parent to impart these sets of values to their children. Jonathan Karush College '01 " To the Editor: Mark Fiore says that giving need-based grants "punishes parents and students who have worked and saved money, while rewarding those who have been lazy." The Oxford English Dictionary defines laziness as "aversion or indisposition to exert oneself," whereas Fiore seems to define it as an inability to make enough money to send a student to Penn by means of a big, fat check. My parents have worked for their entire lives; just because they could not afford to send me to Penn without a grant does not make them lazy. Fiore has also failed to consider what happens to even the brightest high school student if their parents do not care about them. Finally, I would like to comment on Fiore's solution. He would have all non-loan aid come from private donors. Unfortunately, grants for 12 freshmen here and 12 freshmen there is not very significant to a class of over 2,500. Hopefully, Penn will only increase its financial aid in coming years and not become the U of P Country Club that Fiore would like. David Kolas College '03 " To the Editor: Wednesday's column by Mark Fiore exemplifies the fear and ignorance that pervades the discussion about financial aid. Not only do grants require exceptional -- and continuing -- academic achievement, but for an economically disadvantaged student, a grant only defrays the cost of education; there remain many bills to be paid. Additionally, a student burdened with tens of thousands of dollars in loan money is almost obligated to pursue a career that will allow such debt to be paid. With a grant, a student is free to study English or art or whatever else strikes their intellectual fancy. All students deserve the opportunity to earn an excellent education and, for some, a grant is the only means to this end. Melinda Gordon College '03 " To the Editor: Rather than discussing mere economics, Mark Fiore actually claims the reason some Penn students cannot afford full tuition is because their parents are lazy. He claims that "parents who perhaps chose not to work as much are rewarded with free money." I cannot believe a student would have the audacity to say this! My father worked 10 to 14 hour days in a warehouse in South Philly trying to help put me through college at Franklin and Marshall, and Fiore dares say he did not work as hard as a parent who was able to pay their child's tuition. I challenge Fiore to spend one day doing what my father does and I guarantee he will leave with a broken back, bloody hands and a new respect for the working class of this country. In direct opposition to Mr. Fiore's financial plan for Penn's future, I hope this institution will continue to help parents like mine put their children through college by way of grants and allow them to obtain a dream they may never have realized otherwise. Joseph Teel Medicine '03 " To the Editor: Mark Fiore's claim that Penn's financial aid policy is "constantly taking more than necessary from the rich and giving it to the poor without strings attached" makes me want to laugh or cry, depending on the earnestness with which he says this. Unfortunately, I think Fiore is serious, and I cannot but think that he has never met someone on financial aid. If no strings attached means that I have to work 30 hours a week, then there are no strings. If no strings attached means that I will be up until three in the morning every night, then there are no strings. If no strings attached means that I have to work all summer without a vacation, then there are no strings. If no strings attached means that my mother still has to cry every time she gets a bill from Penn and that my father has to feel ashamed that he can contribute nothing, then there are no strings. If I had any more loans to repay, attending Penn would not be worth the decades of post-graduation debt. Does being poor mean that I am to be poor for my entire life? Jack Schneider College '02 " To the Editor, Mark Fiore apparently feels that Penn's wealthy students have been slighted by the undergraduate financial aid process. The students who come from "hard-working" rich families have been overburdened. Their money is being unfairly provided to students whose families "perhaps chose not to work as much" and are thus rewarded with free money. Fiore's solution vilifies the poor. He implies that the students who have enough money to afford all of Penn's tuition come from harder working families. As though having money in American society really has a direct correlation with hard work. He then writes that these need based grants allow students to "spend their free time swimming at the beach instead of working." I would be curious to see how many students who receive financial grants are not working in the summer. I assure you, the number would not be high. Howard Yeh Wharton '00 To the Editor: Mark Fiore's column demonstrates the problems that can occur when one evaluates any policy only in terms of capitalistic efficiency. Fiore argues that the University will receive more revenue by ending grants. Although this is true, the social value of helping those with financial needs far outweighs any increase in revenue, whether large or small. The University's need-based financial aid policy breaks the glass ceiling where the rich continue helping the rich, propagating the gap between the rich and poor in the nation. Jason Shafrin College/Wharton '02 " To the Editor: My goodness, does Mark Fiore really see Penn's financial aid decisions as designed to give free money to "those who have been lazy"? That Penn is just tossing dollars to lazy students, whose lazy parents couldn't be bothered to save for their child's college education, people who chose to "spend their free time swimming at the beach instead of working"? The reality of Penn is that it has what is called "need-blind" admissions. "Need-blind" means that Penn chooses to accept an applicant based on ability, not the size of their parents' wallets. If you wanted to go to a university that only admits those who can pay in cash, you could have done so. The fact that you chose Penn indicates that you realize this is an academically excellent school, whose student body and faculty are top notch. Limiting admissions by only accepting those who can expect to be able to afford to take on $120,000 in personal debt would not make Penn the academically superior institution that it is. Your professors are here for you because they have a bright, academically capable class of students, something that would not be true if the admissions process was dependent only on how much money their parents had laying around. Morgan Davis Anthropology Doctoral Candidate Try it, you'll like it To the Editor: After reading Ariel Horn's column in Wednesday's DP, I was disturbed at the portrayal of Greek life at Penn ("Many ways to be happy," DP, 10/20/99). Horn's point that being Greek is not the only way to be happy at Penn is certainly true. However, her statements concerning the potential problems of joining a Greek organization are inaccurate and unjustified. Horn claims that sorority women lose their identity when they join a Greek organization. She claims people are "limited" through their membership and that they end up devoting a lot of time to only one thing. Members of sororities are in fact extremely involved in numerous University groups. They come from all four undergraduate schools and devote their time to many academic and extracurricular pursuits. Some are varsity athletes, while others write for the DP or perform in an arts group. Granted, membership in a sorority is a large time commitment, but it not an exclusive system which limits student involvement in other activities. Furthermore, while many women join sororities already involved in campus groups, others become involved in activities through the exposure to involved sisters in their chapter. Meeting different types of people is a big part of Greek organizations, and through sisterhood we are often introduced to new groups and new interests. Involvement in a Greek organization can also be an extremely rewarding experience in and of itself. The leadership possibilities available in sororities and fraternities can help college students develop skills they will need years from now. The ability to help organizations develop and reach goals is a skill worth having, as is the ability to work well with others and learn from a diverse organization which is comprised of students from across the University. Horn's claim that Greek organizations limit people to only one group of people is false. Although I am pleased that sorority membership introduces women to other women in their house, Greek women at Penn are not friends with only people in their chapter. I have great friends from the Greek system, but many of my equally good friends -- both female and male -- are not members of sororities or fraternities. Penn's Greek system is extremely diverse and each house has its own distinct individuality. Horn is right -- Greek life may not be for everyone --but there is no way to know without getting to know the system. I encourage all freshmen women and men to rush this January. It's a fabulous way to meet people in your own class, and its also the best way to determine if Greek life is for you. Don't take it from me, or Horn -- rush and decide for yourself. Becca Iverson College '00 Panhellenic Council President