Deliberation Nation Response to Other Group

I attended a deliberation hosted in the State College Community Center on February 22nd. The topic was about “penny-pinching” to afford college. The introductory team talked for a short amount of time, so I was still generally confused as to what we were going to talk about.

The first approach made no coherent sense. There was no actual money-saving technique explained. Their approach was basically keeping the billing and tuition the same. In all, everyone in the audience was confused, as were some of their own team members.

The second approach proposed the idea of paying for Penn State amenities by how you use them. For example, if you do not use the gym you should not have to pay for it. Moreover, they talked about paying for college per credit or entering a better lab by paying more for it. I worried about how this would affect students of different economic backgrounds. I questioned the moderators about how the college, specifically the bursar and financial aid office, would handle the different billings of thousands of students. Apparently, there is no clear-cut answer for this. I felt that their second approach did a sub-par job at explaining their approach and most of the audience was confused.

The third approach was by far the best approach. The moderators articulated their proposal very well and it made sense. Their idea was to cheapen tuition by opening up some of the amenities to the greater Penn State community. This would include allowing alumni and citizens of the surrounding areas to utilize the library and gym facilities. Apparently, this was allowed before the Sandusky scandal. Many questions were raised about student safety. I answered these comments with the obvious: there is more student on student crime in State College than non-students on students. Most people also expressed concern about working out near “adults.” I expressed the idea that technically we are all adults. Furthermore, non-students can already use the library and have access to many public buildings like the HUB. Actually, most of the buildings on campus can be accessed by the public as a vast majority of buildings are not locked. I believed that the only actual concern for student safety was in the gyms. The moderators could have fostered a better deliberative atmosphere by moving the discussion away from the idea of safety in the gym. In all, this approach did the best.

Overall, I found this deliberation to be interesting as it pertained to me greatly. I am a college student paying for my own education, so any cut in expenses would be greatly appreciated. The deliberation team for this event did a fair job, and I learned a lot by attending and participating.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar