I am writing to you to voice my concern over a couple of practices that are having a negative effect on our institution and have gotten progressively worse during my four years at Rensselaer. I understand that this school has a large budget and needs a substantial income to stay competitive. How we go about collecting that money is what concerns me. If the Institute needs more revenue, raise the tuition, not the cost of housing or the number of students.

The cost of student housing shows that Rensselaer is operating a dormitory/on-campus apartment business. Take for example Cary Hall, which is a standard freshman dorm with 13- by 15-foot doubles and triples. Eighty-three rooms, none of which are air conditioned, housing two students apiece bring in over $400,000 per academic year—a mere eight months. In addition to this, any damage during the year is added to that cost.

One might also ask why a double in the Quad costs $5516 while a Sharp suite costs $5050. The only logical explanation is that the school is charging for location. Is Rensselaer providing a service that is extremely convenient to students, or is it in the real estate business of supply and demand?

My second concern deals with the size of the student body, which has been growing at an alarming rate. Between the undergraduate and graduate programs, Rensselaer has become overcrowded. The undergraduate student body has increased by seven percent over the last two years. The Institute cannot hope to offer the same high-quality education that it has in the past with overcrowded classrooms, nor can the student body grow without the infrastructure to support it.

Dining halls, dormitories, computer networks, parking lots, and athletic facilities are all at the breaking point. Rensselaer can afford to be more selective but does not do so because more undergraduates means a larger income. We need to ask ourselves—do we want to be a school with world class research and education, or do we want to be Rensselaer Polytechnic Incorporated?

Gregory Holden