Let me begin by stating, quite bluntly, that I will never provide money to RPI’s fundraising efforts. The reasons for this are many and varied, but the biggest reason is the Graduate Tuition Policy, addressed in the February 2 of The Polytechnic.
As a graduate student, I am faced with many commitments, and I like to think that I have done well in fulfilling them. I have published some­what extensively, given the limited amount of time I have been a graduate student. I have done well in classes, and I have tried my best to provide service to the computer science department and RPI at-large. Unfortunately, these commit­ments are not my greatest of worries, as many believe they should be. Instead, this past semester was filled with anxiety about whether I would be able to attend RPI this semester and finish my masters degree program.
The premise of the Graduate Tuition Policy regarding limited teaching assistantships is to motivate professors to vie for research grants to support their research and their graduate stu­dents. This policy also limits the number of semesters that a graduate student may receive Institute funds, both teaching and research assistantships. In reality, this policy may put some burden on professors to garner grants to support graduate students, but the true burden of missed grant oppor­tunities is borne solely by the students whose advisors may be overburdened by advisees or who may not have had a good string of grant opportunities. It is certainly not the professors or administrators of RPI that worry about paying rent or finding money to continue their graduate degrees.
Dean of Graduate Education, Dr. Tom Apple, has said that the reason for this policy is three-fold. First, it is to stimulate the receipt of research grants by RPI faculty. Second, the policy is supposed to protect graduate students from over-work. Third, the policy is supposed to allow the graduate students to focus on completing the requirements for their degree faster and with fewer distractions. I posit that it may be true that professors do not wish their graduate students to have additional distrac­tion from funding worries, thereby stimu­lating more research grants, but let us consider the conse­quences of the last two of the three goals of the policy.
While it is certainly good that RPI wishes to limit the amount of work required of graduate students, it takes all flexibility and choice away from the graduate student. It is quite possible that the graduate student may want additional teaching experience for a future teaching position, or perhaps the student wants the assurance that in the off chance his advisor may not have the funds to support him in a given semester, he has the ability to fall back onto an Institute-funded position. As for the final goal, it certainly does not help the graduate student’s focus on research or class work if they are in a constant state of worry about their future funding—I know that it definitely has not helped me to complete publications this past semester.
In the previous issue of The Polytechnic, the problem of TA shortages was pushed aside by the administration by pointing out more TA positions and increased graduate enrollment as proof of the policy’s success. What was not considered, however, is that the increased enrollment is needed to fill TA positions that are contin­ually being turned over due to the limitations of the policy. As a former undergraduate, I find that the administration of RPI is continually taking for granted the benevolence of donors to RPI’s fundraising campaigns. What they perhaps do not totally grasp is the fact that one day the current students of RPI, both graduate and undergraduate, will be in the same position as today’s donors, and while older alumni may remember “Good ‘Ol RPI,” many of the current students will only think back to just how frustrating their time at RPI was. Rather than assuming that all of their decisions are infallible, perhaps it is time for the administration to become open to the possibility that their decisions have not only alienated some graduate students, but have also alienated their faculty and undergraduates as well. What I would not give to find a Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that acts as a benevolent representative and protector of its students rather than as a combative adversary! I would gladly donate to keep such an institution alive.
Scott Coull
ALUM
