I applaud both Bret Vallacher '10 and the Dartmouth staff for addressing class issues at Dartmouth ("Work-Study Woes," Jan. 30), an issue that is so often shoved to the backburner in favor of trendier issues like race, sex and sexual orientation. I was, however, dismayed to read Vallacher's take on work-study, as I feel it is illustrative of so many of the class problems I witnessed at Dartmouth during my four years there. While there are too many incorrect points and assumptions in the article for me to tackle all of them, I can address a few of the most glaring problems.
Let me begin with what is perhaps Vallacher's strangest point: the notion that work-study is a "communistic" idea. This assertion is so ludicrous that it borders on absurd. How can something be considered communistic that requires a student to work for the aid that they receive? Does Vallacher oppose grant money, or feel that grants are communistic because they are free handouts? Or perhaps it is discriminatory that upper-middle class families do not receive grants. Work-study allows low-income students to contribute to paying for their education, aid that would otherwise come in the form of loans that would accrue interest. Work-study is invaluable in that regard, and Vallacher will understand this when he has to begin paying his loans in several years. (Assuming that he actually is middle class, as he declares, and receives such loans. Otherwise he will be fortunate enough to avoid this monthly reminder of the cost of a Dartmouth education.)
Another flaw in Vallacher's argument can be found in the beginning of the piece. To paraphrase very slightly, Vallacher is looking for a "non-hectic, decent paying resume-builder." Let us be kind and ignore the fact that a person going into job interviews with that as their objective is unlikely to be well received. Why shouldn't employers take into account a person's need for the job, as opposed to just having a passing interest in "leaving their comfort zone of wealth?" I once worked as an assistant manager at a beach snack bar, and many high school students applied for summer jobs because they thought it would be "cool to work on the beach during the summer." What do you think happened the first time I could not give a high school junior a night off to go to a concert? The student quit, because the job was not critical for them. They were wealthy high school students who took the job on a lark but gave it up when the work became less glamorous or convenient. Obviously this will not happen in every case. But excuse the College for taking into account an applicant's financial need, as it is one among many indicators of the likelihood that a person will prioritize the job in their hectic Dartmouth schedules.
Allow me to make one final suggestion in regards to those jobs Vallacher will not take because he refuses to "lower [his] standards of employment." Those jobs that he shuns are some of the best resume-builders of all because they require you to go out and interact with people, and gain real-world experience. In my entire time at Dartmouth I never knew a single person who wanted paid employment and could not obtain it, whether it was a job with the College or a job working in town. Why not give that a try?
Forgive me if I am unable to suspend my disbelief and agree that upper and upper-middle class students are somehow victimized at Dartmouth. And forgive me if I do not think it is the biggest tragedy that a wealthy college freshman is unable to find a well-paying, low-stress, resume-building job. Those of us for whom that work-study paycheck was absolutely critical for our week-by-week survival at Dartmouth will try to muster up some sympathy for you as you pick and choose which jobs are beneath you.
