An Open Letter from the News Desk

To Whom It May Concern:

As many students may know, due to a decrease in the amount of the work-study funding Luther receives from the government, the college has reassessed how it will distribute this funding among its students. The school has chosen to place preference on a need basis, determined by each student’s FAFSA form. This redistribution has cut many students from their previously granted allotments of 10 hours per week to 6 hours per week. This change decreases these students’ annual work-study award by approximately $1000.

We take several issues with this redistribution. To clarify: we wholeheartedly support any effort to help more students pay for college. However, this redistribution does not seem to be well thought out.

While this, at first, seems like an acceptable solution to the problem, this change has created an unforeseen consequence for students in skilled positions on campus.

This decision is admirable in its attempt to create a wider availability of work-study positions. However, student jobs that require a special skill set or extensive training, such as tutors or lab assistants, cannot simply double the staff while cutting individual hours.

While splitting one entry-level student custodial position into two does create more opportunities for others to earn as well, positions requiring more specific skills like writing for campus publications or assisting within academic departments cannot be filled by any student. It’s hard to assume that any average

Luther student possesses the knowledge required to work for the Technology Help Desk or to tutor students in foreign languages. However, this is what these cuts are forcing many supervisors of these skilled jobs to deal with.

A student that is not qualified for a job cannot be placed there just because they need a place to earn their new work-study allotment. This is perhaps most frustrating to those students who are qualified to hold these jobs, but are now being told that they can’t because of their newly limited allotment of hours.

These students are then forced to choose where to spend their limited work-study hours. In some cases this could make it necessary for them to leave a position they have previously held.

Limiting these students’ hours also creates another dilemma: fair compensation for their time. After these cuts, many students are being forced to choose between jobs, often sacrificing the real-world work experience gained in these skilled positions. They could be faced with the choice of either losing this
experience or volunteering their time.

Is it fair to expect these students to do for free what they were previously compensated for? Even if students are able to keep their positions, some of these specialized positions require more time than the six, or even ten, hour limit allows for. Some students have already been volunteering their time, and now will be volunteering even more.

In our personal experience in interviewing Chips applicants for next year’s staff, many students who have had their hours cut still want these work-study positions. We had applicants who told us that, even though their hours have been cut, they want to gain the work experience, and would rather volunteer for a previously paid position than miss the learning opportunity.

Students are prepared to apply the skill sets they’ve been honing to earn skilled positions now at Luther that will contribute to their resumes and prepare them for the competitive job market that waits after graduation.

In essence, we feel the need to question whether this cut will accomplish what it was intended to do. Even if it does, is it worth the complications that have also been brought about? While more jobs may have been created, some students are now forced to apply to work positions for free if they want the experience, or to work the same hours they did, and be paid less. Is that fair? Or, better yet, is it constructive?

Michael Crowe
Managing Editor, 2011-2012

Melissa Erickson
Editor-In-Chief, 2011-2012