In 1905, the University of Wisconsin’s tuition was $10 and $25 per semester for Wisconsin residents and nonresidents, respectively.

Knowing this little trivia puts today’s tuition in perspective. It is no secret the cost of going to college in this country has ballooned in recent years. Not only that, but the cost of higher education has increased faster than inflation. Thus, there must be other sources of increasing cost, such as decreasing state aid (as in the case of UW), as well as progressively expanding university bureaucracies.

We can wonder why a state would reduce financial support for public institutions of higher education and why colleges and universities need large bureaucratic armies in the first place. However, here I want to question a particular part of the expense that we have to bear as students. Compared to UW students in 1905, we have things pretty good. It is true we are facing a higher cost of studying here, but we also get more student services, such as Greater University Tutoring Services, which started in 1974, and the student bus pass program, both of which students finance through segregated fees.  Furthermore, students at this campus today are also lavished with many outlets and means of diversion and merriment. For example, the Wisconsin Union provides entertainment in forms such as movies, live music and food. For physical recreation, students can join Hoofer Sailing or go to the gyms that we have on campus.

Although students who actually take advantage of these outlets may value them very much, not all students benefit from them, even if they have to finance these programs through segregated fees. This begs the question if are these programs really worth spending money on. How important are these outlets of recreation? Of course, entertainment is instrumental to a balanced lifestyle, as well as to the maintenance of sanity. However, why must the entertainment available to students be deliberately organized and provided, therefore needing collective funding?

I am disturbed by the notion that these expenditures on diversions are considered instrumental to enriching student life here. The kind of entertainment that is expensive and needs collective spending must be very complex. These sorts of diversions require less effort on the part of the one receiving the experience. Movies and live bands bombard the audience with sensory signals, and thus are passive entertainment, but much organization and expense goes into enabling people to enjoy them passively. On the other hand, one can find fuller satisfaction from simpler pleasures like walking in the park – by actively seeking out intrinsic values from simpler activities and the environment.

I view these expenditures on entertainment, especially the Union and recreational sports facilities, as an extravagance. I do not call them extravagant merely because I find them unappealing and hardly utilize them. For example, I live very close to campus and thus seldom use my bus pass. But I do not oppose the fact that a part of my segregated fees go to the bus pass program, because I think it is genuinely beneficial that my fellow students can get to class on time. However, I resent being made to financially support programs such as organized and institutionalized entertainment, especially when I think things such as live musical performances at the Memorial Union terrace does not make the rest of the student body culturally richer.

I don’t want to give the impression that doing away with funding these recreational outlets will make the cost of studying here considerably lower. For the 2012-2013 school year, each student pays only roughly $250 for things like the Union and Rec Sports. However, we should not trivialize the money from each student that goes to these outlets just because it appears small in comparison to larger expenses such as tuition. Although these expenses per students are small relatively, they are not small absolutely. With more than $200, I can buy a great number of books and several stretched canvasses. That is not insignificant.

Of course, entertainment is important for students, but it need not be scheduled, prepared, institutionally-run and, therefore, costly. Students in 1905 were not lavished as we are, but I have never heard people back then dying out of the lack of free, elaborate entertainment. One can read a book, run along the lakeshore or one can indulge in something more sophisticated, but it should be at one’s own cost only. 

Heikal Badrulhisham ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in economics.