Atossa Abrahamian

any international students find Columbia College attractive because of its highly international reputation, with the undergraduate prospectus boasting a 10-percent foreign student population. While this statistic may imply that Columbia is a cosmopolitan university, it is also misleading in terms of actual diversity on campus: only one in 10 international students receives financial aid.

The CC financial aid website reassures nervous American high school seniors, “You should never decide not to apply to a college because you think the cost exceeds your family's ability to pay. Need-based aid makes it possible for everyone to afford a Columbia education.” In contrast, the International Students and Scholars Office website informs international students: “Funding is not guaranteed from year to year, usually offered in September, sometimes not offered until the second year, and, in some departments, limited in number of years to encourage new students to enter the department.” There is more flexibility regarding graduate school funding, but socioeconomic diversity does not appear to be on the admissions office's agenda when it considers international students.

The consequences of this are self-evident: because almost every student without American, Canadian or Mexican citizenship is able to afford a $45,000 yearly tuition, the international students at Columbia form a fairly homogenous community. Furthermore, the near impossibility of finding paying jobs off-campus with just a student visa makes financial situations even more precarious for international students at an economic disadvantage. “It would definitely help to receive financial aid,” said Iggy Cortez CC 07, a native of Rome. “Luckily, as United Nations employees, my parents receive a grant from the U.N. But my other friends are not as lucky, and some could not go to the U.S. for that reason. Without the U.N., I probably wouldn't be here.”

The unlucky international students Cortez speaks of may have had a lot to contribute to campus life in terms of multiculturalism, talent, and a different world view, but they will never have this opportunity if financial aid is not distributed to them. The chances of there being first-years from, say, a Vietnamese or Tanzanian public school, or even from a working-class Italian family, are currently extremely low. On the other hand, young adults from wealthy upper- or middle-class families—who often come from Anglo-centric AP or IB high schools—make up most of the international contingent. What is being ignored is that accepting students with frequent-flyer cards and a large collection of passport stamps is not sufficient to turn Columbia students into University President Lee Bollinger's ideal of “citizens of the world,” or make them any more “international in perspective, in consciousness, in our interests and our engagements as students, teachers, and scholars,” as he said in his inauguration speech.

Granted, there are many other factors that affect the international admissions decision, such as knowledge of English and standardized testing. Cortez expressed that some do not even apply despite having the qualifications, because it is “financially pointless.” Students at my private high school in Switzerland were advised not to ask for funding because of the disadvantage it would pose. The financial aid policy is made explicit on the Financial Aid Office's Web site: “Candidates for this funding should be aware that their applications are read in a more selective process than are other candidates.” Of course, there are outside loans, grants, internships and scholarships that a student could apply for, but neither Barnard nor Columbia College is not taking active responsibility for accommodating the financial needs of their international students.

GEOFF AUNG

The most important issue at stake is not the generosity of the institution; after all, money doesn't grow on trees, and college is and has always been notoriously expensive in the U.S. But the inequality of the current policy for international students does not reflect Columbia's so-called commitment to diversity. In his inauguration speech, President Bollinger expressed pride in Columbia's position in the “very top group of American Universities in terms of the number of international students” and drew further attention to the multicultural environment on campus. “Columbia has fiercely maintained over the years a commitment to devote its resources to a policy of need-blind admissions for undergraduates,” he said. “We all have much to learn about...people of different cultures, societies, races, and ethnicities.”

The underrepresented demographic that misses out on a Columbia education because of financial issues would contribute just as much to school spirit, a sense of a global community, and a well-balanced campus life as any field-hockey player, mathematics genius, or actor currently on a free ride. But for all its investment in a mind-broadening Core Curriculum, in frequent cultural events and in racial and ethnic tolerance, Columbia has not taken the importance of a socioeconomically diverse student body into consideration. The effect of admitting students of different social and cultural backgrounds from all over the world would encourage learning outside the classroom and help students to understand, empathize with, and connect to different cultures.

The recent financial aid reform that changed all loans to grants for families earning less than $50,000 per year was a victory in encouraging socioeconomic diversity, but again, it did not apply to international students. In the aforementioned speech, Bollinger went on to say that the University “possesses naturally the sense of itself as a citizen of the world—we engage with the world, not just out of a calculation of self-interest but out of a sense of responsibility.”

Columbia's current policy displays the exact opposite attitude toward foreigners. By allocating resources disadvantageously to international students, the University shows none of this professed responsibility. It is precisely out of self-interest that the University advertises itself as international, yet gives aid only to domestic students. The undergraduate student body is not a truly international community; it is closer to a cosmopolitan, jet-set one. To fulfill its promise of a complete education, the University must make an effort to stop socioeconomic and global diversity from being mutually exclusive.