As part of GW’s strategic framework, officials on Wednesday announced they will cover the full cost of tuition for students with a household income of less than $100,000. In the first paragraph of the newsletter announcing the decision, however, officials caveated that their “Revolutionary Promise” will apply only to the incoming class of 2030 and onward. Current undergraduates — who are preparing for a 3 percent rise in tuition, bringing estimated total costs over $98,000 — are excluded from the initiative. By excluding continuing undergraduates from the new aid, the University is failing to meet its responsibility to the current student body.

GW’s investment in its future is important, but officials should not place the full burden of tuition increases and budget cuts on current students for changes they are unlikely to benefit from.

The announcement is truly revolutionary for lower-income Americans seeking a degree in the world’s most costly nation for higher education, but for continuing students like myself, it feels like a slap in the face. Already, existing GW students are bearing the brunt of the school’s struggling finances — notably cuts throughout this fiscal year to campus resources like journal subscriptions and Counseling and Psychological Services walk-in hours.

As officials continue to prioritize attracting graduating high school seniors, a move necessary for the University’s long-term fiscal health, many current GW undergraduates feel left behind. The OneGW Path to Preeminence appears to be coming at our financial expense. Officials did not pledge additional aid or relief to low-income students, besides extending GW’s scholarships for current students from five to six years. If GW wishes to remain in the good graces of its future alumni, officials must do better financially for these students too. 

With the cost of attendance nearing $100,000, many students are finding that the GW experience is not worth the price tag. Reports of food poisoning have become increasingly common, and the Mount Vernon Express shuttles run on a reduced schedule, which exacerbates time concerns, and officials throughout the year have cut campus resources. The irony of GW raising tuition on the current student body for an education that doesn’t match the price tag — to fund a better experience for incoming students — is rich. The students who will have better access to campus resources and better financial assistance will enjoy these things at the expense of soaring attendance costs for current undergraduates. The school cannot ignore the financial stress placed on current lower-income families. 

One of the main factors behind my decision, and the decision of many other students, to attend GW was the generous financial-aid package they offered. It was over $25,000 cheaper for me to attend school here in D.C. than my home state of New York. But I am not receiving any additional aid to offset the 3 percent rise in tuition, which my family and I had not planned for when I decided to attend. While GW is a great school, no degree is worth a tenth of a million dollars. Free tuition would have been life changing for my family, but instead, we are met with tuition hikes and worse resources. GW has a responsibility to ensure that students have as little financial stress as possible, while ensuring they have the best college experience the school can offer.

As someone from a middle-class family, I understand the burden placed on students when demonstrated need is not met. Merit scholarships, University awards, Pell Grants, Federal Work-Study and loans cover the majority of my college expenses, but the remaining out-of-pocket $5,000 per semester demanded by the University for my first year was not easy to muster up. My mother works long, hard hours — from the early morning into the afternoon — to make ends meet for my family. Still, she finds a way to spend a significant portion of that money on financing my college education on top of taxes, groceries and other expenses, and I would imagine my experience is also the experience of thousands of other students enrolled at GW. 

Moreover, my mother contributed to GW’s annual Giving Day, to pass on the opportunities I’ve received here to others. It is not an unreasonable ask of the University, therefore, to offer some form of need-based assistance for the many hardworking families left out of the strategic framework — to lighten the load of financial stress placed upon good people like my mother. I understand the strategic framework is forward thinking, but GW must prioritize taking care of its current students. 

I understand it may be fiscally irresponsible for the University to offer its Revolutionary Promise to all families making under $100,000. Still, there exists a multitude of options for GW to address the concerns of these students besides leaving them in the dark. For one, the school could offer fixed tuition — something GW used to offer students — to ensure the financial security of current financially vulnerable undergraduates. GW could narrow the scope of the initiative for current undergraduates, while still addressing the student body. Also, additional University and alumni awards are not a far-fetched possibility. While I recognize the persistent budget deficit GW faces, there is still no excuse for abandoning the hardworking people who are the backbone of this institution — the students and families that enroll here. For GW to “Raise High” more than just my tuition, officials cannot treat current students as a cash cow for the future.