The Clarion

Issue date: 10/8/08 Section: Opinion

Media Credit: KAITLYN LYNCH Two new plasma TVs are part of the recently completed cafeteria rennovation.

Although I graduated from MATC in 2007, as fate would have it, I found myself returning to campus as a student this fall. Since my return, I've seen some familiar faces and many new ones. I noticed a few changes to the Truax campus upon my first walk through this fall, most notably to the cafeteria area. While I have to admit that everything looks great, I find myself questioning the necessity of all these changes and expenditures - chiefly the two high-definition, flat screen televisions hanging in the cafeteria.

I've begun to wonder exactly at which point it became necessary for us to saturate our environments with so many TV screens. According to Nielsen Media Research, the average American home has more televisions in it than it has people. A full 99 percent of American homes have at least one TV, and the average American watches about four hours, 35 minutes daily. How essential is it, then, to have televisions at school - particularly when many students have laptops or other devices which allow them to get their TV fix while not at home?

Furthermore, who exactly decided that the cafeteria needed these televisions, and were the students allowed any input on this decision? After all, it's the students' tuition money that pays for these things. Additionally, given the difficult economic times our nation has been experiencing for some months coupled with the rapidly rising cost of said tuition, couldn't the money for these televisions (and the added, enduring expense of powering them daily) have been better spent - or not spent - somewhere else?

I have slightly more trivial queries as well. For example, who decides which channels these TV's are set to, and who has sufficient privilege to change channels, if desired? If the administration claims that the TV's are for the students' collective benefit, would it follow as well that any student could change the channel at will? If that's the case, how are conflicts resolved. My mind burns with these, and other, questions.

All told, I'm disappointed to see such a fiscally careless decision, particularly when costs for students are rising dramatically in so many other arenas, and benefits students previously enjoyed (like bus passes) are at risk for being cut due to lack of funding. I would very much prefer that my tuition money go to something that benefits the students in a more significant way than having fancy, expensive television screens to stare at while they are eating lunch.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools