Rose Bialk/The Mossy Log
According to their website, Lewis & Clark claims to “empower students through meaningful work experiences that enhance both personal growth and career readiness.” However, I cannot remember the last time I met a student worker who holds a job to enhance their professional experience; most people do it out of necessity to pay for their education.
The Federal Work-Study program was enacted at colleges as a government-funded program to help aid students with financial needs to fund their education. Essentially, this program was intended to be another form of financial aid — not a kickstarter for student careers. While it is flexible, convenient and less strict than normal jobs, the Federal Work-Study program should be reframed as an initiative that benefits students beyond financial aid.
Work-Study program eligibility is need-based —- to qualify, you need to demonstrate that you require financial aid. Yet, most people who require financial aid receive it from grants through the FAFSA or ISFAA (international students’ financial aid application). It seems strange that the standard $1,500 per semester that can be earned through Work-Study programs is not just included in aid package if it is “need-based.” These extra funds could even be given to students on a regular basis, similar to a salary.
Having students work in exchange for financial aid defeats its purpose; if you are working for aid, you are not being aided anymore — you are an employee paid a federal wage. You are performing labor to make money for yourself, which you could also do at a job off-campus. It makes no sense for Work-Study to be established as a need-based program when the benefits in question are in the form of employment, not a grant. While the convenience of on-campus jobs for students is appealing, this is hardly enough reward.
Student workers are students first. Their purpose for being in college is to learn, that is what they pay for. Despite this, the Work-Study program believes that if you cannot afford school, then you should give up hours of learning in favor of working for the college every week. While there is a 20-hour limit per week for student jobs, I know many students who had to work multiple shifts in the same week they had a midterm. Students can be fired if they miss enough shifts, discouraging them from prioritizing their academic needs. In other words, your need-based aid can be taken away if you prioritize learning over working, and if you do not have the time to work, you will not be able to afford your education.
Work-Study should also be beneficial to students beyond offering money. First of all, given the framing of Work-Study as financial aid, along with the competitive nature of job-searching, students who are in need will prioritize applying to as many jobs as possible to increase their chances, as they need the job for the money. They will likely end up with a job that does not align with their goals. For those who narrow their search to work related to their interests, their chances at scoring employment are much lower.
That is to say, students who are offered Work-Study as financial aid will prioritize finding any job just to be able to survive amidst a competitive market for supposed programs of need-based aid. It is very likely they end up working a job that does not benefit them in terms of neither career readiness nor personal growth. Working a job you do not enjoy also has several negative impacts, stressing out students who already have a lot on their plate. LC is especially known for having many redundant, bureaucratic roles that only exist to add more work positions for students, ending up in many sinecure, or make-work, positions that “assist” the LC staff and faculty rather than benefit the students themselves through something other than a paycheck.
On the other hand, work-study offers are important to international students, something I know firsthand. If you are on a student visa, obtaining an off-campus job is nearly impossible due to severe labor restrictions. The most accessible exception is if it is under the work-study program, making this program useful for those who need the financial support and have no other means for it.
This, however, raises a contradiction in the purported goals of the program. While this initiative is essentially a need-based program, its goal is directly contradicted by the competitive, merit-based nature of acquiring a job. At LC, when you apply for a student job you have to submit a resume and a cover letter, and employers choose who they deem most qualified from a huge pool of applicants. I personally have been ghosted or rejected by many jobs at LC, and I know many others who are still unable to get a job on campus. If it is need-based, then why is it not guaranteed for those in need?
This is because it would not work to have employers at LC hire all students who qualify for the program — thus making it truly need-based — as there are limited open positions and many students who qualify for the program. Work-study, hence, should be a separate merit-based option separate from the FAFSA need-based program.
An alternative that would meet the program’s purpose could be having the federal government, or LC, offer students who demonstrate need a monthly allowance, similar to a salary, without having to hold a job. That would meet the program’s goal of aiding students in need, while also keeping the option of holding an on campus-job for students to benefit from its other aspects, such as experience, learning opportunities and extra income, rather than needing to compete for a job and hold it to afford an education.
Author
About the Author
