Best and brightest: are they the neediest?

The university's Folio (March 12) reported the sole condition attached to this bequest for scholarships was "that the money help students who need it." The university, however, seems to understand this scholarship fund as a way to "convince some of Canada's top students to choose the U of A over schools in Eastern Canada or the U.S."

Using this bequest to recruit new students from among the country's best and the brightest has absolutely nothing to do with helping students in true need of financial assistance. Furthermore, such a recruitment policy is based on the fallacy that the brightest high-school students make the best university students. Those who contribute the most to the university are most often the very good students who, with the right intellectual encouragement and the proper financial assistance, can go on to excel in their field.

Finally, what about the undergraduate students at the university now who really need financial assistance to finish their degrees? What about the single mothers, international students, disabled students and senior citizens who make a significant contribution to the learning environment at the U of A but who can barely keep up with the exorbitant tuition fees? What about the more than 1,000 undergraduate and graduate students who had to rely on the campus food bank last year?

If I ever become as wealthy as the benevolent Dr. Young - who may well not have been one of the best and brightest when he arrived on campus as a first-year undergrad - the university's proposed treatment of his bequest would make me think twice about making a similar donation. What makes a university most competitive and an asset to this province's taxpayers is how accessible it is to students who could not otherwise afford to attend - not the number of "top students" it attracts.

Paul Martin, PhD candidate
Department of Comparative Literature,
Religion, and Film/Media Studies

Honoring donor intentions

During probate, it was revealed that her bequest stipulated the funds should be designed to "establish a scholarship fund in [her] husband's name," and furthermore the fund assist "undergraduate students who are deserving." The key words used in this bequest designation are "scholarship," "undergraduate," and "deserving." No indication was made in the bequest that need, or more specifically financial need, should serve as the primary selection criteria.

In determining what "scholarship" meant, we looked not only to the donor's own criteria where she listed "deserving," but also at our own definition of scholarship. Since 1987, the University of Alberta has defined scholarship as "awards given to students based on superior academic achievement." Bursaries, on the other hand, are defined as "an award of any monetary value and is given to a student based on demonstrated financial need and satisfactory academic standing in a faculty." These definitions are the standard used among North American postsecon-dary institutions.

As you can see, there is significant difference between the two definitions. In light of the clear wording provided by the donor, we are ethically obligated to follow the designation stipulated in the bequest. Accordingly, the gift was designated to undergraduate scholarships.

Folio's article stated "there were no further restrictions attached to the bequest, only that the money help students who need it." I have read the bequest myself, and there is no mention of the word "need" in the bequest whatsoever. I suspect the Folio author used this word to reflect the scholarship need these monies will satisfy, as opposed to financial need. Nowhere in the bequest, or in Folio's article, does it refer to "financial need."

In point of fact, the University of Alberta is interpreting Young's wishes as Young wished to have them interpreted: to allocate the funds towards scholarships. Had the bequest stipulated financial need as the primary criteria then this gift could be designated differently.

While the designation of this gift may cause frustration for some, I am confident the University of Alberta has chosen the ethical option - honoring the original intentions of this donor's last will and testament. At no time were the intentions of the donor interpreted differently than what was originally expressed in her bequest. While some will argue funds like this might be allocated more appropriately to other priorities, we want our alumni and friends to recognize their future gift designations will be honored appropriately, whether they are for scholarships or bursaries.

EH Guy Mallabone
Director of Development