Fineco 1

Rebecca Fineco
Nicholas Heiserman
SAEL 200-008
5 December 2016
The Ethical Dilemma of the Cost of Housing for Students at the University of South Carolina

Should students have to take out have to take out an egregious amount of students loans

in order to attend the University of South Carolina? According to a project on student debt by

Matthew Reed in 2010 two thirds of college seniors who graduated from a four year college had

an average of $25,250, which was a five percent increase from the year before (Matthew, 2011).

Education generally in the United States is seen to be the “great equalizer” (Johnson 14). This is

a part of the American dream and the idea that someone can be successful regardless of their

background. If you work hard enough and go to college then you should be able to make a living

and support yourself. The price of housing on and off campus in Columbia has continued to

climb over the last ten years which only adds to the overall debt that students are leaving college

with (“Average rent in Columbia”). These price increases makes it more difficult for students of

lower socio-economic status to attend USC and to have the same opportunity of their peers. Just

because the price of housing increases every year does not mean that is the way it ought to be

(Rawls 165). The University of South Carolina’s mission statement claims that it has a

responsibility to the state and society to promote an enhanced quality of life (Gateways 2016).

Providing students with a fiscally responsible place to live is a responsibility of the University as

well as the USC housing department. The University of South Carolina housing program needs

improving and could be enhanced if the university made a few policy changes. These changes

include providing students with more affordable housing options, increasing financial literacy

programs and access to need based student aid, and helping student their search for off campus
 Fineco 2

housing. The best way to ensure that students living on campus are having the greatest

opportunity to succeed is providing them with the necessary resources.

One of these necessary resources is a fiscally responsible place to live on-campus their

first year. USC should provide more affordable housing options for on-campus students by either

lowering the price of the current resident halls or new affordable residences should be built.

Currently students at Carolina are paying between $650- $1000 a month to live on campus for

eight months out of the year (“2016/2017 housing rates,”). The most expensive residence hall is

$9000 for the year. All first-year students must live on campus and have little choice on which

residence hall they want to live in. This is especially hard on students whose families are low to

middle income because they cannot afford the price of housing on top of tuition. Tuition and

housing prices continue to rise every semester making it difficult for students to stay in school.

University of South Carolina’s Housing will have an opportunity to combat this issue by

building new more affordable housing options for students. In the next few years the University

of South Carolina Housing has plans to renovate the South areas of campus. This information is

confirmed by Keith Ellis the director of USC housing. They have plans to knock down the older

buildings; including Bates House, Bates West and Cliff Apartments. Housing then plans to build

new residence halls and they are discussing establishing a new student union in that area of

campus in addition to the Russell House. Expanding housing options is a perfect opportunity to

make a big step in addressing the ethical issue of the price of housing. USC housing should use

this opportunity to make more affordable living accommodations for students or to lower the

rates of other residence halls. All students deserve to be able to live on-campus their first year

and providing more affordable housing is the University’s ethical obligation.

 Fineco 3

It is the University’s responsibility to provide fiscally responsible housing. Students are

not more or less worthy of the experience of living on-campus at USC and should not be

deprived of that experience because of a lack of privilege. Requiring students to pay

unreasonable housing prices in order to attend the University is unfair to those born into less

privileged families. John Rawls makes the argument that natural advantages may entitle us to

less or more but that we would be no less worthy or deserving of it than others (Rawls). Ralws

makes an interesting argument that if we were all under a “veil of ignorance” then we would

stray from utilitarianism and strive for an equality of all (Rawls). We would focus less on the

general welfare and more on the principal of equal basic liberties for all citizens (Rawls). This is

important to keep in mind in the argument of the price of education. If education is our great

equalizer than our public universities have an ethical obligation to defend that liberty for its

citizens. USC’s mission is to serve the state and society (sc.edu). As a University for the

residents of South Carolina it has an obligation to promote equality and provide students with an

equal opportunity to succeed. Students should be able to afford their housing without it taking

away from their educational experience.

USC Housing may argue the loss of profits will affect the quality of the on-campus

experience and that it is important for students to live on campus their first year. It is essential for

first year students to live on campus because it essential in the success of those students. Lee

Upcraft in his book about the success of first year students talks about the importance of students

living in residence halls, “ Basically, freshman have a strong need to replace family dependence

and influence, so the peer group becomes an important, temporary replacement for that

dependence” (Upcraft, Pilato, & Peterman, 1983). Students are vulnerable when they come to
 Fineco 4

college because for most of them this is their first time being responsible for themselves. It is

important for first year students to live on campus, but there should be more affordable options

for those students.

In USC Housings goals of the department it states, “University Housing seeks to provide

high-quality support service in a fiscally responsible manner” (“University housing,”). Students

are the number one priority. The rates of university housing do not necessarily need to be

lowered but there needs to be more affordable options available to students. If Housing is very

concerned about profits another solution is for them to be more intentional with their spending

and programming. The housing department could revamp their personnel structure to become

more streamlined and that would cut employee costs. Being more intentional with spending for

events in the residence halls would not only be more beneficial for students but would also be an

efficient way to cut overhead.

Increasing financial literacy programs and access to need based student aid is another

necessary resource that USC could provide in order to address the issue of the rising price of

housing for students. Many first year students are not aware of the financial commitment they are

making when choosing to attend the University of South Carolina. A common rationalization to

student debt is that by getting a four year degree, an individual will make more money and in the

end the benefits of the degree will outweigh the debt. Although the unemployment rate for young

graduates continues to be much lower than high school graduates it is still approximately 8.9

percent (Carnevale, Cheah, & Strohl, 2012). Students have few resources to help them make an

educated decision on where to live and how much money is an appropriate amount to spend on

rent. A big way that the University can help with educating students is to provide a more

encompassing financial literacy program for all students but especially first year students.
 Fineco 5

Another way to assist students would be for the university to invest in increasing access

to need based student aid (Matthew, 2011). Research studies show that need-based grant aid

increases college enrollment among low- and moderate-income students and reduces their

likelihood of dropping out (Matthew, 2011). Students who receive financial aid generally have

lower dropout rates than non-aided students (A Longitudinal 2002). Even though it may be a

financial commitment for USC to invest in increasing access to need based student aid it would

have a long-term financial payoff. A higher student retention rate will also be a strong marketing

to for prospective students.

Everyone in the United States has the right to a pursue a higher education and individuals

who grow up in a wealthy family have an unfair advantage over those who were born less

privileged (Rawls 165). Students should not have to invest in a great deal of debt in order to

attend a University like USC. It is an ethical obligation of the University of South Carolina to

best support its students and that includes helping students manage their student debt. The

University should strive for equal opportunity of the residents of South Carolina. Allowing

students to acquire debt without basic fiscal knowledge is ethically wrong. By providing

financial literacy and more opportunities for need- based student aid the University would be

supporting students and helping them to be successful beyond college.

USC may argue that they already have a financial literacy office in the student success

center and that they would have to increase tuition to provide more services. Students do not

know about many of the resources that are available to them. Investing in advertising would

enhance the impact of the resources that already exist at a small cost to the University. Much of

the advertising for financial aid and financial literacy courses could be done by word of mouth

through student peer leader. U101 peer leaders, orientation leader and resident mentors are a
 Fineco 6

great way to reach out to students. If those student leaders were to advertise the resources that

students already pay for it would be a small financial impact to USC. The university could also

work with housing to educate students in the residence halls and that way it would be a part of

housing budget for educational programs.

Along with increasing the financial literacy program another way that USC can address

the ethical issue of rising housing rates is by becoming more involved in students search for off-

campus housing. The price of housing of off campus in Columbia has continued to climb over

the last ten years making this a compelling ethical dilemma (“Average rent in Columbia”). The

average apartment rent within the city of Columbia, SC is $918 as of September 2016 (“Average

rent in Columbia”). Housing for the University of South Carolina’s students off campus is

unreasonably expensive and adds to the overall debt that students are leaving college with. Most

students move off campus after their first year because of the lack of availability on-campus.

This is a major concern for the University in an effort to enhance students overall quality of life

which includes their fiscal wellbeing. The University tries to do this by providing an off-campus

living guide, a messaging board and having off-campus living fairs twice a year (“Off-campus

student services,”).

The University of South Carolina’s off campus living guide that has a list of all the

apartment complexes in downtown Columbia, SC (“Off-campus student services,”). This guide

includes a description of each place but does not include realistic pricing or feedback from

current students (“Off-campus student services,”). Many students are signing leases for

apartment complexes during their first semester with hardly any idea of the financial

commitment they are making. Apartment complexes like the Hub have accusations of taking

advantage of new students and up charging them or not disclosing certain information
 Fineco 7

(Daczkowski 2015). Some students may be able to afford nicer apartments and if they end up

getting taking advantage it may not affect their financial status all that much but to lower-middle

income families this is an issue. Students cannot afford to sign a lease without knowing the

financial commitment that are making. It is also very hard for students to pay off an expensive

apartment by working and trying to go school full time. Work study can pay for part of this but

then students still have tuition and food to pay for. USC should work towards providing students

with knowledge on finances so that they are not financial stressed.

“The way things are does not determine the way they ought to be” (Ralws 165).

Apartment complexes are businesses. They are looking to make a profit off of students and for

the most part do but this does not mean it is the way it should be. The University can make a

difference in this issue by providing students with the resources they need to make an informed

decision about where they invest their money. USC is responsible for the wellbeing of student’s

off-campus as well as on. This is important especially when the University unofficially requires

students to move off-campus after freshman year.

USC may argue that the resources they provide for students are enough and that students

are responsible for themselves when they move off campus. The University is responsible for

students even after they are away from campus because it is their moral obligation to students.

With limited housing on-campus students must live off-campus after their first year and usually

sign those leases during their first semester here at USC. A way to make students more aware of

the financial commitment of living off campus is to advertise the current resources. It is a small

financial commitment to advertising that would be worth prevent financial burden for students.

Training peer leaders around campus is another way to get the information about off-campus

apartments to students. This should be an important part of u101 training and for resident
 Fineco 8

mentors to talk about to their floors. There is little financial commitment that needs to be made in

order for the University to take responsibility for the debt that students are acquiring while living

off campus.

College Board conducted a national student loan survey and found that 55% of people in

2003 felt burdened by their student loans payments. In this study they also found a visible

increase in the proportion of people feeling burdened in the last 10 years (Sandy & Saul, 2006).

There is an ethical problem that more than half of the students who choose to get a higher

education feel burdened by their student loan payments. The standard loan repayment is ten

years, but many people cannot afford the standard repayment so they choose to do income based

or increase the payback period. Increasing the amount of time that you have to payback all of the

loans increases the amount of interest that accrues. Students should not have to feel the burden of

a student loan payment while others have the privilege to be able to pay it off. There an apparent

issue that over 50% of the United States student population is leaving college stressed about loan

repayment. The price of housing on and off campus in Columbia has been increasing over the

last ten years and it only adds to the financial stress of students. This is an issue for the students

of USC, the University of South Carolina and the university’s housing department. Students have

continued to accept higher housing rates in Columbia because of their dedication to USC but it is

not fair. Just because the price of housing is the rate is high that does not mean it should stay

there. Everyone deserves to have the ability to get a four year degree without having to commit

to a massive financial burden. Rawls proposes, “to share one another’s fate and to avail of the

accidents of nature and social circumstances only when doing so for the common benefit (Rawls

166). The issue is not going to go away. The average amount of student debt has been increasing

over the last ten years as well as the price of housing. It is detrimental to start caring about this
 Fineco 9

now or the next generation of students will be working their entire lives to try and pay off their

student debt.

Revision Memo: I spent a lot of time reorganizing my paper and trying to make it easier

to understand. I reorganized my paper in to three major claims and rewrote my thesis to reflect

that. Those three claims are that USC should provide more affordable housing, more financial

literacy education should be provided and that USC should be more involved in students search

for off-campus housing. I organized them in the parts of an argument that we went over in class.

I first tried to make the claim followed by grounds, warrant, and what a possible rebuttal would

be. I then also corrected grammatically mistakes and rephrased some sentences. I found a few

cases of passive voice that I changed. I also restructured my introduction to make it more seem

more organized. I also included a bit more research on the University of South Carolina’s

mission statement, the retention of students and on the sociology behind education. I also tried to

make the ethical stance for clear and tried to incorporate more of Ralws ideas on fairness.