What's in a (scholar's) name?

The Columbia Undergraduate Scholars Program’s website says that this program “aims to foster the intellectual, social, and cultural growth essential to leadership in our highly specialized and culturally diverse world.” While this may have been the goal toward which CUSP was founded five years ago, most Columbia students probably would not use this semantically opaque phrase to describe CUSP, because most do not know what CUSP is, what it is supposed to accomplish, and certainly not what it actually does. We ourselves cannot say whether CUSP is doing a good or bad job, and this speaks to the biggest issue: The program, which allegedly fosters leadership at Columbia, is caked with misconception and shrouded in mystery. We cannot say that it achieves its aims, but there is plenty that needs to be said about CUSP.

Every admitted student is eligible to be a Scholar. Through a subjective evaluation, roughly 10 percent of the incoming class is hailed as sufficiently elite to be admitted to CUSP, which comprises three programs: John Jay, Kluge, and Davis (for engineering students). The Global Scholars Program, which was meant to foster diversity, has been collapsed into the John Jay program, though it is characteristically unclear what this means for admission and expectations. These students are told that they are the best of the best, the true leaders of this school.

But where is the show of this leadership? How can the Scholars call themselves or be called leaders if they do not actually interact with their peers in any such capacity? During their first year, the Scholars are required to attend events around the city, and from sophomore year on, participation is based on interest. CUSP has its own student council—the CUSP Alliance—and its students take part in such activities as community service in the city and raising money for a school in Nepal. To be sure, these are laudable pursuits. But doing community service elsewhere in New York does not necessarily make one a leader at Columbia (particularly if nobody knows what a Scholar is, that Scholars are supposed to be leaders, or how this program facilitates, encourages, or demands either service or leadership). From our perspective (and, admittedly, no member of the editorial board is a Scholar), this is a bit confusing—how can a program be built on pillars of “leadership” and “engagement” if its members neither lead nor engage with this campus? But from the perspective of many of the Scholars, it’s frustrating. While some do love the program, others wonder why they are forced to go to random events that don’t have anything to do with Columbia.

This calls into question what, exactly, the purpose of CUSP is. There is no separate application process, and students seem to be accepted based on how well being a Scholar would enhance their experiences and not how they, in turn, would use acceptance to CUSP to engage with Columbia. Furthermore, though its four pillars are “lead, engage, excel, inspire,” CUSP is insulated from the rest of campus, and the fact that its list of partners and collaborators includes the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and the Columbia Business School does little to persuade one otherwise. In theory, such a unique opportunity should be extended to students that are fully committed to the program’s goals and will use CUSP’s resources to enhance their knowledge and contribute to their community. This is lost on students that are granted the title upon admission and then never pay another visit to the CUSP office after their first year. Although there will always be some students that are more involved than others, there is no reason that some Scholars should consider CUSP a negligible part of their time at Columbia.

University President Lee Bollinger explained that, to him, CUSP has a purpose because a family’s wealth should not determine educational opportunities. This is fine, but not all Scholars are from low-income families, and the financial component of CUSP is one of the most suspect. Columbia Admissions makes it quite clear that there is no merit-based aid given at Columbia. However, the CUSP website informs inquiring minds that “while participating in the Program may help you with your financial aid needs, all Scholars’ aid packages are determined on a case by case basis.” That this is all the aid information made available on a website with seven paragraphs and 25 testimonials dedicated to describing the greatness of the program is disheartening. So, too, is the fact that it is unclear whether Scholars who qualify for financial aid get more aid by being Scholars, which would be something of a subversion of the concept of “need-based aid.” This says nothing of the notion that some individuals seem to think that admission to CUSP is a way to lure regular-decision prospective students to Columbia.

The lack of information made available about the financial facet of CUSP is characteristic of the general confusion, rumor, and uncertainty with which CUSP cloaks itself. Our original inquiry to CUSP director Lavinia Lorch was made on March 1. This editorial is running on April 26, so it was clearly very difficult to get even the most basic information about the program. Considering that CUSP is not (officially) a secret society, there is a tremendous lack of transparency from representatives of the program, and the vague language on the outdated website doesn’t help.

It is entirely possible that there are simple answers to the above questions, or that there are specific sources for particular problems. That is understandable. What is neither understandable nor acceptable is the absence of openness and honesty. This is a young program, and one that can still be re-evaluated and improved. Nobody expected this program to be created without imperfections, but if that re-evaluation and improvement is not already underway, it should be seriously considered. Unlike CUSP, we are not in the habit of hiding our meaning behind indiscernible syntax—the substance of CUSP and the evasion of discussion thereof is inherently flawed. Naming four pillars and actually building an institution upon them are two completely different tasks, and CUSP would do well to consider which it is more interested in doing.