We all seem to know the value of money, but it’s not everyday that we take the time to sit down and really think about the influence that money has on society. When we think of the power that money possesses, we think about how the more we have of it, the more luxuries we have or can afford. We often get caught up in relating this luxury to material items. We don’t think about lifestyle. We don’t articulate how money controls someone’s entire life. It’s much too hard to actually grasp the idea that a 3 by 7 inch piece of thin, special paper has the power and influence to start a war, bring about economic depression, and tear apart families. People work their asses off day in and day out, missing out on important family events and emotional life opportunities, not because they necessarily have a real passion for what they are doing, but because they need money to support their lifestyle and to gain credibility.
While this concept may be hard for us to grasp because we still have yet to really experience the harsh reality of money, there actually have been instances in which the power of money has directly effected us. For example, the number of out-of-state student being admitted into universities aren’t skyrocketing for no apparent reason. The increase in out-of-state student admissions is a direct result of the exorbitant tuition they pay. While admission officers dress-up their reasons for recruiting out-of-staters by claiming diversity is important, the truth is university officials privately acknowledge the integral role that out-of-state tuition plays in the long run. When out-of-staters pay double, if not more, than an instate tuition student it should come as no surprise as to why universities have strategized towards choosing more out-of-state students, especially given the current economic downturn. In theory, this new admissions tactic can be sen as strategic because it readily creates bigger profit, but it has harsh consequences on both in-staters and out-of-staters.
Based on past statistics, in-state residents expect to be accepted into their state school. So, they are frustrated when they receive the same scores and grades as out of state applicants, but can’t get in. As a result, in-staters are thus forced to pay an expensive price to go either out of state or attend a private school in order to receive the same level of education. For non-residents, though their chances of getting into an out of state school has increased, they have to spend a lot of money to receive the same quality of education that a resident would have access to.
This brings up an important question in relation to what we have learned in class in regards to fairness. Is it fair for the college admissions boards to accept more out-of-state students because it helps to improve revenue for the state itself in order to improve the school’s economy? Does this reason even justify such actions? And is this a form of inequality? From our lecture on Justice as Fairness (11/17/11), the distributive institutions state that social and economic inequalities be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
With the help of these two institutions I was able to form my own opinions on this controversy.To me, fair equality of opportunity in this case means that each person deserves the same chance to get into a public university despite residential boundaries. So, even though university admissions take grades, essays, and extracurricular activities into account when accepting students, the fact that they have the fiscal budget in the back of their mind when making decisions provides a bias within the system. Also, the difference principle states that social and economic inequalities are to be the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. In this situation this is not case, as residential students are placed at a lower economic status than non-residents. It is instead that non-residents are at an advantage because they provide the university with greater economic benefit. Therefore, with the goal of generating revenue in mind, admission offices see this as a perfect way to better the budget. Though I suppose this idea is justified for it allows the university to reach its budget goals, it goes against the idea of fairness, which internally can cause those in-staters’ morales to go down when they denied admissions.
What does this teach us? Some could say that all this time we have spent the past 12+ years thinking that grades, test scores and knowledge would allow us to at least get into a desired university. Perhaps that was the best excuse our parents and teachers had when it came to motivating us to succeed. These adults have been in our shoes, they already know that in the end we could be the smartest person in the world and it could mean barely anything when it came to making something of ourselves without a fat check supporting us. But, instead of corrupting our innocence, these father figures put us through the agonizing years of stress and needless work just so we can figure this harshness of reality on our own. But then again, without such disciplined motivation, where would we be in life?
What it comes down to, unfortunately, is that the money has the power to create outcomes that lead to success. Therefore, people who lack money or don’t provide as much revenue to the institution are automatically at a disadvantage because they don’t bestow the greatest financial benefit to society. However, the only thing that can overpower the influence of money is the motivation to do something extraordinary. This motivation comes from the dedication we had during those 12+ years that we spent preparing for our futures. It took us so long to realize that money is really what matters, so we use what we already know to fulfill our need to succeed. And, as a result, most of us are able to rely on our own success rather than the success money brings, which inevitably provides for the best internal benefit in the end.
There is the story of a preacher who got up one Sunday and announced to his congregation: “I have good news and bad news. The good news is, we have enough money to pay for our new building program. The bad news is, it’s still out there in your pockets.”
So most, if not everything is related to money, so why is money seen as the root of all evil, and worse, love is dragged into this biology of who’s the root and who’s the stem. But first, the phrase “money is the root of all evil” is one of the most misused one in history.
I agree to a large extent that the love of money is not the root of evil. Money is just a value to measure things. People in the olden days at first used items with the same value to buy something. This progressed into using seashells to buy items. The methods mentioned are also like money, but they were not called money. Even if the system of money was abolished, theft would still be possible; contract killing would still be possible. This is because of other stuff like gold and silver. They are also money. Money itself is divided in to fiat (which is the paper money) and commodity money. So whether you like it or not, a civilized society cannot function without money.
Money is a tool of exchange, which cannot exist unless there are goods and men to produce them. It is based on the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must do so via trade and give value for value. So isn’t the love for it what you call evil?
DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.
More from The Times of India
Recommended By Colombia
More from The Times of India
Recommended By Colombia