Housing Appeal: With Love, ResLife

It’s Friday afternoon, and life couldn’t be more perfect. Classes are finished for the week, homework is the last thing on your mind, and you can’t stop texting your friends about fun weekend plans. But, for some reason, you decide to check your email, which quickly becomes the worst mistake ever. Waiting in your inbox is an email with the subject line “HOUSING APPEAL UPDATE” in big scary letters.

Despite the initial fear, you assume the best and feel optimistic. I know this might be naive, but if you’re like me, then you probably poured your heart and soul into that appeal. You wrote about all the reasons why living off campus would be impractical for you—from the daunting price of groceries and other necessities to the cost of gas and whatever potential car repairs may come up. You made it very clear that it would be unsustainable for you in every possible way, supporting all your claims with legitimate reasons. Drafting my own appeal, I wrote about how my earnings from last year’s internships were used for this year’s tuition, meaning renting an apartment is simply not possible. Especially with my plans of spending the summer taking classes rather than working my usual two to three jobs, I just can not afford the off-campus housing scramble. As you might imagine, I first felt disbelief after opening that email to find a rejection. I had heard other students got their appeals accepted in the past— specifically in one of the transfer panels I attended while touring Boston College. It was a common theme. As a transfer, you’re only given one year of on-campus housing if you transferred in the fall and one semester if you transferred in the spring of your sophomore year. That limited time frame makes it extremely difficult to find a friend group, let alone one that you’re comfortable enough to rent with. So, it made perfect sense to me that transfers would be more likely to get their appeals accepted.

This is why I descended into a state of panic—one that overshadowed whatever plans I had for the weekend—when I saw the email. I couldn’t stop thinking about how my college experience was over before it even started. To me, the first year as a transfer is full of trial and error, and the second year, when things become more stable, is when life can finally begin. It’s difficult for me to imagine feeling fully connected to campus and friends without that junior-year on-campus housing opportunity.

When you’re living off campus, you’re less likely to go out of the way for club meetings on the weekends or sports games scheduled after class. It’s no longer a matter of stepping out of your dorm and simply walking to wherever you want to go. Instead, it’s a matter of walking or driving from whatever far-away place you managed to rent and then figuring out if it’s worth the extra time to go to those events anyway. Living off campus in just my second year at BC feels undoubtedly negative to me. It’s difficult to find positives when you are as blatantly rejected as I was.

There is no doubt in my mind that BC should change its housing policies. Transfers have enough struggles without having to worry about finding off-campus housing within eight months of their arrival.

But as the days since I received that email have passed, I’ve slowly started to accept it. Although dorm living definitely has its perks, like being constantly surrounded by friends, it can feel draining at times. When you have to walk around forever to find a private place to talk on the phone or awkwardly have your room checked by ResLife in the middle of the day, it takes its toll.

Though it is inevitable that I’ll see college through a different lens with off-campus living, it does not mean I’ll be unhappy because of it or … maybe it does, who knows? But the fact is that it’s the next step in my life—even if it is coming sooner than anticipated. Despite the financial and friendship worries, I know I can figure it out. This may be for the better or this may be for the worse, but that is something only the future will know. And while I can’t control BC’s housing policy, I can approach next year with an open mind.

But despite my grand run-in with acceptance, I have learned one concrete lesson: never, ever check your email on a Friday afternoon.

BC Housing = Chaos

One week of housing down and one to go! And suddenly, it feels like we are experiencing a swarm of overcrowded oncampus housing. Feelings of disappointment are spreading from seniors who missed out on coveted Mods, juniors destined for Stayer or 90, and sophomores headed for CoRo doubles. It feels like nothing can help the housing dilemma—no matter the first letter of your housing group leader’s name or how many A’s you add to your housing group title. So hold on tight to your direct roommate and brace yourself. This housing season may be a rough ride.

The Tipping Point

With eight weeks of the semester gone and only seven to go, we are officially on the downward slide toward finals. As the assignments pile up, we are starting to feel the stress of the post–Spring Break long haul. But with days off and long weekends to look forward to, we at Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down are confident students can survive this time with flying colors. Over the next few weeks, try your best to keep balance in mind: eat, breathe, sleep, laugh, and do your work in shifts. It’s going to be ok!

The State of the Union is an opportunity for the sitting president to exercise the power of the “bully pulpit.” It is a chance to speak to all the power holders of Washington and the American people, and it is the perfect setting for presidents to share their agendas. In recent years, however, many opposition leaders from both parties have used the address as an opportunity to protest the sitting president. Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi infamously ripped up former President Donald Trump’s speech in 2020, and Marjorie Taylor Greene loudly heckled President Joe Biden at this year’s address. Outbursts like these were considered an offense worthy of official reprimand as recent as 2009. Now, it has become a familiar or even expected event on Capitol Hill.

In this year’s State of the Union, the arguably most-remembered moment was President Biden’s “rope-a-dope.” Biden suggested that some members of the GOP wanted to sunset Social Security and Medicare. When most Republicans shouted back, he essentially goaded them into admitting the GOP would not threaten either program in the 118th Congress. Democrats saw Biden “baiting” Republicans into defending social security as a win, but the GOP didn’t care much—Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy had already stated that cutting Social Security would not be on the table during debt ceiling negotiations in the weeks prior to the address. Still, given his immense trouble handling rebellious

Republican representatives, McCarthy should know better than anyone that the speaker does not hold unilateral authority over his caucus.

Social Security is the broad name given to various forms of social welfare that support people ranging from elderly retirees to individuals with disabilities to family members of a deceased spouse or parent. The most wellknown program is for retirees. The program is funded by a tax out of an employees and employers paycheck that goes into a trust fund. Current retirees then receive a monthly check based off how much they paid into the system while they were working. Upon its inception, Social Security massively reduced elderly poverty without major reductions to household incomes, and it continues to provide necessary aid to impoverished seniors.

Although the GOP’s supposed party line supports Social Security, there are many Republicans in both houses of Congress who see Social Security as a prime target in their policy agenda. An old video of Sen. Mike Lee of Utah went viral recently, where he said he wants to “pull it up by the roots.” Majority Leader Steve Scalise released a budget just a few months ago that would raise the Social Security retirement age, Sen. John Thune believed that threatening social security could be used as “leverage” against Democrats, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in 2018 that Social Security can be cut in the interest of reducing the deficit. Out of all congressmen, however, Social Security advocates have hammered Sen. Rick Scott the most for wanting to end the program— an allegation that he denies. In the senator’s defense, he never did say that he wanted to end Social Security specifically. Instead, he went further and actually wanted to sunset all federal programs. And, to his credit, he did eventually backtrack after the State of the Union and specifically exempted Social

Security and Medicare from his sunsetting plan. If you are surprised that threats to Social Security have been in the news recently, don’t be. This is nothing new. The GOP has been gunning for Social Security since the President George W. Bush years, and it nearly succeeded in cutting the program heavily during President Barack Obama’s administration. Though Bush revisionists would like you to forget, following the 2004 election Bush declared he had a popular mandate and would advocate for Social Security privatization. Setting aside Bush’s generous definition of what counts as a “mandate,” his privatization idea was wildly unpopular. Then, in 2008, Republican presidential nominee John McCain shared vague notions of workers using personal “accounts” to supplement Social Security, which he swore was not just another way of saying privatization.

Then there was the “grand bargain” of 2011–12, a failed compromise between then-President Obama and then–House Speaker John Boehner that would have involved massive cuts to Social Security, Medi- care, and Medicaid, in addition to tax raises. The deal ultimately fell through—progressives would not accept the entitlement cuts and hard-right Republicans refused to raise taxes on top income earners. This shows you the GOP’s priorities.

No one should be fooled about the GOP’s history with Social Security. Cutting it or reducing it has been a clear goal for a good portion of the party—ranging from major senators to even the president—for over 20 years. If Social Security is to remain alive, we must maintain pressure on our politicians. For example, we can donate to and vote for candidates that will defend this critical program. Biden, who negotiated the grand bargain when he was vice president, currently defends Social Security. Even Scott was compelled to change when he was put under pressure. Social Security provides for the livelihoods of millions of people every year. To preserve it, we must ensure that our politicians understand why the program has been settled law for years.

In 1993, Microsoft founder and tech revolutionary Bill Gates was asked about the World Wide Web. He responded by saying, “The internet? We are not interested in it.”

Human beings, even uber-successful entrepreneurs like Gates, have a tendency to first reject and denigrate new technologies that eventually reap tremendous benefits. Artificial intelligence (AI) is one such powerful technology. Just like the internet, computers, television, and telephones before it, AI has untapped potential to change our lives for the better—no matter how much we resist it at first.

So if Boston College wants students to be prepared for an ever-shifting job market and world, it needs to implement AI in its curriculum and not reject the technology outright.

While my intention is to encourage BC to implement AI education, I cannot diminish or understate the threats that AI may pose to society. The disruption of the job market could pale in comparison to other potential harms of AI. From AI weaponization to political manipulation, we are bound to face serious ethical dilemmas. But by creating new classes with a focus on the ethical and societal implications of AI and integrating AI programs into current classes, BC has the opportunity to prepare students to face these issues imminent in our future.

To learn more about the implications of AI in both an educational and larger societal setting, I talked with Brian Smith of the Lynch School of Education and Human Development, who is an expert in computational learning environments and human-computer interaction. I asked him about BC faculty’s current attitude toward ChatGPT and other AI technology.

In simple terms, ChatGPT is a new AI chatbot that OpenAI made freely accessible online. It has recently made waves in the news because it can produce original responses to essentially any questions a user asks. The weirdest part? Oftentimes, it writes in a tone that is very difficult to distinguish from a human’s. It learned to communicate this way by “training”—collecting and analyzing—significant amounts of human data. This has sparked concerns about plagiarism and academic integrity, as ChatGPT can find homework answers and complete writing assignments with ease.

Smith said that many faculty members feel threatened by the serious risks ChatGPT and equivalent programs pose to academic integrity. Still, he said that many faculty members understand AI is here to stay, and they have more of a “what do we do with it?” mentality. Due to the easy accessibility of AI tools like ChatGPT, I argue that this “what do we do with it?” question is a crucial one.

In reality, we can already do an incredible amount with AI.

Smith pointed out that he had just been using Grammarly to proofread his writing.

Just like how ChatGPT uses AI to automate responses, Grammarly (which has been popular for years) uses AI to analyze user’s provided writing and make grammatical suggestions based on vast amounts of language data. Smith also pointed out that AI algorithms are built into our phones and apps more than we realize. Tech tools ranging from iMessage suggestions to Spotify recommendations have all been powered by AI for years, and they continue to serve practical uses in our daily lives. By the end of my interview, I realized the app I used to transcribe our meeting—Otter.ai—is powered by AI.

The point is that AI already surrounds us. ChatGPT is just another step forward for AI that shows us how useful it can be.

So, how can AI help improve our education? Researchers have already outlined some of the most valuable applications of AI in education that can be implemented in the near future.

The first thing AI can do to improve the education of millions is generate neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) for foreign language practice. The potential for AI in this kind of language learning is fantastic. NLP trains text-to-speech bots to engage in conversation with humans to practice in foreign languages where it may otherwise be difficult to find a speaking partner. It also eliminates the challenge and risk of messing up and embarrassing oneself, which deters many language-learning beginners.

AI can also objectively detect a learner’sstrengths and weaknesses and develop personalized learning strategies to help them improve. For example, when studying calculus, AI can evaluate that a student struggles with integrals but is good with derivatives. From there, it can give specific steps or problems to help them learn integrals and focus less on derivatives.

While a bit more controversial, AI can also help detect emotions when given access to brain signals (a little dystopian, I know). From here, AI can provide personalized strategies and instruction based on how a student reacts to certain learning stimuli, potentially offering students more efficient time management and study strategies.

These are the many ways that AI could benefit students, but teachers can also benefit—AI can grade papers and tests equitably and efficiently.

Because BC heavily emphasizes a holistic education that incorporates theology and philosophy, educating students on both the benefits and ethical drawbacks of AI can foster great discussions and debate.

At this point, it could be easy to have the 1993 Bill Gates mentality of “it doesn’t interest us.” But, if BC wants to graduate students ready for the future, it would be doing a disservice to students to not incorporate more AI into our education. BC can use AI to expand language learning, for example. BC can also introduce more AI-related curriculum in the philosophy and law departments to explore difficult ethical dilemmas.

In 20 years, the “AI question” will not be whether or not to use the technology. Rather, it will surround how we can use it to benefit our society while also mitigating its damaging potential. Starting that conversation sooner rather than later is how we can best serve students and society.