Last December, I found myself in a conference room on the top floor of a high-rise in a major eastern city, waiting to be interviewed for a scholarship. While I waited nervously, I skimmed through a book containing the biographies of past winners. The biographies were listed chronologically.

I immediately noticed two things: first, that big ties, and big lapels and big hair seem to be on a general downward trend. Second, the number of scholarships awarded was also subject to trends. In the 1960s and early ’70s, for instance, the number of scholarships doubled, then tripled. However, during the economic crisis of the late ’70s, when the U.S. saw high inflation and low productivity growth, zero scholarships were awarded. Zero. Since the Reagan years, except for a brief decline in 1992, scholarships rose or remain constant.

That is, until this year.

A few weeks earlier I had received a letter bearing the following news:

“I am sure that you are acutely aware of the turmoil in the financial markets and the impact it is having on endowments and related investments. Unfortunately, the Foundation is not immune from these market forces…”

Due to the economic crisis, the committee could only award one scholarship this year. Better than 1979, but still, it’s just my luck to interview during one of the largest financial crises in history.

The economic tumult made for stirring interview conversation though. Upon seeing I was interested in economics, I was asked by one of the trustees to “explain how I would solve the economic crisis.”

I guess maybe they weren’t Keynesians … Despite outlining what I deemed a complete, compelling and foolproof plan for economic recovery, I was only an alternate for the scholarship. The point, however, is that had this been a year of high economic growth, I probably would have received the money, a value of approximately sixty thousand dollars. This experience has only made me realize even more how important the economy is in our lives.

In one way or another, the recent economic crisis has had an impact on the welfare of all of us. Our University, which recently celebrated double-digit returns on its endowment, is now finding itself in a crisis that has forced across-the-board cuts, a hiring pause and moratoriums on construction and new student groups. Next year’s international students will have a hard time getting loans, and this year’s graduating seniors certainly aren’t getting wined and dined by Lehman Brothers.

Those in the recession-wracked cities that President Obama visited last week have been hit even worse. Unemployment and housing foreclosures are afflicting many, while people of retirement age have lost the security and comfort they have worked hard to save their entire lives.

In short, the economy is pervasive. And although President Obama has stated that “economists from across the political spectrum agree” on the need for a bail-out, the reality is that nobody agrees on how to remedy the crisis.

Two weeks ago, a letter opposing the bail-out appeared in major print media outlets, signed by hundreds of major economists, including Cornell Professors Richard Burkhauser, Rick Geddes, Nicholas Kiefer and Dean Lillard. On the other hand, 2008 Nobel Prize Winner in economics Paul Krugman proselytizes twice a week for The New York Times, espousing exactly the opposite view. He believes the proposed bail-out is not big enough. According to Krugman, the current bailout amounts to merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Will the bailout just pass the buck (literally) onto our generation? Are the fundamentals of our economy strong? Should the government stimulate consumer demand? Should we increase unemployment insurance? Instead, should the government just provide jobs to the unemployed? Should we bail-out the auto industry? Should we nationalize the banks?

But how about me? Should we bail me out?

Although the bail-out provides some money to the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health for research purposes, it largely ignores postgraduate study. Clearly, as part of a group affected by the economic crisis — someone seeking to go to graduate school — I would like a piece of the pie. Does the government have an obligation to help finance my graduate studies?

On one hand, pouring money into education via scholarships and funds for graduate research could help ensure a brighter tomorrow, considering that our generation’s research should help benefit the country in the future. With every scholarship lost, so goes the potential benefit to society. On the other hand, my government-provided scholarship would add to the debt taxpayers eventually need to pay back. How do we determine whether the net benefit is positive or negative?

Now apply this same formula to all the other areas affected by the economic crisis, add them up, factor in that some priorities are bigger than others (like the banking sector), add a dash of politics, and you get something that looks like the quarrel of the day.

I don’t know the answers, but this Thursday at The Sun sponsored panel on the economy, is a good place to start asking questions.

Like everybody else affected by the crisis, we as college students have a stake. Whether you go on to work next year or go to graduate school, you will likely still fall under the crisis’ dark shadow. In the end, it is our generation that is ultimately going to have to clean up the mess. It is our generation that is going to have to pay for the policy mistakes our leaders make right now, whether through a lower standard of living, higher taxes or both. We should seek to know, as much as possible, what they are getting us into.

The author is moderating a panel discussion today about the economy sponsored by The Sun, featuring Profs. George Boyer and Jay Wellman, which may be viewed online at www.CornellSun.com.