Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe, senior chemistry and communication major, describes a chaotic two days in Peru before her trip was cut short and she was obliged to either return to the United States or risk being stranded for an indefinite amount of time. 

On March 12 I departed Kansas City for Lima, Peru on the trip of a lifetime to conduct research on electricity access in rural communities. This project was both the culmination of nearly three years of research I have completed in the field of electrification – the first two years through research for my chemistry major and the third through an independent study in business – and my Journey Grant. 

I spent months preparing for this trip – developing relationships with contacts on the ground, training for the high altitude villages I would be spending time in and learning absolutely everything I could about electricity access throughout Latin America. 

Yet when the day of my departure arrived, I was nervous. 

On the eve of my flight the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus to be a pandemic and, seemingly in response, President Trump announced a new policy barring individuals from European countries to travel to the United States. 

I took these announcements seriously, but I was healthy, and I judged the risks of my trip to be minimal. At the time there were only five known cases of the virus in Peru, and each of these was far from where I would be staying. I had no idea how quickly things would change. 

Things were seemingly fine when I boarded my flight. Yet during the approximately 12 hours that I was traveling – and offline – chaos erupted. When my flight touched down in Lima we were told that “new regulations” had been implemented “a few hours ago.” Without explanation we were whisked off the plane and greeted by a crowd of individuals covered from head to toe in personal protective equipment (PPE) who promptly recorded the temperatures of every person departing the plane. 

It wasn’t until after this experience that I managed to reconnect to Wi-Fi and learned that in the time I was on the flight a state of emergency had been issued over Kansas City, several countries around the world had closed their borders and the number of recorded COVID-19 cases and deaths had increased dramatically. 

Despite the news, after exiting the airport things were eerily normal. The streets were busy and people were calm, there was not a single mask in sight. However, the next day when I began exploring Lima it became clear that people were concerned about the threat of the coronavirus. Many of the touristic areas were empty and store owners expressed concerns about rapidly decreasing sales volumes. 

On my second day in Peru I heard rumors that the airports were going to close in 30 hours. Though I couldn’t find anything official to corroborate these claims, locals I interacted with were warning me that if I didn’t leave soon I could get stuck in Lima – according to their friend’s cousin’s brother who works at the airport and was told to prepare for a few months of unemployment. 

At first I dismissed these rumors, but after hearing the same claim a dozen times from a dozen different people I started to believe that there might be some truth to them. The next morning I was scheduled to fly to Cusco and meet a guide who would travel with me to several rural communities on, and around, Machu Picchu. I decided to catch that flight and hear from that guide before deciding whether to return to the United States or continue with my trip.

However, the pandemonium increased overnight. When I arrived back at Lima airport it was apparent that people were panicked, and I could see large groups of airline staff in full PPE outfits walking through every terminal. 

I called my travel agent who advised me to be cautious but agreed that I could go to Cusco and reevaluate the situation from there. I had a bad feeling but went through security and boarded the flight regardless. After sitting on the tarmac for 40 minutes we received word that the flight had been canceled, much like many other domestic flights that day.  

Again I called my travel agent, unsure whether to reboard onto the new flight we were being offered later that day. Frantically she advised me that if I wanted to leave Peru I would have to do it “NOW.” Every single flight before the rumored airport closures was filling up, and the opportunity to return to the states was rapidly shrinking. 

I was shocked, I had no idea how quickly the situation would devolve, but I was also very fortunate to have a travel agent who was diligently monitoring the flights available for me. With a lot of luck I was able to secure the second-to-last available seat on the last flight out of Peru that evening. 

I spent my final few hours on the ground exploring downtown Lima, and was struck by how quickly the city seemed to be emptying out. When I returned to the airport that evening it was startling how many people seemed to be desperately trying to leave Peru. The lines to check-in for flights were extending out of the doors, and people were frantically scrambling to be the first in the queue at the ticketing counters. Luckily I boarded my flight without any issues. 

Within a few hours of my flight departing the Peruvian government announced that all flights in, and out, of the country would be immediately halted, and domestic travel would be greatly restricted. Dozens of families were stranded, including tourists from Ireland and Japan, and the United States is currently sparring with the national government over repatriation flights. 

If I had not secured a seat on the flight that I did, it is unlikely I would have been able to return from Peru for at least several weeks. 

At the end of the day, I was extremely lucky. I was able to leave and I had a safe place to return to. I am immensely grateful for those things, but at the same time I am filled with regret for the people I left behind. The rural communities I was set to conduct research in are extremely reliant on income from tourism, and the loss of revenue they are facing will be devastating. 

The work that I was doing was in a genuine effort to help communities which do not share in the luxuries we – in more developed nations – largely take for granted, like electricity. And yet, ironically, it was that same privilege that allowed me leave while so many others were forced to stay. 

This pandemic is exposing vast inequities in our institutional structures, internationally and domestically. I hope we use this time to reevaluate these systems and, when this is all over, we are able to establish new normals and rebuild our societies to be more fair, even and equitable for every person in every place.

Mikaela Papageorgiou, senior non-profit leadership and communication double major, has wanted to use her journey grant to visit Thailand for a while now. 

“It had been a dream of mine to go to Thailand ever since freshman year of college, just learning more and more about it and the different nonprofits that were over there, so I really wanted to go there for my journey grant,” Papageorgiou told the Hilltop Monitor

This summer, she got the chance to make that dream a reality. 

As a non-profit major, Papageorgiou wanted to not only serve non-profits, but to make sure that she was doing so in a sustainable way.

 “I started researching programs and programs that seemed to be healthy for the economies that weren’t just like white savior, volunteerism kind of companies,” said Papageorgiou. 

Papageorgiou settled on Operation Groundswell, a Canadian non-profit focused on ethical backpacking. After an application and interview process – plus the process of getting her journey grant approved – Papageorgiou was ready to set out on her two- month Thailand adventure. 

While in Thailand, Papageorgiou worked with four different non-profits related to organic farming. 

“I worked with a French architect who was creating green space in Bangkok, and he’s making living structures out of fig trees, he’s like trying to do that as a demo, like no one’s ever done it before,” said Papageorgiou. 

Other non-profits she worked with included an organic permaculture farm focused on sustainability and the Mirror Foundation, where she planted rice patties. 

The Hilltop Monitor asked Papageorgiou what she saw as the benefits of studying non-profit leadership at William Jewell College. 

“I’m already seeing the benefits of having a basic structure of knowing the inner workings of a non profit can set you apart in the field from the get-go,” said Papageorgiou. 

Papageorgiou mentioned that one non-profit leader did not know the nonprofit’s mission statement, which she considers to be extremely important when working with vulnerable populations. The non-profit training that Jewell offers can help graduates be better equipped to help these populations right out of school.

Papageorgiou considers human connection to be one of the most rewarding aspects of travel. She encourages travelers and volunteers to talk to the people that they meet and try to learn from them in order to have the best possible experience. 

She learned not to assume that she wouldn’t have anything in common with new people. Even when the people she was volunteering with didn’t speak English, Papageorgiou found ways to connect. 

“A group of people didn’t speak any English, but we were all listening to Spotify together and they loved The 1975, so we bonded over that,” said Papageorgiou.

Papageorgiou’s trip to Thailand was not without challenges. At one non-profit, she ended up teaching kids of a wide variety of ages and learning levels who did not speak English.

“The teachers didn’t speak any English either and we also didn’t want to step on the teachers’ toes by thinking we knew more than the teachers,” said Papageorgiou. “That was one of the hardest things I think I’ve ever done, because I wanted to make sure everything was being done ethically.”

Ethical travel is extremely important to Papageorgiou.

It’s hard, because I love traveling, but I feel like the more I travel the more I’m seeing the impact it has on the environment,” said Papageorgiou. “ I know with planes, they have a huge carbon effect, but that being said I think when you travel you make the world feel smaller and smaller which is great, like people can learn from each other and a lot of hope can be spread.” 

Operation Groundswell is very conscious about combating the negative environmental impact of travel. 

“For each volunteer they send somewhere, they plant the amount of trees that will offset their travel,” said Papageorigou. “We walked a lot and tried not to rent cars, we tried to bike just so we weren’t adding to the emissions in Thailand, but it was kind of inevitable at certain points.”

The volunteers also brought their own reusable shopping bags.

“It’s  a very plastic-heavy country, as is the US, but with food and vendors they often triple bag things so we would just make sure to bring our own bags,” said Papageorigou. 

She also learned some sustainability tips from the farmers she worked with.  

“You used everything, like I didn’t know you could use the outside of the garlic cloves that you usually crack into and then throw away,” said Papageorgiou. “You can cook with that, you can use every single piece of vegetables, which was really cool.”

Papageorgiou tried banana flowers, which are used as a meat alternative. She said they were delicious. In fact, the food was one of her favorite aspects of her trip.

“Food, food there is so amazing. I had Michelin star food from a stall,” said Papageorgiou. “And the food is for the people, it’s not like an elitist kind of thing, so that was just wonderful.” 

She also notes safety as one of her favorite things about Thailand.

“I felt safer in Thailand than I do in the United States. I never once was catcalled or anything in Thailand walking the streets in Bangkok by myself,” said Papageorigou. “Which I was shocked [by], because everyone had said the opposite was going to happen, so that was cool. It made me feel empowered to travel alone as a woman.”

Papageorgiou does love to travel, but she grapples with the environmental impacts as she strives to live more sustainably.

“The program there had us write down every resource we used in our day-to-day lives to see how many Earths we would need, and I needed 6 and a half earths, and I was one of the lower amounts,” said Papageorgiou. “The farm we were on, the family, needed 1½ Earths because they fly twice a year, and that’s why they needed that extra ½ Earth. But other than that, they don’t have electricity, they don’t have fridges, they don’t have washing machines or anything, and they only needed one Earth.”

The family’s carbon footprint was so small because they do not use electricity. She thinks we all need to work to live more like the families she met during her trip.

“It just goes to show how much we need to dial back on what we’re doing,” said Papageorgiou. “We all need to do our part in making things better, because they are doing so much.”

However, she says the family does not think everyone needs to give up electricity. There are things we can all do to make our lifestyles more sustainable.

“They were so adamant that everyone can do their part. They were like even though we live this way, we aren’t doing anything better than you guys are,” Papageorgiou said. “We can still do just as much in our own lives.”

Journey Grants – a William Jewell College specific grant that offers students a chance to complete a unique learning opportunity funded by the institution – are widely celebrated throughout the College. However, recently the program has been the cause of much controversy on campus due to changes made in the past year.

The Grants were made more competitive this year and significantly more applicants were denied as a result.

Many reasons, primarily budget cuts, factored into the changes that made Journey Grants a more competitive process than in years past. The heightened competitiveness of the Grant application and acceptance process angered many students – especially as students’ prevailing understanding of Journey Grants was that they were essentially guaranteed as part of the Jewell experience.

Nick Hartwig, senior chemistry major, and Colton Johnson, junior business administration, accounting and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry (ACT-In) major, applied for Journey Grants in the most recent round of applications. Their trip proposal entailed visiting and studying WWII, more specifically Holocaust, sites across Europe. The pair requested the standard $2,000 amount and made their proposal in conjunction with an advisor and frequent visits with Sara Round, director of global studies and Journey Grants. Their proposal was rejected.

“We took a month to write and figure this out,” said Johnson. “I was promised it.”

“I’d say we put in about 25-30 hours with creating an itinerary and writing and everything. It was a long time that we put into this because we felt that we could benefit from it,” added Hartwig. “We were both promised it because before we had gotten here, the Journey Grant was not competitive.”

That notion, that the Grant is guaranteed to every student, is one that confuses administration. The official literature on Journey Grants does not say that the Grants are guaranteed, nor does it specifically say they are competitive. The public webpage for Jewell Journey Grants says that students can apply – denoting that, because an application is required, they are competitive.

“We’ve always had an application process. For me, having an application process signals something. If it were guaranteed why would we even have an application process? Why would we form a decision-making body that’s looked at those applications?” said Dr. Anne Dema, provost of the College.

The 2018-2019 Jewell Journey Grant Program Guide, found on an open Moodle page students interested in the Grants can join, states that students are eligible to apply for a grant and list the requirements for applications.

The Wikipedia page about the College, however, states that “William Jewell’s unique Journey Grants program offers a minimum $2,000 award to every junior to complete a self-designed, life-enriching experience anywhere in the world.” The page was last edited Oct. 22, 2018.

The vague narrative in the literature may be due to the variation in phrasing on official Jewell sites. As well, Journey Grants are guaranteed to students in the Oxbridge Honors Program. The fact that they are guaranteed to one group of students may cause others to believe they are guaranteed for all.

“We’ve always directed students to where the rules and guidelines are, but they’ve never been guaranteed, and they’ve never been part of that language that says they’re a part of tuition or a scholarship in that same sense. I would say that the only difference in terms of where we make that sort of statement, would be for Oxbridge students. Oxbridge students are notified when they’re accepted into the program that when they go abroad, their Journey Grant will be in support of their study at Oxford,” said Dema.

Another belief many students hold is that a Journey Grant is included in the student tuition and thus guaranteed. This rumor, though, has no validity – one has only to check their tuition statement to see that a Journey Grant is not included.

Students may have also believed that Journey Grants were guaranteed because, in the past, little to no applications were denied. This perception is probably the result of conditional approval – a policy the Journey Grant program has since eliminated with the recent changes.

“We had a tendency to instead conditionally approve an application and then put certain conditions that students had to fulfill in order to get approved… Our official language always demonstrated that there was an application process, and it never said guaranteed or that all students would receive a grant, it did say all students were eligible,” said Round. “I think the talking language and narrative that went around probably did have the perception that all students received a grant. And that really wasn’t ever the case – we did have students we said no to, it just wasn’t a lot.”

The loss of conditional approval certainly heightened the competitive nature of the Journey Grants. While upsetting for those denied, increased competition will likely improve the quality of submitted Journey Grant applications moving forward.

“I think the program and the experiences will be of higher quality across the board because of this additional structure. Though that also means that not all proposals are funded, and that’s disappointing. I think that one of the challenges in the past has been [that] the committee was very open to working with students who submitted less than ideal proposals in the past,” Dema said.

Without the conditional approval, those that may have had their proposals conditionally accepted for a Grant this round were instead denied – perhaps increasing the visibility of denials and the increase in competitiveness as compared to years past.

The disparity between the perceptions students have about the Journey Grants and the true details of the program is likely due to a lack of thorough communication between faculty and students. When the changes to the Journey Grants were made last year, an email was sent from Round at the beginning of fall 2017 to all students eligible for 2018-2019 Journey Grants.

According to a document prepared by Round and circulated to Student Senate and faculty, the email included “a pdf document indicating that the 2018-2019 process would be competitive and describing the new evaluation criteria and application timeline with the email it sent to all students and advisors regarding advising.”

While the pdf (2018-2019JourneyGrants) included in the email did not state that the Grants were guaranteed, it did not expressly say they would be competitive – the only mention of changes is two sentences in nondescript font at the top of the document: “Funding for 2018-2019 Journey Grants is limited. Not every student who applies will be awarded a grant.”

A portion of the pdf document prepared about the 2018-2019 Journey Grants.

According to the document Round prepared for the faculty and Student Senate, at least six additional emails describing application deadlines and resources students could use for their applications were sent out after the initial email. The same pdf document explaining changes to the process was included as an attachment on all follow-up emails.

However, beyond those emails, no further communication was given to students regarding the increased competitiveness of the Journey Grant process. Whereas the College has hosted town halls and sent letters to facilitate effective communication in the past, neither method was used to discuss changes to this program.  

“I think what really happened is that the new process for applying wasn’t communicated effectively enough so students could be fully aware of the new expectations for the Journey Grant. I would say we just had a communication gap there,” said Jakob Miller, senior math and economics major and president of Student Senate.

Although students were told that not all Journey Grant proposals would be accepted, no specific number was given to students as to how many proposals would be approved. In the most recent round of applications, the institution expected – based on application numbers in previous years – a total of 47 proposals to be submitted. Instead, 59 first time Journey Grant applications were submitted. The College accepted 25 of those proposals.

“I want them to let us know how many Journey Grants they are going to allow to give at one time because usually, it’s almost like a given thing – at least in the past it has been. Especially, a lot of people have been applying for things that probably shouldn’t be given out, but they still get it. So I think it probably would’ve been nice to know, ‘listen, it’s going to be a lot more strict, a lot of people applied and we aren’t going to be able to give out as many Journey Grants this year,’” said Sam Sullivan, senior digital media communications and ACT-In major who is interested in film production.

Sullivan’s Journey Grant proposal, a one-week film workshop at the New York Film Academy in Miami, was approved for the standard $2,000 amount.

Though much of the written information regarding Journey Grant criteria can be found on the Journey Grant section of the Jewell website and the open Moodle page, the way that many students form their perception regarding Journey Grants is through information carried by word-of-mouth communication between other students, Cardinal Blazers and admissions counselors. The false perceptions that current Jewell students may have about Journey Grants are at risk of being passed down to prospective students when the former participate in tours or panels aimed at recruiting the latter.

Hartwig and Johnson, both players on Jewell’s football team, recalled learning about Journey Grants during their recruitment. They remember Journey Grants being portrayed as a guaranteed aspect of their academic experience. Now, as members of the team, they recruit prospective student-athletes with the same information they received in the past.

“When we were recruiting kids this past winter, this was one of our big selling points. Saying ‘hey you get this Journey Grant. It’s two-grand to do what you want with,’” said Hartwig. “We did it because that’s what we’ve always done and nobody told us differently.”

Encouraging communication about Journey Grants to prospective students by current students is a common practice of the admissions office

Maria Schollmeyer, senior nursing and ACT-In major, was asked in the past by a former admissions counselor to share her potential Journey Grant plans to prospective students at her high school as well as at recruiting events for Jewell’s nursing program.

“They would ask me to say what my planned Journey Grant was to all of those people and they made it sound like it was an additional major that you could get,” said Schollmeyer.

Schollmeyer planned on going to Washington D.C. and surrounding areas to visit Johns Hopkins Hospital and Sibley Memorial Hospital to shadow nurses and nurse practitioners in their specialties and observe how the scope of practice can differ in an urban setting from the ones Schollmeyer is accustomed to in suburban Missouri.

Schollmeyer emphasized her interest in Johns Hopkins’ specialization in innovation research. She specified the great opportunity to observe and learn from professionals at a such a renowned clinic.

“In the medical field, there are multiple places that people talk about where they do a lot of great, innovative research and it’s important especially in our practice because obviously, that research and the things that they find, implement my career in my patients and how I care for people. There are multiple places where they do innovative research, a couple of them that everyone knows, like the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins,” said Schollmeyer.

Despite being specifically prompted by College officials to discuss these plans with prospective students, Schollmeyer did not receive approval for her Journey Grant.

Along with student panels made up of current students to recruit prospective students, student Cardinal Blazers are a crucial part of how information to prospective students regarding Journey Grants is spread. Schollmeyer, a past Cardinal Blazer, recalled that the training to be a Cardinal Blazer prepared her to portray information about Journey Grants in a certain way.

“We were taught to bring that [the subject of Journey Grants] up and really hype it up,” said Schollmeyer. “It is a really big piece of why people consider Jewell.”

Schollmeyer recounted what she said about the Grants to prospective students in the past.

“You say ‘As long as you are in good standing with the college, every student is granted a minimum of $2,000’ and the only time when they acted like it wasn’t guaranteed was when you needed to apply for the additional $4,000 grant,” said Schollmeyer.

Before these recent changes, the aforesaid notion regarding how Grants were administered was, in most cases, true, so students felt no need to state otherwise – reinforcing the belief of the supposedly guaranteed nature of the Grants.

However, the portrayal of the Journey Grants by students does not necessarily mirror the language and expectations about the program set by the admissions staff at Jewell.

Brian Haines, director of admissions, noted that the print material from the admissions staff was never intended to portray the notion that Journey Grants were guaranteed.

“I don’t think that was necessarily the language that we used for students, I think it was all about the opportunity and that it exists for all,” said Haines.

Although the language regarding Journey Grants was focused on showing that the Grant was an opportunity every student could apply for but was not necessarily ensured, the strong impression among the student body that Journey Grants are guaranteed speaks otherwise. Because of this, the admissions staff has taken note and is dedicated to changing the language that may have been misperceived in the past.

“It’s helpful to hear everybody’s frustration because then we can pay real close attention to how we’re communicating and evaluate it. We’ve never wanted to mislead students, we want to provide a realistic expectation for what it’s going to be like to be here at Jewell,” said Haines. “We want to build relationships, and the important thing is to communicate honestly and be upfront with them. It’s never our intent [to mislead them], and if it was perceived that way, it’s unfortunate. But I love this feedback – anytime anybody feels that some part of the recruitment process could have been better, I’m open to getting that type of feedback.”

The admissions staff needs the feedback of students to help determine where the issue stems from so they can have the opportunity to change it. How Jewell is portrayed to prospective students and the public is also in the hands of current students who embody the Jewell community, not just the admissions staff.

“I think if you are on campus and you pass by a tour, whether it’s a counselor or Blazer, and you hear something that isn’t quite right, just shoot me an email to let me know because then we can adjust it. We don’t have someone following along every single tour and interaction, so we can adjust and correct how we talk about things. It’s good to have open feedback and dialogue,” said Haines.  

Administration, alongside admissions, strives to correct the communication issue that likely caused the misperception regarding Journey Grants.

“I get the confusion, and we absolutely have to make that more clear, it’s likely because of the change in the past year that has brought to light more of what an issue that can be in terms of sharing that narrative when we weren’t obviously denying, conditionally approving people didn’t provoke this,” said Dema.  

A false perception about Journey Grants that has stemmed from the miscommunication over the recent changes is that, because of the increased competitivity, students will get approved for a Grant only if are going on a faculty-led trip. Although the official literature on Journey Grants did state that priority would be given to faculty-led trips, not all were accepted.

Only nine of the 25 accepted Grant proposals were for faculty-led trips. Even though less than half of the approved proposals were given to those participating in faculty-led trips, the fact remains that it is a common perception that they are automatically accepted. This is a perception that worries those in administration who are working to change that notion and adjust the program accordingly.

“We have to figure it out because some of the best Journey Grants, and the ones we have always been the most excited about, are those that students develop, that fit their passion. I’m unsettled by the notion, and again I’ve just heard anecdotal stories of students saying ‘oh well, if I want an experience I better just take the faculty-led experience, because I have a better chance of funding for that.’ That’s a misperception. Now there are good faculty-led trips, so we have to figure out how do we do this, and [how] the committee makes its decisions and communicates,” said Dema.

“Part of the reason we decided to give priority to faculty-led trips is not to steer all students toward faculty-led… If that’s the outcome, we need to figure out a different way to approach that because that’s not the outcome we want,” said Round. “So we really did want to support the educational value and recognize the strength of the educational value of faculty-led trips. We did not intend to steer all students to faculty-led trips and say, ‘this is your only option if you want approval,’ that was not the intended outcome.”

These circumstances are indicative of a need for increased transparency around College run programs. Both students and staff recognize this need and those in charge of Journey Grants – Round, a faculty committee and Jewell administration – are taking the concerns of students into account moving forward.

Changes will likely be made to adjust to the concerns those in charge are hearing from students – primarily about faculty-led trips and the lack of clarity in the literature and discussion of the Grants.

Students looking to apply for Journey Grants for the summer of 2019 should keep in mind the recent changes made to the program and the increased competition due to those changes. According to the document prepared by Round for Student Senate and faculty, an average of 95 students apply for summer Grants – based on numbers from previous years. This year, the Journey Grant committee is able to award between 35-40 Grants.

Photo courtesy of William Jewell College Facebook page

Haley Sloan, senior nonprofit leadership, public relations and Applied Critical Thought and Inquiry (ACT-In) major, used her Journey Grant to travel this summer to Santorini and Athens, Greece, as well as Florence, Venice and Rome, Italy. Her trip was through Ultimate Tours, an education first tour group. Local tour guides informed her and 22 other college students on the culture, history and architecture in each destination.

Photo courtesy of Haley Sloane

“I feel I came back with a more diverse perspective of the world and an appreciation for people that are different from me,” Sloan says about her experience.

Her main goal in taking the trip was to become more culturally aware–She is thankful that Jewell could aide her in doing just that.

Maggie Knesel, senior Spanish and nonprofit leadership major, learned that the laid back culture in Heredia, Costa Rica drastically contrasts the fast paced life she is accustomed to at William Jewell. Knesel lived in Heredia for six weeks to work on her language skills.

Knesel offered advice to any students hesitant to fully immerse themselves in a language.

Photo courtesy of Maggie Knesel

“You just gotta do it. You got to go with Nike on this one. You definitely learn at a much faster pace if you’re in the culture and you’re forced to ask someone where the bathroom is or which bus you should take. A lot of little things that you don’t normally think about are super stressful in a different language,” Knesel said.

While he may have not had to deal with a language barrier, a chance to explore passions and see new sights made this summer a memorable one for Jordan Ferrante, senior accounting and business administration major. Ferrante used his Journey Grant to camp and practice nature photography at Rocky Mountain National Park in Estes Park, Colorado.

“I took my digital camera and it was just a combination of two passions, nature and photography. It was challenging to try to capture the beauty of everything, the mountains were just so gorgeous and ginormous. Camping in itself was challenging, too. I had never camped before,” Ferrante said.

Photo courtesy of Jordan Ferrante

Originally from the east coast, Ferrante had never seen mountains. Ferrante feels that students should use their Journey Grants to do things that they love.

“Talk to Sara Round [Director of Global Studies and Journey Grants], she will definitely listen to you, as far as what you want to do, and then she’ll put together a plan of how we are going to do this in an academic way. I did not realize that I could go camping, take pictures, and do these things that I love and it would still qualify as a Journey Grant,” said Ferrante.

Rosie Smith, senior music education and secondary education major, got to explore her passion for choir this summer by venturing across the Atlantic twice. First, Smith used her Journey Grant to go on the William Jewell Concert Choir tour throughout England. Smith was also the recipient of the Hall Grant, a five thousand dollar grant awarded to five students to cover the cost of off-campus educational endeavors. She used this Hall Grant to attend The Choral Institute at Oxford for a choral conducting program in July.

Seniors Jacqueline Parson, Abigail Shultz, Alexis Mann, Rosalyn Smith and Meghan Recker pose for a photo during William Jewell Concert Choir tour

England was an ideal place for Smith to grow her passion for vocal music. She not only enjoyed performing in various chapels, but was also given the chance to conduct pieces.

“I learned more about the culture of choral music in England and Europe, that’s sort of where it originated.  It’s been going on for so long there and a lot of the traditions we use in America we have taken from European traditions. I learned how to look at music in different ways and singing in those spaces changes the way you think about the music,” said Smith.

Summer travels took on a special significance for Kahluna Bouchard, senior business and administration and ACT-In major, who used his Journey Grant to return home to Uganda, Africa.

Photo courtesy of Kahluna Bouchard

“The mission for me to go back was to get back in touch with my culture and go to see my brother and sister who I hadn’t seen in 11 years. I left Uganda in 2007 when I was 10 years old and I went back this summer when I was 21 years old. When I was in the U.S., my dad passed and because I didn’t have the proper paperwork to actually go back and bury him I wasn’t able to go,” Bouchard said.” One of the missions going back was to see his grave site. They have this African tradition when kids come back you get a chance to clean the grave and stuff like that so I got a chance to do that with my brother and my sister that I hadn’t seen in a long time.”

He also got the chance to use the knowledge that he has gained from studying business at Jewell to help his brother run the family pig farm more smoothly.

Spending time in Africa allowed Bouchard to reflect upon the privileges America has.

“I have learned to be thankful and appreciate what I have because going back to Africa I realize that here in the U.S. we take a lot of things for granted, like having clean water and food. We go to the Caf and we eat and we throw a lot of food away. They don’t have clean water, they don’t have nice roads like we do. It made me appreciate what we have here. But when you step on African soil, it’s beautiful,” said Bouchard.

Sloane discussed how Journey Grants give Jewell students a wonderful opportunity to witness the wold first-hand.

“Everyone should apply for the Journey Grant because it is just the best opportunity and one of the things that sets Jewell apart,” said Sloane.

Students can apply for the grants after their sophomore year and contact Sara Round for help in planning their educational adventure.