In our two years at NCSSM, we are notoriously required to complete sixty hours of community service in order to graduate. For some, it is a rewarding opportunity to give back; for others, it looms overhead as a begrudging obligation. Much like the divide in students’ opinions on the requirement, the phrase itself is somewhat oxymoronic: student service requirement. Does mandating community service undermine the very essence of serving one’s community? If service is performed out of obligation rather than genuine altruism, does it still hold value?

Ideally, community service is an act of goodwill, borne out of an individual’s recognition of a community’s needs and drive to meet these needs without an expectation of compensation. As Habitat for Humanity explains, “Community service is one of the best ways to help benefit the public or give back to your community.” Organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Amnesty International, or Food not Bombs rely on volunteers who choose to serve because they see a cause worth supporting.

However, this is not always the driving force behind volunteerism. Tools like the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI), a 30-item scale developed by Clary et al. in 1998, help identify volunteers’ motivations, categorizing them into six functional motives, including values (altruism) and career (career advancement), among others. Understanding these motivations provides insight into how volunteerism functions in different settings. Often, those who are driven by altruism tend to be more long-lasting and hardworking volunteers. At NCSSM, the motivation behind volunteering is made complex by the requirement. Whether students serve out of genuine care or merely to meet this requirement, the reality remains that we are all obligated to complete our hours to graduate—and, for many, to enhance our college applications, given that NCSSM is a preparatory school focused on college readiness.

This argument may seem frustrating as it assumes that motivation is the only determinant of a service’s value. In reality, no matter a student’s motivations, their work can still have a tangible, positive impact on both themself and the community. Whether someone is cleaning a local park or tutoring children, the benefit to those receiving help remains unchanged regardless of the volunteer’s mindset. Furthermore, volunteers can still grow by socializing with new people and gaining hands-on experience in helping others. In this sense, mandatory service, even if performed reluctantly, is still effective in addressing community needs and expanding personal development.

However, once again, NCSSM’s structure complicates the wholesomeness of community service. Many students perform service that aligns with their own economic or educational background, such as overseeing summer camps with their Church, tutoring students from their former school, or working with organizations that don’t significantly challenge their worldview or provide substantial help to a broader community. Others may merely “check the box” by volunteering for nonprofits that give them minimal exposure to the true struggles of the communities they claim to serve. The disconnection between intention and impact creates a paradox: while students may technically meet the service requirement, the value of the work—both for the community and for the student’s personal growth—is diluted. When service becomes about fulfilling a mandate rather than engaging with genuine community needs, its impact is compromised.

For a moment, let’s dramatically expand our understanding of “volunteer service.” Maany Peyvan, former Director of Speechwriting at the U.S. Agency for International Development, explores this idea in his piece titled, At USAID, I Prioritized the Wrong Argument. Peyvan examines the deeper, more essential purpose of foreign aid, arguing that while U.S. foreign aid is often justified in terms of national security or economic growth, the most compelling argument is a moral one: advocates should appeal to a higher principle: “To be American is to care about those in need.”

This perspective challenges the transactional approach that has increasingly dominated discussions of service and aid. NCSSM’s structure inherently, and possibly even unintentionally, encourages this transactional approach to service. While students may form genuine connections with their communities and contribute meaningfully, they are learning to “help” others out of self-interest. Completing service hours becomes less about recognizing a community’s needs and more about fulfilling an obligation, reinforcing the idea that acts of service are tasks to be completed rather than values to be embraced. 

This is a dangerous precedent, both in the broader world and in a school dedicated to shaping future lawyers, doctors, scientists, and leaders. Service must be taught as a responsibility rooted in genuine care, not an obligation that, when completed, will lead to self-benefit. If we are trained to see helping others as just another requirement to fill, we risk carrying that mindset into our future careers, treating service as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. 

Instead of enforcing a rigid requirement, NCSSM should focus on fostering a culture where students engage in service because they want to—not because they have to. Only then can we ensure that the next generation of leaders understands the true value of giving back.