What’s the difference between a dorm and a “college house”?
By Eric Goldstein
THE ANNOUNCEMENT this fall of a new college-house system at Penn, in which all campus residences are to be converted into so-called “college houses” [“Gazetteer,” November] has generated a lot of hoopla on campus, but it is difficult to see why. The difference appears to be mostly semantic. Though administrators are making a big deal about the plan, nothing much seems to be changing.
The intent of the plan is to create smaller
communities within the often overwhelming Penn campus. This will be
accomplished by having common dining areas, mixing upperclassmen with
underclassmen and providing auxiliary services, such as tutoring and
computer aid. However, the proponents of the plan are quick to stress
that dining with housemates will be completely voluntary, as will be any
special programming. And they also point out that the Quadrangle will
remain a predominantly freshman residence, while the high-rises will
continue to be the domain of mostly sophomores, juniors, and seniors.
Administrators seem so intent on accommodating students who find
comfort in the status quo that they have neglected to develop a plan
that will result in tangible change for undergraduates. The University’s
goals are admirable. The high-rises discourage, rather than promote,
interaction among neighbors. Because students are provided with all of
the essentials of apartment-style living, including full bathrooms,
kitchens, and living rooms, students have little incentive to venture
out to the common areas on every other floor. There is more interaction
on the high-rise elevators than in the common rooms.
Often, the residential adviser system fails to address these
problems. It is not uncommon for a high-rise resident to go an entire
year without ever attending a hall meeting or even meeting the floor’s
resident adviser. What little activity money is available for hall
programming is typically wiped out after a few pizzas and a two-liter
bottle of Coke.
For all of their faults, though, the high-rises do serve a
purpose. Many students are not interested in “community living” after
freshman year. If not for the high-rises, many students who prefer
apartment-style living would choose to move off campus. And the
high-rise rooms are in general just as nice, if not nicer, than the
typical off-campus apartment. Although it is not politically correct to
admit it, many students actually enjoy their high-rise experiences.
“Integrating”
the Quad by inviting upperclassmen back introduces even more concerns.
The Quad is unique precisely because it is a freshman dorm. It is a
place freshmen can make new friends and help each other adjust to
college life. For all intents and purposes, the Quad already achieves
many of the goals of the college houses. It creates small communities,
many of which stay together for all four years of college, and provides
an internal support system and often specialized programming. Bringing
any substantial number of upperclassmen into the mix can only tamper
with a special Penn experience.
Although the University’s plans are admirable, they fail to
consider one key factor — the high-rises are not conducive to a
college-house program. Building a college-house system around Penn’s
current dormitories is like trying to build a car on one axle.
Unlike the college house system at Yale, which has become
ingrained in the very fabric of student life there, the Penn plan will
require a significant change in student behavior and opinion. What
administrators have failed to realize is that Penn’s apartment-style
housing is just as strong an element of campus life here as college
houses are at Yale. That is not to say that Penn’s system can’t be
improved, but neither is wholesale change necessary.
The bottom line is that students who don’t want to change won’t
have to. But if enough students prefer the current system and choose not
to get involved, then what is the point?
Given the University’s limited resources, the money being
funneled into the college houses could do more to improve the academic
life on campus by going directly into academic programs. The idea behind
the college-house system is admirable. But short of demolishing the
high-rises and starting from scratch, the program will have little real
effect on the lives of Penn undergraduates.
Eric Goldstein is a senior entrepreneurial and multinational management major from Sewickley Heights, Pennsylvania, and executive editor of The Daily Pennsylvanian.
