<p>I love that my son's school has the same pricing for all dorms, and that he chose to live in the big old historical dorm instead of the new ones. I love that off campus students mostly live in shared houses and crappy apartments, and there doesn't seem to be much "luxury" to be had even in that crowd. </p>
<p>I love that we don't have to deal with the bling dorm problem. :-)</p>
<p>Actually, historymom, lots of kids don't come from "cush". My S's room was so small, any dorm room he has seems like a palace. Our house is cramped and in kinda need of repair. S never had a stereo, TV or other amenities in his room. My kids are and always have been extremely low maintenance materialistically, and I think, though I can't prove it, that they has deepened their "lives of the mind." I like the fact that they can deal with discomfort; it lessens distractions. (and it's cheaper, too!)</p>
<p>In the days of Woodrow Wilson, dorms and dining halls were civilized places, with dorm parents and rules to keep them that way.</p>
<p>Now, with the administration's laissez-faire attitude toward behavior in the dorms, I favor the idea of a single for my kid just to enable getting a good night's sleep -- we are light sleepers and have a very quiet house and I wonder how she will survive.</p>
<p>Well, think about the dorms that used to exist at Oxford, with servants too!
They had their own little apartments.</p>
<p>I think tiered pricing is a bad idea and does segregate students and announce the discretionary income of the student body.</p>
<p>One thing that is great about S's school is that although there are fabulously rich kids at his school, there is nothing to spend money on in the town so money is seriously not an issue.</p>
<p>At MIT, the newer or recently-renovated dorms cost more. Since the dorms have very different cultures and the dorm system is based on student choice, there have been suggestions of subsidizing the cost of the more expensive dorms, so that people aren't picking a dorm that doesn't appeal to them in culture because of its cost, but they've never gone anywhere.</p>
<p>I lived in the cheapest dorm, but not because it was the cheapest dorm. It was where I wanted to be - the environment I wanted to live in, the people I wanted to live with. I didn't mind that I was on the 5th floor and had no elevator, even - I loved my hall. I thought most of the more expensive dorms were unappealing.</p>
<p>I guess I am at least somewhat sympathetic to, say, the University of California doing this, since it's under so much pressure to have its housing system be completely self-supporting, most campuses have significant commuter populations, and its priority has to be holding down tuition. But MIT? What excuse does MIT have for doing anything to foster economic distinctions among its students? What could the extra revenue it brings in from this possibly mean in terms of the university's overall budget and the university's overall principles?</p>
<p>garlland I certainly didn't mean to imply that my kids came from "cush". They don't. All I was trying to say is that if colleges are using spruced up dorms as a way to draw kids, I don't think it's a pathway to the darkside. I was responding to the title of this thread.</p>
<p>That's a totally separate issue from the cheaper/more expensive dorm offering debate.</p>
<p>I was unaware of this, too. I have to say that I really don't like the idea of differential pricing for dorms. It can't help but stratify students on economic grounds even more than they already are. But I went to a school with essentially no Greek scene and where the majority of students live on campus. Maybe this is less of an issue where many students are already sorting out their housing based on economic means.</p>
<p>I'm at a school with a large variety of housing options ranging from traditional dorms and suites on campus to 5 person houses near campus and apartments a few blocks away, all with different costs. I don't feel as though it contributes to much of anything, except a scattered student body - anyone who is really trying to save money and isn't constrained by what financial aid will cover moves out of campus housing anyways if they can get organized enough to do so, because the housing costs here are cheap compared to many other places. If anything, by providing a variety of housing options, the university is more likely to keep students in the housing system for longer, which probably is better for the sense of campus community. I ran the numbers once and concluded that by moving into an efficiency apartment through campus housing, it would be reasonable to come out ahead financially if that meant I cooked most of my own meals and was no longer buying overpriced food on campus. The largest issue I can think of is students not having the option of cheaper housing left by the time they get to choose their housing, if it has already been taken by other students, but this isn't an issue - the all male and all female dorms, never popular, are also some of the cheapest housing options after freshman year.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But MIT? What excuse does MIT have for doing anything to foster economic distinctions among its students? What could the extra revenue it brings in from this possibly mean in terms of the university's overall budget and the university's overall principles?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The point is not to foster economic distinctions, the point is that some dorms cost more to maintain than others, and they have to pay for the renovations of those which have been renovated. And the housing system is supposed to be financially self-supporting (which I don't mind, as it gives less excuse for unwanted interference in student life, and frees up money to be used for education).</p>
<p>For what it's worth, a single at the most expensive dorm is less than 20% more expensive per semester than a single at the least expensive. There's a price differential, but it's not doubled cost or something. Also, my observation is that the cheapest dorms don't seem to have more poor students than the most expensive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And the housing system is supposed to be financially self-supporting (which I don't mind, as it gives less excuse for unwanted interference in student life, and frees up money to be used for education).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thinking about it, I guess that's the nub of the issue. If the housing system isn't part of "education", if the university housing system is just one competing option among many, then there's nothing else to do. But if the housing system is part and parcel of the "education" provided, as Wilson et al. clearly believed, then it maybe it shouldn't be financially independent.</p>
<p>Probably this is something of a fake issue. Most universities house only a fraction of their students, so there's no pretense that the university housing is a shared experience that's integral to education. A few prestigious universities and LACs effectively require most of their students to live on-campus all four years, but I suspect few of those schools are charging differential prices, for precisely the reasons given in the article. I'm still a little shocked that MIT isn't in that category.</p>
<p>The tough case is going to be something like NYU -- the source of the original article. Obviously, the super-rich there aren't limited to university housing. But private-sector housing anywhere near the university is so expensive that only the Olsen Twins and their like, or kids living at home, are going to eschew university housing. The university has invested huge sums over the past decade buying up enough housing to be able to guarantee housing to all undergraduates -- it was considered educationally important as part of the university's mission. But its housing is quite varied in cost and amenities, and it must be a constant temptation to price it accordingly. (I don't know what NYU actually does.)</p>
<p>At the highly selective university and LAC that my kids attend(ed), "residential life" is considered to be part of the educational program. Both of my kids have had dorm-mates from the most diverse socio-economic backgrounds imaginable, and this has been an important aspect of their college experiences for both of them.</p>
<p>Also, I want to note that at some institutions -- certainly Penn and Chicago, and probably Cornell, too -- there are countervailing reasons NOT to have a policy of providing university housing for all students. They very much want to have students populating the community surrounding the university campus, and they very much want private landlords and business owners to keep investing in those communities to serve the student population there. The benefits to the universities from that structure are considerable, and I wouldn't second-guess anyone who concluded that those benefits outweighed the marginal harm from partial economic segregation of college students after their first year.</p>
<p>I wish the housing around Penn which the students are populating wasn't so disgusting (and I am not very picky). It re-defines "slum-landlord". The choices range from horrible to more horrible. Hence, the new dorm, The Radian- expensive as h*11, but at least an option to the dumps. The houses right near campus (one of which my son currently has a room in) are run-down and poorly maintained. The top of his room wall doesn't go to the ceiling, so he can hear everything from the room next door, which used to be a living room but is now another bedroom. The kitchen is terrible, but DOES have two refrigerators. My kid is pretty dormed-out, due to some things unique to him (such as being in a dorm since he was 14) and he is someone who really needs some quiet and privacy. If he can get into The Radian, I am agreeable to it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thinking about it, I guess that's the nub of the issue. If the housing system isn't part of "education", if the university housing system is just one competing option among many, then there's nothing else to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think my housing experience was very much part of my education, but not in some contrived formal way imposed by the school. It came from the grassroots, from my hallmates and dormmates.</p>
<p>MoWC: If you are willing to look more than a few blocks off campus at Penn -- say, within 3/4 mile from 40th St. or 33rd St. -- I think you can find non-disgusting student housing. The few blocks around the campus have always been scuzzier (and less safe) than the more integrated (student/real person) neighborhoods beyond that, and the landlords there have never felt the need to offer anything other than proximity.</p>
<p>jessiehl: I don't doubt that at all. I would say exactly the same thing about my education. But the university provides the infrastructure and economic structure in which that happens, and I think differential pricing does not improve the educational experience.</p>
<p>One of my D's litmus test variables in looking at schools was the number of student's living on campus. There were also some schools who advertised the number of students living either on-campus or within X blocks of campus and that was helpful, too. That variable alone killed many schools in the initial looking stages, no matter what the other positives may have been.</p>
<p>My kid was visiting at Cambridge and was invited to "drinks" before a hall dinner in a student's room, along with many other students. When she walked in, the room was a PALACE. She had seen other rooms, which were nowhere near as nice. She blurted out "WOW!!! How did you get a room like this?!!!" Everyone cracked up laughing--only an American would ask.</p>
<p>How? Something like the first 20% of dorm assignments within a college--or at least this particular college--are given out based on the student's performance on the prior year's exams. So, everyone else knew when they saw the room that the student had to be one of those with very, very high results! </p>
<p>Apparently, until a few years ago, all rooms in that college were awarded based on exam marks (with the exception of incoming students.) So, it didn't matter how rich you were--do poorly and you got a broom closet! Now only the top 20% go that way, and the other 80% by lottery.</p>
<p>It's an interesting concept.</p>
<p>I'm not sure why the article mentions princeton-- it's a one price system where theres a lottery. Plenty of the dorms haven't been renovated since bathrooms were first added, and which dorm you get placed into has nothing to do with economic status but rather luck (for the colleges) or draw time (for the upperclass housing). Even the new whitman, although it is beautiful, has plenty of rooms where you have to bunk your beds. Many of "nicest" rooms on campus, ie those in recently renovated buildings, were initially doubles that got turned into quads. There are definitely those rooms that seem like servant's quarters, like at harvard. But yet almost everyone still lives on campus and interacts with people of all economic classes.</p>
<p>On the topic of "cush," I always liked my school's theory, which is that "living and learning are not only compatible, they are inseparable." Granted, I'm biased...this was certainly a theory that benefited me. But the school's dorms are beautiful (I don't know if "cush" is necessarily the appropriate term, as many of them are old, un-airconditioned, etc., but they are beautiful), as is the campus as a whole. The dining hall, for example, is set up to feel "homey" (many smaller rooms instead of a great cafeteria, mahogany tables, art exhibitions in the dining rooms). In general, campus space is designed so that students feel at home in it (which is not to say that there isn't also a pervasive scholarly feeling). And the goal of all this isn't "let's spoil our students," but is more along the lines of "live well, learn well." Caring for the whole student and all that.</p>
<p>97% of students chose to live on campus for all 4 years. Room and board costs were the same regardless of dorm or room type, as it was generally believed that (1) each arrangement had its own ups and downs, and (2) any inequalities evened out over time (rooms were chosen by lottery in order of matriculation year). </p>
<p>And while yes, all of these niceties made students' living situations quite easy, I wouldn't at all say that the academic purpose of the dorms was lost. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite. Students didn't have to worry about paying rent, tracking down a landlord, furnishing an apartment, trying to study in an uncomfortable environment, dealing with a roommate in super-cramped quarters, or whatever else. Economic status was a non-issue in the dorms. In some ways, the comfortable (and generally equitable) dorm life made it easier to focus elsewhere. </p>
<p>I've always felt badly about schools that charge different rates for different dorms or rooms. It just seems like too much of a jump-start to Real Life, and the potential social implications seem...counter-productive to the goals of both dorm life and modern college mission statements in general. </p>
<p>For the record, "cushy" dorms and campus life weren't something I worried about when I was choosing my college. In fact, I preferred the more traditional, institutional atmosphere at other schools. It felt like school. What I didn't realize as a prospective student was that I wasn't just looking for a school, I was also looking for a temporary home. Ending up where I did was serendipitous...no doubt in my mind that it made me a happier, more focused, and better student.</p>