“The lazy rivers. The dining-hall steakhouse. The hot tubs. The dazzling fitness centers. Journalists who cover higher education love these lists of amenities in student housing, and readers love to hate them.”
“If all your friends are going off to the school with the lazy river and the nosebleed tuition, it’s pretty hard to swallow your dreams and commute to the local branch of your state university. If all your friends on campus are living in the fancy building with the modern amenities, it’s really difficult to stay in the dorms by yourself. As most of us can remember from our own school years, the young are particularly vulnerable to this dynamic.”
“It is one thing to say that we need a more affordable student-loan program so that people can get ahead. That should pay for things like tuition, books, food, basic housing. It should not be so generous that students’ lifestyle in college far exceeds what they’ll be able to afford after graduation.”
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-08/luxurious-college-apartments-built-on-debt
hear, hear!
whats wrong with the idea of students living frugally while in college?
we did it.
and lived to tell great stories about it…
So this affects like… 1% of students? Even though this creates a lot of clicks, it’s an extreme minority. Most students DO live frugally in regular ole student housing.
Carry on.
where do you get the 1% figure?
There are dozens of private and public colleges that have participated in the mad rush to build climbing walls, spas, food courts that offer dozens of choices, all so students can “enjoy” their time in college and parents feel they are getting more for their $$…
^I agree with romani–it’s mostly rhetoric. Climbing walls are the cliche, but really, how expensive are they and are they actually a reason a student picks a school? Food courts are just a variation on cafeterias, and those fast food chains pay to be there. Not to mention, they’ve been around for at least a generation. Even in the plain vanilla local state schools. As far as spas and lazy rivers, I think 1% would be a generous estimate.
Even going by your “scores” that would only be 1%. There are thousands of colleges in this country.
1% is a number I pulled out of nowhere.
There are thousands of colleges in this country. Very, very few do any of these things.
So I take it back. It’s probably more like 0.1%
I think many four-year colleges have gone on quite the spree of construction of fancier and fancier dorms and facilities, and much more elaborate food service. Costs for Room & Board seem to be rising faster than tuition.
At many - if not most - public schools, kids are encouraged to move off campus… in many schools, they’re required to after their freshman year.
Our main state college campus has a lazy river in a state-of-the-art rec center, and nice (though hardly luxurious) dorms; both were built through a fundraising campaign meant to make the school more attractive to high achieving students who might choose the university flagship.
1% of 14,000,000 =144,000 students.
Thats a lot of students.
and a lot of colleges.
I changed it to .1%
Anyway. even still, an extremely small minority.
^^ so? that was your guess. its not based on fact.
and guess what- 14000 is ONE state college’s student population.
There are a LOT more colleges than just one or two with the kind of amenities mentioned in the article.
“So this affects like… 1% of students? Even though this creates a lot of clicks, it’s an extreme minority. Most students DO live frugally in regular ole student housing.”
No this is not correct. It is a mentality that impacts on most students. That is because, in order to appeal to the sensibilities of the 18 year old decision maker, colleges and universities are prioritizing those things that appeal to students over those things that are most important to academics and scholarships. This is driven by the desire to generate as many applications as possible and then to protect the yield once offers are extended-and a major motivator is to drive up the ratings.It isn’t that all schools are constructing lazy rivers or offering scuba diving. But, it is the case that most are far more likely to build swanky residence halls and to pump money into updating student centers with dining choices that would rival any resort than they are to put money into new academic facilities. Why, because 18 year olds aren’t thinking about whether they will have access to the most innovative resources in the labs.
And if you think this is true for just a few colleges, you are wrong. I was recently on a SUNY campus for a meeting with a couple of people. There is apparently a way to sign up for small study rooms in the main library but every room and every cubicle was taken as was every possible spot that would allow 3 people to talk-no benches no chairs. In the lecture hall students were sitting in corners on the floor working and meeting. Buildings that were supposed to be built years ago are still not built and I recently heard that they are now on hold again. But, the residents halls are amazing. The student center has been completely updated and made grander twice in about 8 years. But the academic updates? Nope. I’ve seen similar at many other schools.
This mentality impacts most students. The other amazing growth I’ve seen in these schools is in the number of administrators. There are now administrators of administration in some of these schools. Entire buildings need to be devoted to administrators; each of whom have associates, assistants,secretaries and administrative assistants. And each of whom are paid an impressive amount.Your tuition dollars working for them. Amazing! You wonder where the money is? It’s being tied up by the structure that supports and includes these administrators and it is tied up in nonessential but fun, swanky dorms and fun centers-for what? To ensure that they appeal to the 18 year old as much as the next school does–and that is true for most schools. Look at the priorities of schools you are looking at. You can tell when you go for the tour. What has garnered the most attention-is it brand new buildings for Admissions and for the student center but the library is busting on the seams? Very telling!
And it is not necessarily to attract high achieving students in general. Rather it is intended to attract wealthy full pay students used to living in luxury. Appealing to those students in this way is jacking up costs.
While it is certainly true that more public and private universities are building ever fancier dorms, the article is describing the proliferation of resort-style, off-campus student apartments that, while not being built by nor owned by the universities, are not discouraged by the universities. To carry on would be to ignore reality, and why do that? Not only are these luxury student apartments impacting the students, but the surrounding community is impacted by the effect of rising apartment rents. All my son wants is a nice, clean, safe apartment convenient to the university. He has no interest in the onsite spas and the clubhouses and the social events. Yet, that is what is mostly available to him. Why hasn’t the university encouraged the development of more modest housing nearby? When I was in college in the late 80s, there were plenty of decent places to live that were more in line with the budget of a starving college student. At the very least, my son should be able to find an apartment that costs less than the honors suite he has lived in for the past two years. Yet, that is becoming a challenge thanks to impact this trend in luxury student housing is having where he is, and all around the country.
Why is it important to think about these luxury apartments? Because, often, the taxpayer is subsidizing that housing. Students are able to take out student loans to cover the cost of college, and that number includes room and board. My son has a full-tuition scholarship, but he could take out the basic federal loans and use that money towards his luxury apartment rent. I could apply for Parent Plus loans that could be used to pay for those luxury apartments. Sure, I would not have to, and I would not. However, plenty of students and parents do this.
What control does the university have on land that it does not own?
Also, unless the university has a very strong commitment to access for low income non-commuter students, it may not object to off-campus housing that will attract students from wealthy families, who need less or no financial aid. The city may like more luxury housing for its own reasons, including property tax revenue.
Of course, the interests of the university and city may not necessarily coincide with those of students looking for less expensive places to live.
"Why is it important to think about these luxury apartments? Because, often, the taxpayer is subsidizing that housing. Students are able to take out student loans to cover the cost of college, and that number includes room and board. "
Exactly!! thank you for understanding and not just assuming it is an non issue to 99.9 % of students or parents.
Students can take out 5.5k in loans their first year and up to 7.5k in their 3rd and 4th years. That is less than tuition at most 4 year colleges.
No, I’m not buying that this is a problem for the vast, vast majority of tax payers and students. Sorry, I think it’s hubbub about nothing.
The article is referring to off campus student housing, not housing built by the university to attract students. My kids went to colleges that had traditional off-campus 100 year old leaky roach infested student apartments as well as newer, prettier with new appliances and private bathrooms leaky roach infested student apartments (usually they have a nice lobby and a swimming pool/hot tub that are always malfunctioning). The developer saw a great opportunity but it really has nothing to do with the college itself.
Continue to surprise me how much some folks want to rag on colleges, picking their complaints like whack-a-mole. If it isn’t this, it’s that and a hearty chortle to go with it.
I don’t know where all this glamorous housing and lazy rivers and food options that “rival resort living” are. They certainly didn’t describe any of the 16 or so colleges we visited. Nowhere did I see anything that was excessive or wasteful. My kids lived on campus in typical student housing that frankly could have used renovation. My S was in a single that literally didn’t have enough room for 3 adults to stand in, and a double that wasn’t much larger. My D was in a building that was historical and gorgeous from the outside, but they could have used a bathroom upgrade.
I agree wth Romani that this is whining about nothing and doesn’t describe the vast majority of college living situations.
And if an outside private developer can build luxury apartments because the market can support it? Good for him. God bless him. More power to him.
I’d like to see a link to ONE college that has dining facilities that “resemble resort living.” (Clue - a food court with Starbucks, Sbarro, Baskin-Robbins and Chipotle doesn’t qualify.)