<p>Both Swarthmore and Haverford were founded by the Society of Friends. What influences remain of these Quaker origins? Do students feel like these influences are beneficial, or dentrimental?</p>
<p>Not going to either school, but I remember when I toured one of the Quaker traditions discussed was the "we eat under one roof" thing. I imagine that means the cafeteria can get a bit crowded during meal times... but then again, cafeterias are crowded at pretty much every school. Also, another influence remaining is the desire of both Swarthmore and Haverford to have a percentage of students who are Quaker. According to the guide I had at Haverford, about 15 to 30 Quaker students go to that school each year. That probably doesn't affect things very much (unless you're Quaker. Getting in might be a bit easier then) but is one of the remaining examples of the schools's ties to their Quaker origins.</p>
<p>want2b:</p>
<p>Your question has to be answered on several different levels. Swarthmore ended its official ties to the Society of Friends about 100 years ago, resolving a debate since of the founding of the school in favor of becoming a sectarian academic-oriented college instead of a school for Quakers. From a nuts and bolts standpoint, there is a Friends Meeting House on campus which is like any other church located on a campus. It is an active Quaker congregation that serves the surrounding community. Some students are active and attend services. Others are active at other churches and synagogues. Most college students aren't really active on Sunday mornings. The Friends Meeting House is used occasionally for student events: music performances, special forums, etc. The Swarthmore library houses the Friends Historical Library, a separate section that houses a large collection of historic Quaker documents. That's pretty much the extent of the direct presence. in theory, the admissions office is supposed to give a little preference to Quaker students, but they have openly acknowledged that they don't (beyond the fact that there are some legacies from long-standing Swarthmore Quaker families).</p>
<p>On another level, everything about Swarthmore is shaped by the history of the Quakers who founded the school. For example, one of the founders of the school was Lucretia Mott. Very active in the abolishist movement, Mott also organized the first women's rights meeting in the United States (the Seneca Falls Convention) and drafted the first Equal Rights Amendment. She is a big reason that Swarthmore was founded as a co-ed college and an even bigger reason that the bylaws have always required equal numbers of men and women on the Board of Managers. It's hard to overstate how much the influence of women has shaped the college. For example, the women board members supported the implementation of the Honors Program in 1922 and have always pushed for academic excellence. The first woman to get a PhD in the United States was a member of Swarthmore's first graduating class. </p>
<p>You see this same influence in a Quaker Swarthmore alum like Alice Paul, who lead the national effort to gain the right to vote for women and whose name is now on a dorm at Swarthmore. You see other examples of Quaker influence in political debates over the years: Swarthmore's role in the anti-McCarthy debates, a strong anti-Vietnam stance in the 1960s, one of the first colleges to pull its investments out of apartheid South Africa, and so forth.</p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that the Quaker influences show up in Swarthmore's culture of political engagement and social activism. This is even codified in the Mission Statement:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Swarthmore students are expected to prepare themselves for full, balanced lives as individuals and as responsible citizens through exacting intellectual study supplemented by a varied program of sports and other extracurricular activities. The purpose of Swarthmore College is to make its students more valuable human beings and more useful members of society. Although it shares this purpose with other educational institutions, each school, college, and university seeks to realize that purpose in its own way. Swarthmore seeks to help its students realize their fullest intellectual and personal potential combined with a deep sense of ethical and social concern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From what I have seen, the mission statement reflects the reality of the Swarthmore community: the Board, the administration, the faculty, and the students.</p>
<p>The second Quaker influence that is obvious is the tradition of simplicity and egalitarianism. Swarthmore is not a "showy" or pretentious place. Although it has many wealthy students, people don't show it with fancy clothes, etc. In fact, it's kind of taboo. In addition, the school has a policy of all campus events being free. There are no dorm dues. No charge for concerts or movies. Printing is free. All of this means that nobody carries any money on campus and there isn't a subtle pressure on low-income students. This even carries over in student life. For example, when my daughter and her friends go to NYC, they take the Chinatown bus instead of the more expensive Amtrak train in order to be inclusive. And, of course, since the 1960s, Swarthmore has made a huge effort towards diversity. It is one of the most diverse elite colleges on the East Coast. 59% of the acceptance letters this year went to US minority students or internationals. This diversity is immediately apparent on campus, not just in terms of numbers, but in an above average degree of actual integration. There are no theme dorms, separated by ethnicity.</p>
<p>The other huge Quaker influence is the way the Swarthmore community governs itself. Here, there is a difference with Haverford. Whereas Haverford has more formal governance structures (annual student body meetings, annual ratification of the Honor Code, etc), Swarthmore governing structure is largely informal. It is perhaps best described as consensus government without the formal structure. It's really quite remarkable and it only works because there is an very high degree of trust and respect among the Board, the administration, the faculty, and the students. This is what the Accreditation Review panel, led by Oberlin Pres. Nancy Dye, wrote in their 1999 report:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Swarthmore possesses a remarkably strong sense of community, particularly among students, faculty and members of the board of managers. Indeed, our team found Swarthmore to exemplify a "culture of community"--that is, community members' sense of trust in the College as a humane and equitable institution is so strong that it can and does rely more upon relationships and traditions to communicate values, rather than formal rules and regulations. Team members were particularly impressed by the trust in and satisfaction with the College that faculty and students expressed. Part of this strong sense of trust comes from Swarthmore's traditions of governance. Although the College no longer governs itself by "Quaker process," it remains strongly committed to participatory governance and to decision-making by consensus. Faculty, students, and members of the governing board, in particular, expressed great satisfaction with the traditions of Swarthmore governance, especially because they have long ensured that the entire College community would see to it that the institution would conduct its activities in humane and equitable ways. Then, too, with approximately 1300 students, Swarthmore is a small, intimate institution, and students, faculty and staff believe that any difficulties or grievances they express can and will be addressed in personal, face-to-face ways.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's really astonishing to see the role students play in governing the place. For example, the large number of students who showed up to chat with the four candidates for Dean and sent their impressions to the search committee. The students are active. The administration respects the students and, in turn, the students trust the administration to weigh their input, even when they don't get everything they want from a decision. To me, this connection among the students, faculty, and administration may be the most striking thing about Swarthmore. And, it grows from the Quaker traditions of consensus.</p>
<p>interesteddad...another great post. I think Swarthmore should hire you for PR!</p>
<p>I actually agree with everything ID has written this time. The only point where I have issue is with his comment of "Swarthmore is not a "showy" or pretentious place". </p>
<p>You know at this level of elite intellectuality, it's banal for kids to show off Daddy's wealth, fast cars and comparing grades... these things are high schoolish and I'd be surprised if any of the top LACs were like this because many of the kids select going to these schools over bigger name places. There are many types of pretension and Swat has a culture of intellectual self-congratulation that is very palpable... ie "Misery poker" or "Anywhere else it would be an A- seriously" as 2 quick examples.</p>
<p>Personally, I think this bravado and confidence has its place and at times can be very cool and exciting... the kids there know they're talented and smart and aren't shy about it. By contrast, the culture at Haverford is more modest and this has its +/- as well. Again, there are +/- with everything, but I think it's important to get a view that's more balanced.</p>
<p>Also, perhaps it's because my family is so marinated in the "Quaker" collegiate experience with siblings going to BMC and Swat within 3 years of each other, but I'd expect all the top LACs to have students that feel a sense of ownership, governance and community on some strong level. I'd also expect the administration and faculty to respect the students as well. </p>
<p>"It's really astonishing to see the role students play in governing the place. For example, the large number of students who showed up to chat with the four candidates for Dean and sent their impressions to the search committee." </p>
<p>I'd be more astonished if kids from Wellesley, Middlebury, Amherst or Wesleyan didn't participate in selection of their new dean and demand their voices heard. Isn't that why kids choose to go to LACs in the 1st place?</p>
<p>Thank you so much for the responses; the comments were more thorough and helpful than any other information I came upon thus far, and I greatly appreciate your time and opinions!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, perhaps it's because my family is so marinated in the "Quaker" collegiate experience with siblings going to BMC and Swat within 3 years of each other, but I'd expect all the top LACs to have students that feel a sense of ownership, governance and community on some strong level. I'd also expect the administration and faculty to respect the students as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely positively not the same relationship among students, faculty, and administration at all top LACs. I am confident that there is at Haverford and Bryn Mawr because it grows from the same Philadelphia Quaker roots (although with more defined formal structures). But, the relationship between the students, faculty, and administration at Williams, for example, is very different -- I'm not talking about student/faculty academic interaction, but issues related to the governance of the school. For anyone interested, I would send to you to research some of the subtle actions by the students and administration that have precluded theme housing from taking hold at Swarthmore compared to the gyrations in dictated housing policy at Williams over the last few years to deal with the Balkanization of the campus. It's night and day.</p>
<p>Or, for fun, go looking for the mission statements at various top colleges. Mission statements, or the ability to even write one that is authentic to the school, say a lot.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, there have only been two breakdowns in the governing mechanism at Swarthmore in the last few decades -- the so-called "Crisis of 1969" and the decision to end the football program in 2000. The first was a situation where the students took a unilateral action to effect change that blew consensus off the map. The second was a unilateral action by the Board of Managers that made concensus impossible. Both results ultimately led to very positive change, but as a result of shocking the system. In both cases, the missing ingredient was not having the luxury of time.</p>
<p>I'm hamstrung on the dean's search thing because I refuse to write about things I know through my daughter. Lets just say that the candidates were surprised at the breadth and depth of student questioning (not student council questioning, but large numbers of regular students). The written comments volunteered to the search committee by just regular students and the responses from the committee highlight the things I'm talking about.</p>
<p>BTW, I agree with you that there is some intellectual pretension at Swarthmore. The students know the undergrad education they are part of is "da bomb". The faculty knows it, too. That pride is one of the motivations to keep it going, which requires a heavy investment by the faculty and the students. That isn't really what I was talking about. I was referring more to the BMWs in the parking lot and other more showy demonstrations of wealth or just a generally annoying sense of entitlement that infects some wealthy colleges.</p>
<p>See… who said ID and I can’t get along sometimes? :)</p>
<p>That’s surprising about Williams. These top colleges attract high school leaders… editors, presidents, captains of sports and academic teams, regional coordinators of this or that… I would think such talented kids would maintain/cultivate their empowerment while in college too (?) as I know I did but never thought it “special”. I don’t know much about WC but, if what you’re saying is true, maybe that’s the good thing about the education your daughter is getting and I received… thinking that it’s 2nd nature to speak one’s mind to be listened to and to demand respect despite hierarchies.</p>
<p>The following probably applies to Swat too, but it’s an opinion piece regarding art written by an HC alum who teaches art history @ Williams. I guess it speaks to both of our perspectives and about Quaker influences too. I’d be interested in your thoughts. This person really respects WC students (and it's not meant to bash anyone and I hope it doesn't go there) but I think he noticed some "cultural differences" between the colleges.</p>
<p>“A Haughty Indifference to Fashion”
Architectural historian Michael J. Lewis ’79 on the difference between the cultures of Haverford and Williams:</p>
<p>Michael J. Lewis ’79 was an economics major at Haverford, but he now teaches art and architectural history at Williams College. He is the author of The Politics of the German Gothic Revival (1993); Frank Furness: Architecture and the Violent Mind (2001); The Gothic Revival (2002); and a forthcoming survey history of American art and architecture; he is also a frequent contributor of architectural criticism to journals such as The New Criterion and Commentary. It’s fair to say that Michael Lewis lives for architecture, but he is not at all sure that a new building is the best way to raise Haverford’s arts consciousness.</p>
<p>“I don’t believe the building does it,” says Lewis. “The building is a sign of success. The first line is the faculty, then the students, then the building.” </p>
<p>Lewis’ own aesthetic awakening came in his senior year at Haverford, when he took a course on urban history at Bryn Mawr. Upon graduation, he secured a Fulbright Fellowship to study the reconstruction of Germany after World War II, then earned a Ph.D. in architectural history at the University of Pennsylvania. After returning to Bryn Mawr for two years (1989-91) to teach the very course in urbanism that had sparked his professional interest, he served as a historian at the Canadian Center for Architecture before joining the Williams faculty in 1993. </p>
<p>When he got to Williams, Lewis says he assumed teaching at one highly selective liberal arts college would be pretty much like teaching at another, but he discovered that the cultures of Haverford and Williams were decidedly different, largely owing to their respective heritages. </p>
<p>“I tried doing exactly what had been done to me at Haverford and Bryn Mawr,” Lewis recalls. “I’d come in to class and say something like ‘Frank Lloyd Wright was a bad architect. Flat roofs leak, so that’s bad architecture.’ Then a student would say, ‘But, Mr. Lewis, is architecture just about keeping the rain out or is it about ideal form?’ When I got to Williams and I said ‘Frank Lloyd Wright is a bad architect,’ the students would just look at me and write it down. I could not push their buttons.” </p>
<p>Lewis came to believe that the difference between Haverford and Williams students was not a matter of intellect but of historical roots. </p>
<p>“Haverford and Bryn Mawr, while not religiously Quaker, have inherited the culture of a Quaker meeting house. Any moment, the spirit may move and someone will speak out. Williams is a Puritan culture. When I speak, I am Cotton Mather in his pulpit. There is a tremendous culture here of cordiality, the covenant of the camp. It may be the product of our remoteness. You don’t argue during the day with someone you’re sure to see that night.” </p>
<p>cont...</p>
<p>
[quote]
That’s surprising about Williams. These top colleges attract high school leaders… editors, presidents, captains of sports and academic teams, regional coordinators of this or that… I would think such talented kids would maintain/cultivate their empowerment while in college too (?) as I know I did but never thought it “special”.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not that there aren't gung-ho student leaders. It just seems like everything is very formal. Communication goes through channels, like student council meetings and is "presented" to the administration. The administration says, "No. We are going to do this instead." Student council says OK and becomes like a spokesman for the administration. At least, from following it in the newspaper and blogs, it just doesn't seem like the administration has its finger on the pulse of the campus. There's a detachment.</p>
<p>At Swarthmore (and I assume Haverford/Bryn Mawr), the administration seems to shoot straight with the students. They treat the students like adults who can comprehend nuance or even pressures that require an unwanted change, once it's explained honestly. Even on something as controversial as the decision to drop football, the Swat administrators were totally honest about the fundamental reason: not enough slots in the freshman class to stock a football team and our other priorities (such as diversity). Students weren't happy, but at least the Pres. wasn't giving them a runaround.</p>
<p>The implementation of the new housing system at Williams was the strangest thing. Despite reams and reams of press releases, campus e-mails, and working group reports, the administration never really just came right out and stated the primary motivation. So, you end up with a major change taking place with little or no student ownership.</p>
<p>Swarthmore was segregated, by design, until 1945. Think about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Swarthmore was segregated, by design, until 1945.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yep. The first black students were part of the Navy college program housed at the school during World War II. I've read comments from Swarthmore officials that not integrating before 1945 was the thing in the entire history of the school they are most ashamed of. The fact that there were women on campus was used as an excuse several times...as in, we would enroll black men, but it wouldn't be right to have black men on campus with white women. It is what it is. You won't find anyone at Swarthmore who sugarcoats it.</p>
<p>The story of how the students forced the college to integrate the peacetime student body shortly after WWII was interesting. The President coached the students on how to sell the Board. Specifically, he had them go to each Board member individually and get them to commit to the idea that integration was the right thing to do. None of them could personally say no to such an obviously correct idea from the students. Thus, by the time a board vote came around, the Members were all on the hook. They had given personal commitments and couldn't hide behind a "Board decision". It's actually a pretty good example of the way the school works.</p>
<p>To understand today's emphasis on diversity at Swarthmore, the "Crisis of 1969" is the story to turn to. The African American students occupied the admissions office with a set of demands. Four or five days into the occupation, during negotiations to end the standoff, the President of the College keeled over dead of a heart attack. It's pretty easy to trace the lineage of just about every diversity policy at the school to that event and the actions taken by the school in its aftermath. </p>
<p>There are many good accounts, including a lengthy story in Time Magazine at the time. The one that I find gripping is the account published recently in the Alumni Bulletin by one of the two students who led the takeover of the admissions office. It provides wonderful insight into a difficult series of events. The lesson that stands out is not the commitment to enroll a diverse class, but the commitment to provide a diverse campus that includes diversity on the faculty, in the dean's office, etc. The "Crisis of 69" taught the college that enrolling minority students wasn't enough, they had to be stakeholders.</p>
<p>There's another Bulletin article written by Swarthmore's first black professor. Equally eye-opening.</p>
<p>Thanks. I have one random question. I imagine that you must have many fond memories of your time at WC… meeting your wife there and all and it’s a great college as well. If there are issues like this that you mention, just curious if you spend as much focus advocating for current WC students with the problematic administration compared to what you spend advocating for Swarthmore… a school that by your opinion may not need such advocacy cause it’s already doing things “right”. As an alumnus, why not spend your energy trying to influence the administration there for the betterment of current WC kids (if you already don't do so)? Do you feel you don’t have a say as an alumnus as well?</p>
<p>"the administration never really just came right out and stated the primary motivation. So, you end up with a major change taking place with little or no student ownership."</p>
<p>Absolutely false. You must have selectively missed the administration's justifications for (re)implementing the current housing system - which many students enjoy (presently in its first year).</p>
<p>"just curious if you spend as much focus advocating for current WC students with the problematic administration compared to what you spend advocating for Swarthmore…"</p>
<p>Of course not. In hwc's, I mean interesteddad's view, the Williams administration -- certainly not characterized as "problematic" by the majority of students/parents -- will always be second rate by virtue of the fact that his daughter chose to attend Swarthmore, which in his view can do nothing but "right." He's much more interested in denigrating Williams than "advocating for" the students or the school -- to convince not only himself but others that she made the best choice for herself. Many parents of students at Williams are likewise happy that it is the best possible fit for their children -- out of many choices -- but don't feel the need to tear down their alma maters as some on this board have an unhealthy compulsion to do.</p>
<p>Multipart answer:</p>
<p>1) I used up most of my "sales" energy working my daughter over for three years to get her to apply there. We have also recommend it to one of her best friends and to relatives.</p>
<p>2) My wife is semi-involved in alumni stuff. We give enough each year to continue getting alumni magazines.</p>
<p>3) My wife and I both prefer Swarthmore.</p>
<p>4) The administration knows that the older alumni (as a whole) believe Williams is too focused on athletics. It's one of two areas that shows up in alumni surveys as being emphasized more than it should be (the other being alumni fundraising!). My personal opinion is that the administration has made a conscious decision to market the school with the euphemistic "work hard, play hard" brand -- the "Duke" or the "Dartmouth" of the LAC world if you will. </p>
<p>The economist President is one of the country's leading experts on college finances, pricing, and endowments; he fully understands marketing to full-pay students. IMO, the college is exactly what the administration wants it to be...and it's very successful for them. The internal planning/study documents show four areas of concern...falling rates of future PhD production, the impact of athletics on the campus culture, the negative effects of drinking, and a persistant low-level racial/ethnic/class friction on campus (like the student who responded to the Holocaust Rememberance Day posters by going from dorm to dorm, pinning Hitler's Birthday posters on doors last week). </p>
<p>They are addressing the PhD issue (really a measure of "hard core academics") by tipping science researchers in admissions. The other three issues are campus culture related and I haven't seen much beyond lip service and a misguided change to the housing system. I know what would happen at Swat or Haverford in response to Hitler posters -- the students would go bonkers and there would be a big campus meeting with administrators and faculty lending some institutional weight to the discussion. The Jewish Student Association had a small town hall meeting and nobody from the administration showed up.</p>
<p>Like I said intially, I think the campus culture at places like Swarthmore is actually quite rare. I'm not sure that you could intentionally recreate it simply by administrative fiat. Campus cultures are the sum of a hundred years of policies and events. Those traditions in turn drive admissions, which reinforces campus culture, and so forth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You must have selectively missed the administration's justifications for (re)implementing the current housing system
[/quote]
</p>
<p>onemoremom:</p>
<p>Do your homework. Go back and read the housing committee planning documents starting five years ago. The motivation for the return to cluster housing was obvious. The last accreditation review, the athletics report, the diversity report, and alcohol report all cited a fractionalization of the student body. It's no big secret. Certain dorms had evolved into de facto theme housing: the football team in one, white female athletics in another, and so forth. Morty is trying to force integration of the campus (drinkers and non-drinkers, athletes and non-athletes, whites and minorities, etc.) by forcing them to be assigned randomly to four small groups of dorms. His heart is actually in the right place. It isn't going to work (because those groups don't want to live together), but I understand his motivation.</p>
<p>Read it for yourself. Starting with the first committee report in 2002, the student survey in 2003 (where each respondent was asked to identify by race, gender, and sport). And leading up to the final plan in 2005:</p>
<p>Read the 2002 Five Year Interim Report addressing issues raised in the previous NEASC Accreditation Review:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Partly in response to NEASC's concern about "various kinds of fragmentation which result in some elements in the community maintaining separate spheres in residential and social domains," the College has launched several residential life initiatives that should have strong positive effects for all students and especially those currently underrepresented in various areas of campus life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read the 2002 Report on Athletics:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students, in other words, report that varsity athletics is significant in their social life, over half feel that belonging or not belonging to a varsity team “defines” how other students see them; it also plays a significant role in who lives with whom. When asked specifically about the pervasiveness of athletics at Williams and whether it is a good or a bad thing, 68% of our students regard athletics as “more pervasive” at Williams than at other excellent colleges. 38% of our students think that is good and 31% think it is bad, but two-thirds of our students think it is true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read the 2004 Report on Alcohol (not available publicly, PM me and I'll e-mail you a copy)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Williams' students and staff absorb the negative effects of irresponsible drinking in a number of ways. This includes the following: 1) many students are willing to take care of drunk peers and make sure that they are safe, 2) some students avoid drinking events and coming back to their residence halls when drinking is visible and prominent, 3) students who work at events where alcohol is served report that their experience is unpleasant and aversive, 4) security staff are reluctant to work at events where alcohol is served, and 5) maintenance and housekeeping staff report frequent damage and disrepair as a result of student drinking (some of which is visible on admissions tours). While much of these "second hand effects" are invisible and below the surface, we found that they are prevalent and serious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read the 2005 Diversity Self Study (not available publicly, PM me and I'll e-mail you a copy):</p>
<p>
[quote]
The proposed residential system aims not only to increase the extent to which all of the houses at Williams reflect the diversity of the student body, but also to enhance the opportunities and incentives for the members of the houses to interact with each other in meaningful ways. To be fully successful, it must also ensure that house leadership and activities are responsive to the needs of all members.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There was most certainly not widespread student support for cluster housing. In fact, there was significant organized student objection, including a Pres. and Vice-Pres of Student Council elected on a specific platform of stopping cluster housing. (The rolled over and died when Schapiro told them to forget it, cluster housing was a done deal and they might as well put a Student Council happy face on it). Their letter to campus was published in the Record. You can find it.</p>
<p><a href="http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/anchors-away/%5B/url%5D">http://wso.williams.edu/orgs/anchors-away/</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
The recent College Council elections featured a question on the anchor housing plan proposed by the Committee on Undergraduate Life (CUL). Fewer than 20% of the polled students were in favor. More than 3 times as many were opposed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anchors Away has been inactive ... because we did all that we could when Anchor Housing was an issue under debate, and now that everything has been decided, there is little to do. Anchors Away collected written opinions from 200 students, spoke to the administration, and sent an extensive document detailing the problems with anchor housing to the trustees. These efforts -- the latter of which was not even acknowledged -- met with no recognition whatsoever with the administration. Joe Shoer expresses it well in Jake's article:
“There really is no course of action left to us at all,” said Joe Shoer ’06, who last year helped to spearhead the anti-cluster movement. “Since the committee and administration are not interested in hearing students’ suggestions for structuring the new system, Anchors Away is powerless – after all, even College Council’s letter of opposition to anchor housing went ignored last year. I suspect that even a petition signed by 70 or 80 percent of the student body wouldn’t affect anchor housing in the slightest.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Get back to me when you're done studying this material and tell me I'm full of it again.</p>
<p>"Do your homework"</p>
<p>Since I'm not as obsessive as you (5,150 threads and counting) and feel none of the same unhealthy compulsions, I will state simply that Morty made abundantly clear his (and the rest of the administration's) plans to revert to the older system of housing in presentations both on and off campus -- I suppose you either conveniently stepped out, or did not attend any of those at all, when they were made.</p>
<p>"It isn't going to work (because those groups don't want to live together)"</p>
<p>Personal, unfounded speculation (hopeful/wishful thinking?) and absolutely false (as the parent of a current student -- one of many -- whose self-selected housing pick groups prove your assertion completely untrue). It would behoove you to refrain from assigning your personal preferences to others.</p>
<p>From College Council Minutes Oct. 6, 2004 re Alcohol Task Force:
“last Monday and Tuesday the Alcohol Task Force and other students at the college met with the consultants. A consensus at the end of a lot of meetings between the students and the consultants was that the drinking culture here at Williams is not as bad as it is at other colleges."</p>
<p>Poll the students today and you'll hear overwhelmingly about the positive changes that have occurred in just the last seven months (the first seven months of the new system).</p>
<p>In a phrase, you are still too full of -- yourself.</p>
<p>"Anchors Away collected written opinions from 200 students"</p>
<p>Hmmm, a full 10% of the student body was in favor of the (previous) status quo -- and actually cared enough to put their feelings in writing. Remarkable.</p>
<p>The actual College Council survey numbers were 17% in favor of cluster housing, 57% opposed.</p>
<p>Satisfaction with the previous system was 80% satisfied, 20% dissatisfied.</p>
<p>That is why I say that there was no student "buy-in" to the cluster housing plan.</p>
<p>
[quote]
From College Council Minutes Oct. 6, 2004 re Alcohol Task Force:
“last Monday and Tuesday the Alcohol Task Force and other students at the college met with the consultants. A consensus at the end of a lot of meetings between the students and the consultants was that the drinking culture here at Williams is not as bad as it is at other colleges."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may well have been the students' perception. It was not the perception of the consultants in their Report on Alcohol published a month later. They actually concluded that Williams had a serious problem.</p>
<p>No, you quoted an actual article that specifically mentioned that all of "200 students" felt strongly enough against changing (back) to the cluster housing system to put pen to paper.</p>
<p>"survey numbers were 17% in favor of cluster housing, 57% opposed."</p>
<p>How many students was that exactly -- how many were polled?</p>
<p>And the students have bought into it now. Or haven't you been to Williamstown lately?</p>
<p>And truly, I'm weary of sparring with you. You definitely have strong anti-Williams biases that are, frankly, irrational. You may pick and choose whatever dated datapoints you would like to bolster your arguments that Williams is a terrible institution. But those who are fortunate enough to attend today know otherwise -- and that, not your twisted idea of reality, is the truth.</p>