<p>As I said, I think the Yale residential college system is great. And being a Harvard parent, I have no problem saying that! The Harvard system is terrific too - especially as compared to lots of other school's housing. I think anyone who gets into either (or both!) schools (or, in fact, any school that one aspires to) should be ecstatic - and live wherever the heck they put you! ;)</p>
<p>twinmom-
I gotta tell ya- having been at Vassar when they did the transition from the individual dorm dining rooms to the ACDC, it is a <em>true shame</em> that it wasn't financially practical to continue to keep them individually operational. Not only was it wonderful to be able to saunter half awake into the dining room on a Sunday morning in your bathrobe and slippers with the NY Times to read at your leisure and get a cup of homemade hot chocolate (that had a "head " on it, like chocolate pudding, that they ladeled out of a big pot into your cup), but you'd quickly learn which dorms made the best of each meal. All dorms had the same menu every day, but you'd quickly learn, for example, that Cushing had the best roast beef. So, since you could eat in any of the dining halls that you wanted, a bunch of use would truck over to "visit" our friends at Cushing every roast beef night. We were, of course, met by a long line of others who also knew that their roast beef was yummy :) ( Nobody, by the way, made decent tuna tetrazinni. That stuff was nasty). </p>
<p>One of my fondest memories was the "last dinner at Main". Their dining hall was gorgeous-- big gothic looking thing with huge arched, beamed ceilings. Anyway, they had a fancy formal attire dinner, with white tablecloths (which were typically reserved for Sunday dinner) and the last night using the VC engraved silver plated silverware (much of which acidentally "fell" into peoples pockets that night). It was a blast. I am obviously waxing nostalgic.... Big fancy send-off, before they opened the all college dining center (the "ACDC") in what was the old Student Center, where they held the dances and such.. The ACDC took some getting used to....</p>
<p>As an aside, reading the Sunday Times and doing the Sunday crossword puzzle continued to be a ritual-- it just got moved to the living rooms/parlors of the dorms. My buddy with whom I did the puzzle went on to win the US Crossword puzzle championship a record 7 times, and is featured in the documentary "Wordplay" (<a href="http://www.wordplaymovie.com%5B/url%5D">www.wordplaymovie.com</a>) that hit theaters this past summer!!</p>
<p>JYM - What a picture you've painted! I wish I could travel back to see Vassar in those days. It's wonderful now, but it must have been an absolutely incredible experience back then. Of all the things I love about Vassar, the ACDC is my least favorite. I think they could have done better with the dining situation. It just suffices. I know you told me this once before, but where on campus did you live?</p>
<p>Thanks, twinmom! I have lots of fond dining hall memories, but wont bore everyone here with them...It was, however, a better time, IMO. Central dining just paled in comparison. I lived in Joss for 2 yrs and Main for the last two. Where is your son?? If you think we are boring everyone with this, feel free to PM me.</p>
<p>At Princeton, unlike at Harvard and Yale for the most part, all students live in their particular residential college starting as freshmen. What's nice about this is that, just when they are feeling new and unsure of themselves, they are in a smaller community. This provides academic advising, mentoring, dining halls, trips to Broadway shows, professional sports, etc., study breaks, in some cases visiting speakers, and free stuff (jackets, T-shirts, hats) to build residential college spirit. There are residential college councils and intramural teams; the latter compete also against teams representing eating clubs. </p>
<p>As the link on the first page of this thread points out, until now all residential colleges were for two years only; after that, students mostly joined eating clubs (historic mansions with chef-prepared food) and lived in upper-class dorms. In truth, from all I hear, by that time the students are eager to move out of the colleges and have the freedom to live with friends from other colleges, and they find the eating clubs (which are much smaller than a college) offer them the opportunity to have an intimate setting in which to meet and hang out with friends. The eating clubs offer not only meals but libraries, game rooms, and evening entertainment. </p>
<p>However, change is afoot; from now on students will have a choice of being in either a four-year residential college or in a two-year one, in the latter case maintaining their affiliation with the college they belonged to in the first two years. They will be able to have combined meal plans, taking some meals on campus and others in their eating club. Massive amounts of money are being put into launching the four-year colleges. The dining halls will be redesigned to create homier, more intimate spaces, and the menus will provide for fresher, more homemade-like food (which is what many of the eating clubs now serve). Ten or fifteen years from now it will be interesting to see how campus life has changed at Princeton, as a result of the four-year colleges, which were Woodrow Wilson's vision.</p>
<p>JHS, there are many more differences than that. </p>
<p>Aparent5, Princeton has nothing like the systems of Harvard or Yale, even though it has been moving that way since it started having colleges in the 1980s (as a marketing ploy to try to compete with H/Y for the best students). Just because it looks a certain way on paper has nothing to do with how it actually works, on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, the freshmen at Yale are affiliated with residential colleges before they even arrive, and, for many reasons, recognize themselves as part of those "smaller communities" to a much greater degree than Princeton freshmen.</p>
<p>PosterX, I know students at all three schools and agree that Yalies identify more with their colleges than do Princeton students. The latter do identify with their residential college, btw, but later on they identify with their eating clubs. However, this is clearly going to change because Princeton has been raising awareness, amenities and budgets for the residential colleges for some time now, and they continue to do so in a big way. This is not a mere marketing ploy, btw; the idea of residential colleges was raised at Princeton before Yale had them, and it is an effort to transform the campus from one where the (selective) eating clubs are the most important affiliation to one where the colleges become that, not only because applicants worry about the eating clubs but because the administration (going back to Woodrow Wilson) does not like the selection process. </p>
<p>Btw all three schools have seen a growth in fraternities and sororities in recent years, so the residential colleges are not the be-all and end-all at any of them.</p>
<p>Oxford and Cambridge in the UK differ from traditional American universities (Harvard and Yale included) in the sense that the various colleges there (many of which date back to the Middle Ages) are not only residential halls, but also play an active role in undergraduate education. </p>
<p>Basically, undergraduate education at Oxford and Cambridge operates under a dual system where the university departments, pretty much like their counterparts in the US, are responsible for lectures, labs and exams, while the colleges organize "supervisions ", i.e. weekly or bi-weekly tutorial sessions where a small group of students (normally ranging from one to at most three or four) meet with an expert supervisor (usually a Teaching Fellow from the college) to discuss the material covered in the university lectures. </p>
<p>Students are generally required to prepare ahead for supervisions either by turning in written essays or, in the case of most engineering, math and science courses, by turning in solutions to problem sets (known as "example papers") that are handed out in the lectures. Although that work is not normally graded for credit, it serves as an opportunity for students to keep up with the lectures, which are generally more fast-paced in the UK than in the US since the school year (three 8-week terms) is shorter. In addition, supervisions also help students prepare for the long, comprehensive annual final exams (called "papers") which, in the Oxbridge system, account for most of the student's grade in a course. </p>
<p>I should also mention that the two separate systems of university and college undergrad instruction in the Oxbridge model actually tend to overlap in practice since all but a few college Fellows also hold simultaneous faculty appointments in one of the university departments. In any case, Oxbridge colleges, quite unlike their US counterparts, are formally self-governing, independent institutions that are federated with the university. Oxbridge colleges typically have extensive property, land, and other asset holdings of their own, and maintain a governing body made up of several Teaching and Research Fellows who collectively run the college and elect its Master.</p>
<p>BTW, another thing I forgot to mention that makes Oxbridge WAY different from HYP is that, in Cambridge and Oxford, it is actually the colleges, and not the university properly, that are responsible for handling undergraduate admissions. In other words, irrespective of their intended course of study, be it engineering, ancient Greek, or whatever, candidates who seek university admission to pursue an initial (bachelor's) degree must actually apply to one particular college, as opposed to a central university admissions board/office like in the US. Subject to minimal university-wide regulations, the colleges are then free to set their own admission standards. That's why in British bios, it is customary to see sentences like "Tony Blair read (Brit. Eng. for "studied") Law at St. John's college, Oxford" or "Margaret Thatcher went to Somerville College, Oxford, where she read Chemistry", meaning that while degrees are granted by the university, an actual student's affiliation is with his/her college, reinforcing the idea I mentioned before of the dual university/college system.</p>
<p>The following links (from Cambridge's website) provide further detailed information on the Oxbridge college system and how it actually differs considerably from its (tentative) U.S. counterparts.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/%5B/url%5D">http://www.cam.ac.uk/colleges/</a></p>
<p>The first link in particular describes the wide range of mentoring that Oxbridge colleges offer, be it actual teaching in the form of supervisions (supplementing the university-organized lectures), general academic advising typically carried out by the various Directors of Studies (DoS) in the colleges, or "pastoral" care provided by the Tutors who, unlike supervisors, do not teach, but rather look after an individual student's personal well-being.</p>
<p>You said at Oxford and Cambridge they are "not only residential halls, but also play an active role in undergraduate education", which of course is true, but I don't think you understand that the same is true at Yale (just organized differently). Yale's colleges have fellows, associate fellows, elected Masters, deans, advisors and others who make up particular colleges and the colleges play a very active role in undergraduate education. They also have huge endowments of their own.</p>
<p>Of course, beyond these three great universities, you are correct that most "colleges" are just residence halls.</p>
<p>[PosterX] I'm not very familiar with Yale, but, from what I read on the university's website, there are actually significant differences to the Oxbridge model. For example, it appears that college Masters at Yale are actually APPOINTED by the Yale Corporation (Yale's Board of Trustees) whereas, in Cambridge and Oxford, they are elected instead by the college's own body of Fellows. Moreover, according to the bylaws (<a href="http://www.yale.edu/about/bylaws.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.yale.edu/about/bylaws.html</a>), it also seems that Fellows are also ASSIGNED to colleges by the Corporation for limited terms, whereas in Oxbridge the colleges themselves elect their own Fellows and the position is normally tenured, see for example Corpus Christi's statutes at <a href="http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/about/nr/statutes.htm#1%5B/url%5D">http://www.corpus.cam.ac.uk/about/nr/statutes.htm#1</a>. In other words, Yale colleges do not appear to be independent, self-governing bodies within a federal university system in the way their Oxbridge counterparts are. </p>
<p>Another major difference I've mentioned before is that, in Cambridge and Oxford, whereas the university (through the Faculty Boards) decides WHAT is to be taught, it is the colleges who decide WHO is to be taught. In other words, the colleges, and not the university, handle admissions, which is quite the opposite of Yale's system of centralized admission and then random allocation of students to residential colleges. </p>
<p>Finally, in terms of college involvement in undergraduate education, it appears from the by-laws that the so-called Dean in a Yale college is somewhat similar to the Director of Studies in Cambridge/Oxford (being responsible for general academic advising, aiding in course selection, etc.), but, apart from a vague mention to remedial academic tutoring, I don't think there is anything quite like the structured 3 or 4 times a week supervision system that one finds in the UK. In fact, the closest thing to Oxbridge (though not quite the same) in terms of college involvement in undergraduate education is not found in the US, but rather in Canada, at the University of Toronto (see <a href="http://www.utoronto.ca/Prospective_Students/CollegeSystem.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.utoronto.ca/Prospective_Students/CollegeSystem.htm</a>).</p>
<p>A supplement to what bruno123 says is that his account of the respective roles of university and colleges in the Oxbridge system is more applicable to the sciences. In the humanities the role of the colleges in undergraduate education is much more prominent than he suggests. For the humanities the colleges are the core of teaching through tutorials/supervisions with university seminars and lectures in particular taking a very subordinate role. Much of the time you will have tutorials with the tutors in your own college, and if you are taking a specialism one term that your college tutors can't cover it is they not the university who will organise the tutorials with a don in another college.</p>
<p>Bruno123 is right that the Oxbridge colleges are significantly more substantial institutions than the residential colleges at Yale. The Yale colleges are nicely designed, but artificial, administrative units -- great for making friends, having an advisor who won't let you slip between the cracks, providing a sense of coziness and familiarity in a lot of your life, and getting together intramural sports teams and non-competitive drama and music clubs. They don't have a significant educational role,* their identity is always subordinate to that of the university, and they don't really provide students with significantly different experiences. They aren't legal entities, they don't own anything or admit anybody, and they are self-governing only in the most trivial respects.</p>
<p>In other words, they bear about the same resemblance to Oxbridge colleges as their architecture bears to Oxbridge architecture -- a pretty facade, but not the real thing at all. Maybe, all things considered, more functional than the real thing in the modern world, and preferable to it. Push come to shove, most of us would prefer a mock-Tudor house with all mod cons in a convenient neighborhood to a drafty Tudor manor.</p>
<ul>
<li>In my day, at least, each college sponsored 9-10 seminars of its choosing each semester. These often involved adjunct, nonacademic teachers coming in, or graduate students/junior faculty testing out ideas. Members of the sponsoring college got preference in registration for about 2/3 of the available slots, but in theory all such seminars were open to everyone. Some of them were very cool and flashy -- Paul Newman teaching a drama course, for example -- and some were very cool and substantive -- a famous, and famously writer's-blocked, professor from another university running a workshop on academic writing for prospective grad students in his field.</li>
</ul>
<p>Sort of off topic, but still interesting. I trained to be an RA this semester, and one of the first things they told us was to never use the word-Dorm. Instead, residential hall is appropriate. The D word has really bad connotations, and residential halls are there for more than just sleeping. Planned activities, live in professors, academic support etc are all differences from the typical dorm setting.</p>
<p>alwaysamom - </p>
<p>regarding U of Toronto, we just came from a visit there and were told that more than 90% of years 2-4 live off campus. Therefore we assume that the college system is primarily frosh driven. Only freshmen are guaranteed housing. They acknowlege right up front that they are really "administrative units". I therefore assume, possibly mistaken, that the colleges are primarily for freshmen. In a school of 50k+ students I don't see how there can be a lasting affiliation with a "college" with over 3,000 each class/college if you move out after your freshman year. The "Yale type" where you live with the college all 4 years would seem to have more merit and lasting bonds to a particular college. If I missed something, please enlighten me.</p>
<p>Williams has nothing like Oxford-style colleges (I attended both - Worcester old member - , so I should know.) But they DO have Oxford-style tutorials, directly modeled on the Oxford system, with one or two students per tutorial. These are NOT to confused with seminars.</p>
<p>I thought the Oxford college system wonderful, but the tutorial system extraordinarily haphazard, great for developing sharp repartee over tea or (more frequently) glasses of sherry, but hardly the stuff for producing serious finished academic work. (However, for the vast majority of students, likely more valuable than the latter.)</p>
<p>I read Ken Kesey. ;)</p>
<p>At Princeton, the Harry Potter Oxbridge style Residential College tradition wins out and new plans are drawn to keep it Gothic. Administrators went back to the drawing board in response to student complaints. - the Daily Princetonian reports:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Responding to complaints raised by students last spring, University officials have scrapped renovation plans for Rockefeller and Mathey colleges' dining halls that would have replaced long tables with a more modern setup of round tables and booths.</p>
<pre><code>While the current plans still call for an overhaul of the food serving area, the renovated dining spaces will retain their traditional Gothic look when students return next year.
Administrators went back to the drawing board after initial plans met with strong opposition from students who felt that the changes would detract from the halls' distinctly Gothic feel. Nearly 600 students, including 200 apiece from Rocky and Mathey, signed a petition opposing the changes.
"We like all the other renovations, including the new servery, but the new table setup would take away from the personality and overall experience of the colleges," Brendan Lyons '09, a Mathey College Council representative who organized the petition, told The Daily Princetonian at the time. He added that the proposed changes "would take away from the overall atmosphere, especially the Gothic aspect.
Recent working copies of the floor plans for the dining halls given to the 'Prince' show long tables arranged along a center aisle with one additional 10-seat oval table in each hall.
Mathey College Master Antoine Kahn said that the plans were redrawn so that "almost all the seating will be in the traditional long tables," with one or two round tables which would be "more appropriate to serve as language tables.
"The latest plans showed that the administration and planners took these concerns to heart," Lyons said in an email this week. "With the changes in place, the new Mathey and Rocky dining halls should be incredible."
While the traditional layout of the dining halls will be preserved, there will be extensive changes made to the food serving areas. The serveries of Rocky and Mathey will be combined into one "market style" service area, with most of the food freshly prepared at stations dedicated to specific cuisines. This format, with entryways into both dining halls from the same servery, will "offer far more options," Kahn said.
But Matthew Halgren '09, one of the original Rocky student protestors, said that he is "still skeptical of the plans for the renovated servery" because he is "afraid that at peak times like lunch, it will be difficult to prepare the food in time," leading to congestion. Halgren is also a member of the 'Prince' Editorial Board.
Chad Klaus, one of the University officials in charge of the renovation, said that there "could be queue areas, and it might take a few weeks to come to the right point."
Large-scale chandeliers will "get rid of the gymnasium-style lighting we've all grown to hate," Klaus said, and carpets down the center aisle and absorbent banners along the walls will improve acoustics in the halls. The plans also call for lounges within each dining hall, which will include a coffee and espresso bar as well as individual chairs and couches.
The renovations, which will be funded out of the budget for the four-year residential college plan, are scheduled to take place over the summer.
"I think it's going to be an outstanding combined facility," Kahn said.
[/quote]
</code></pre>
<p>"In a school of 50k+ students I don't see how there can be a lasting affiliation with a "college" with over 3,000 each class/college if you move out after your freshman year."</p>
<p>Agreed. That's an entirely different animal.</p>
<p>Bruno123, OLDSPC, and Mini have nailed it, but I thought I'd add a few tidbits as the parent of a current student. College identification and college-centered life is at least 50% of one's overall university experience, even if a student is not involved in any college-sponsored groups/activities. If a student is involved in college-centric activities, the college's relative influence on a student's life may greatly exceed the university's. </p>
<p>The colleges (many of them, at least) were formed first - only later were they partially 'federated' under the structure of a university. Much of this original autonomy is retained. A student is really a 'Student of [insert name] College (within) the University of Oxford.' Admissions are still college-centric. Most students apply to a specific college (though they may be pooled to another) and colleges do indeed have differing admission rates for a given subject.</p>
<p>Colleges are totally responsible for student welfare. They have their own residence rooms, dining facilities, nurse, pastor, choir, sports teams, boat houses, athletic grounds (some), security, student governing bodies, affiliated graduate students, their own financial resources, and their own chapels. The university supplements the college welfare role only for specialized resources. </p>
<p>A student pays university tuition as well as close to half that amount directly to the college, and all funds are paid directly to the college. My son's senior tutor, who monitors his overall course progress and is his primary advisor throughout the course, is a fellow of the college, and many of his subject tutors are affiliated with it as well. </p>
<p>Colleges also have differing academic styles - for instance, some directly pressure students to excel (especially colleges which regularly grace the top of the Norrington Table for high student scores in final exams - e.g., collections are a bigger deal and scores are posted) and some do not.</p>
<p>My son submitted an open application, but he is glad that he ended up at a college in the middle of the Norrington pack versus one higher up on the list, as he describes the daily atmosphere as friendly, non-competitive, comfortable, and nurturing. [And, for parents and visitors, it maintains several guest rooms - boy, has that been convenient!] Since Oxford terms are so compressed and intense (like running the rapids down a ravine in a canoe for eight weeks) he cherishes the relaxed style of his college.</p>
<p>He sings in the college choir (which comes with perks - free meals and travel - Paris this summer) but most of his performing activites are university-wide. The benign character of his college does not interfere. </p>
<p>And in 2009, he'll celebrate the college's 500th anniversary as a grateful and loyal member!</p>
<p>For your reading pleasure, here's a definitive article from the Cherwell on the 'best Oxford colleges' - hot off the web site:</p>