As an incoming freshman, I can’t help but wonder what Vanderbilt’s campus will look like in the future. With enough searching on Google Images, I was able to find the architecture firm that is building the new E. Bronson Ingram College. Here is a computer rendering for anyone who might want more pictures than what Vanderbilt shows on their website:
Now I didn’t stop there. Searching around some of their portfolios, I found something titled the “Vanderbilt Residential College Master Plan” which can be seen here:
It shows plans to replace Branscomb Quad and Carmichael Towers with residential colleges as well. However, I believe this rendering was made back in 2003 and was scheduled to be complete by 2014 (which obviously didn’t happen lol). Is it still accurate as to what Zeppos and the others plan to do with Vanderbilt’s campus, or are they going to do something else with those areas? Based on student sentiments and this article (http://www.tnledger.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=65301), I know Carmichael Towers is on the chopping block – although, I’m not too sure about Branscomb – but I want to know if they actually plan on building that residential college shown on the left in the seventh image of the “Vanderbilt Residential College Master Plan” or if they “scrapped” it and plan on building something else there.
Also, what are your opinions? What do you hope that Zeppos and the others will do to improve Vanderbilt’s campus? Do you like the residential college system, or do you feel like it’s being forced onto you? Thoughts?
Here are some more websites detailing developments on Vanderbilt’s campus:
I can’t speak to the university’s current plans because I’m not privy to those meetings obviously (although I would say those renderings are likely consistent with the administration’s current vision) but I am wholeheartedly in support of the residential college system in the works. I will be living in the one that is now finished for the next three years, and I think the only evidence you need of the plan’s value can be seen in one of Vanderbilt’s biggest current draw cards: the Ingram Commons. That’s a residential college system that you only get access to for one year (unless you become an RA) and 95+% of students rave about how awesome that is as an experience, building community in a living quarters as beautiful as the Peabody Esplanade and Commons Lawn.
As to the specific architecture of Kissam and the proposed Bronson E. Ingram college et al, I don’t know that I LOVE that style of architecture, as I personally like the more Jeffersonian style of, say, the Wyatt Center, West and North Houses, or even the bricked style of the five new-er freshman houses (Sutherland, Hank Ingram, Stambough, Murray and Crawford). But, it will be a MARKED improvement on the current buildings of Towers and Branscomb. Like ew. Even the Chaffin apartments and the Lewis and Morgan complex next to it are ugly as all get out and I would personally love to see everyone getting equal access to beautiful housing communities like Kissam and E Bronson, not just those who are lucky enough to win the lottery.
But those are just my thoughts. From an admissions standpoint, it will mean that Vanderbilt wins more students from cross-admit battles with Rice, Yale, and UChicago, as Vanderbilt’s location, culture, food, academics, merit scholarships and extraordinary faculty may be enough to put it over the edge for students who are drawn to one of the others by its residential college system specifically.
This pretty much plays to the base. I would suspect that very few students choosing between those and seriously considering VU would scratch it off simply because of lack of residential system. For the most part they differ a lot. It would just be strange considering the usual results of a residential college system. VU’s culture is quite distinct and attracts a different type as of now. Residential College systems often result in a different vibe altogether (I think of Rice, Yale, Princeton, H maybe with the house system). Unless Yale or Princeton, I would hope a person who strongly prefers VU’s vibe or social culture would not choose somewhere of a similar caliber simply because it does not have a residential college system (usually they will end up with a completely different campus vibe which may not fit well). That would be naive (which I suppose 17 and 18 year olds are guilty of). Many of those schools do not have a true work hard play hard vibe and the types they attract usually do not care (hell many of them do not even overly care about QOL). Their base is often the more intensive/tryhard, nerdy, quirky, or very competitive types (seems some of the stereotypes of those places do apply). Those are looking for the prestige, intellectual culture and academic options that best fit that personality and many of those schools have it in great abundance and can very easily cater to them. This would work for people on the fence about whether or not they want that sort of environment versus somewhere like VU (and maybe Duke or Penn which have actually changed vibe a bit themselves. They have developed crap tons of options to academically entertain their incoming tryhards).
in terms of what Senior said: Not many places have an academic or faculty edge over Yale or even Chicago (or Princeton, Harvard, etc) so students extremely serious about that ain’t turning their backs on schools in that tier unless they get significant scholarships and are convinced that there is a path to at least semi-replicate what they could have easily done at those schools (again, many of those schools have ways to much more deliberately put talented students on advanced tracks in whatever their interest is and they tend to attract a higher than normal amount of students who actually care about that sort of thing and it creates a different culture that their types like/appreciate, but many won’t). Those looking for a more traditional college experience, but high quality academics (in a generic sense), certainly. Just those more into the details of the latter…maybe not (seriously, did you think of the extreme details of academic possibilities and what faculty you could work with while or before applying to college? Those schools have a surprising threshold of those people).
Basically, when you see construction of this nature, do not buy the Kool-aid thinking about how nice the campus will look, think about whether or not it is supposed to induce or entail any cultural or academic changes at the undergraduate level. Usually the places with these residential systems have a much more nerdy, quirky, and intensive vibe than places like VU are known for (known for very smart/bright students who want the work hard play hard lifestyle and want to just live a “normal” life). Essentially, how much will these systems resemble those at other schools which seem to deeply integrate the academic aspect into the reshall and actually get lots of buy-in from students. Is that the goal or is the goal to make nicer accommodations? If the former, then the administration there has much bigger ideas in mind than just recruiting and marketing. They are trying to change the culture.
@bernie12 You seem to disagree with the idea of changing Vanderbilt’s culture? May I ask why? I personally think it’s an enormous shame that Vanderbilt has the resources and in many ways outperforms other schools in its tier, but then is relegated to being labeled as somehow subpar in comparison to Duke, Washu, Northwestern, Rice et al. The only reasons I can think of are that 1. It suffers from being in the south (which it certainly does) and 2. The party culture and ‘work hard play hard’ stereotype damages its credibility substantially, and makes people think its just some southern equivalent to a Penn State or URI party school. I think a change in the culture couldn’t come soon enough, and would be curious to know why you think otherwise (if I did in fact read your tone correctly, it can be hard through text).
I’m not talking about a UChicago transformation either (I think I would find that irritating after a while personally, and Vanderbilt has a much better QOL in my opinion) and as for Yale, no one should aspire to their campus culture given the state of affairs of their student body - I know two people who are transferring because of it to other less prestigious but still amazing schools, which is still astonishing given how hard it must be to say good-bye to a Yale diploma, and speaks volumes for how deep those problems go. But I think a greater focus on academics and interests at a deep and varied level, over just marketing to those looking for a pre-business major and a fraternity (generalizing but not inaccurate) would be a wonderful thing to resculpt in Vanderbilt’s image.
@Senior2016M Come on. You should have an idea of angle and my values by now and can guess that I agree with it. I don’t think many people who currently attend do. Many were attracted to its current (or slightly older) culture (reminds me of how old Duke was described, but Dukies seemed much more aware of the issue and were discussing issues of intellectual angst as early as maybe the late 90s. Naturally the desire and awareness of the issue led to change at Duke) which makes it stand out from the rest. It is one of the only true work hard play hard schools left IMHO (I personally am more of a nerd/academic type) and has attracted a lot of interest because of it. To change culture is hard because you have to make changes that attract different students and unfortunately buildings will not do it. I can clarify, but I think you know what I mean. I am for any school in this tier (including the one I went to) “updating” the culture in some ways which may be positive, but can tell you that from my experience attending a school going through a huge building boom at the time (and kind of still is), there are limitations (to be successful, it seems that a school must make notable changes to the academics and then actually market them well. If you market mostly quality of life and the building program, you will attract those primarily interested in that, so you must be careful to not overplay. My school after all this building and losing sight wants to “refocus the liberal arts”. Oh dear!) . I am for it to some extent, but there is risk associated with it. A cultural change at VU may be more risky because of its current uniqueness among top 20-25 or so privates (my school, the students seem more apathetic to large changes and kind of go along with them, so while getting an enthusiastic buy-in of current students isn’t easy, most will just shrug their shoulders. Like big academic changes go by rather easily. I think Duke was like that to a large extent, but the new curriculum they are currently pushing may be a bit much even for them).
Like I remember seeing some posters already complaining that they feel stuff like Greek Life is dampened and the school’s “fun” feel that they came for seems to be waning. I was curious and read old hustler articles from the past that expressed disagreement with attempts to become more intellectual or something and the person compared it to Duke and how they did not want VU to become like the scene currently at Duke (a really interesting mixture of “old Duke” and the seemingly newer, more intense top tier Ivy like Duke). It would not be the only school that has come up against detractors of such changes. Dartmouth is currently an excellent example where their president is much less subtle about the changes being made and alum and current students do not seem particularly thrilled. Again, change is hard and sometimes will not sell immediately.
@bernie12 Thanks for clarifying - I was perplexed when I did infer your disagreement with the changes, as I know your views don’t tend to do so! You bring up interesting points, and the Duke comparison seems to be the most compelling parallel. Only time will tell. But as a Vandy alum to be, I can say that I don’t intend to donate to Vanderbilt in future unless they do start to move in this more academic and intellectual direction as I feel they ought to, because there are elements of the culture that I think the administration takes a rather weak stance on, unshakable Greek life not the least among them.
If you want a fraternity culture AND top academics with a stimulating culture, tough. I really don’t think the two mix very well, frankly, and the campus does feel stratified (albeit ostensibly) between Greeks and non. The abundance of smart but not overly intellectual people tends to weaken the common denominator of learning in smaller seminar style courses and larger classes at CAS alike I’ve found, which I think is an enormous shame. It’s not always the case, of course, but two of my classes this last year had a disappointingly low caliber of discussion and quality of debate. Maybe this is the first step in changing that, by reworking the image and brand first. And bringing up a new generation of wealthy alumni who won’t stop donating just because their frats and sororities were booted from campus.
I think Vanderbilt is also in need of a logo change - I wish we had a more sophisticated crest of sorts, like the Ivies and Rice, Washu and Northwestern all seem to, an elegant design to replace the V with the acorn leaf motif. But that’s a separate issue I guess…
@Senior2016M : As I may have mentioned before, I would really like to see VU in STEM update its life science curricula or teaching style (I think it does so called “softer” disciplines very well like the Peabody school programs, English, History, etc), which has been a big thing at near peers and I think is very important for training future scientists and healthcare professionals. I do not think it is great to assume that because students test well in HS, you can just teach them anyway you want and they will learn it deeply in college.
It could also perhaps benefit from more departments (mainly social sciences and humanities) requiring a senior project. This seems more common (or is becoming more common) at other schools in its tier. Basically, co-curricular activities may have to become more normative vs extracurriculars. I think that is part of Immersion VU’s goal (based upon what I read), but when you include study abroad as a potential capstone, that raises more questions than answers (because if the SA is not accompanied by a major project or capstone, those who can afford it will just do SA for a vacation, I mean education and count it lol.)
I believe Towers are coming down in the next year or two and there are no plans to replace Branscomb in the immediate future. It is very challenging to plan for the temporary reduction in housing availability, but they have been through this scenario before when Kissam Quad and Vandy/Barnard were demolished.
@Senior2016M You are complaining about a logo and I am an Emory alum…you want to talk about a boring logo?
If you are going to be a senior, maybe do not take classes with other seniors or juniors if you are choosing a seminar style course. When I had senior or junioritis but still cared about quality teaching and discussion. i chose small courses outside of my field (usually history, religion, or political science) mixed with sophomores and juniors (and the brave and token freshman or 2) and usually courses that were either offered through initiatives or were mostly for majors. When I could I also checked the syllabus to ensure that the work and reading load were conducive to discussion. And as you know by now, professor makes all the difference. I liked to take more renowned professors (in terms of teaching) because I know they knew how to employ the element of surprise (like you may walk into class after an assigned reading and then be caught off guard by being told to do a debate or something. I took an awesome but an insanely work heavy Russian history instructor and he held us accountable for the reading by making writing up and submitting discussion questions already outlined in the syllabus per reading). They were also the types of teachers that “bit back” when they disagreed with a point a student raised so they would not sit idly and let people just randomly BS a discussion. They pressed.
I liked these more aggressive classroom settings because they brought the best out of the class and kind of kept folks on their toes. I learned how to deal with this in my freshman ochem class (instructor learned all names and heavily used Socratic and even sent folks to board. We had competitions for bonus points and his Socratic method was interesting in that he would pit one student against the other by asking things like: “Y, do you agree with X”? And often he would ask more open ended questions which is how he wrote exams). Point is, I think an effective instructor can really activate a class (that ochem class was like 70 folks and my biopsych class which I took as a sophomore had 120 and that instructor used these methods as well). Unless you are committed to a course with a certain instructor due to time constraints or requirements, just read the fine details of the syllabi and feel it out. I could usually tell when a course was going to go in the direction you described (I could tell by reading and writing load along with the behavior of the professor within the A/D/S period. It was obvious when the instructor was a pushover. And when most students were older…that pushover was going to be pushed over) and would usually get out of there if it wasn’t what I was looking for. I actually took maybe like 3 social science and humanities courses where instructors gave many Cs and Ds on writing assignments (big or small) and these were among the best (the Russian History class was strong too simply because he wouldn’t really give hardly any A’s. He was kind of old school).
Basically don’t write off those bad experiences in seminar as symptoms of VU. Try to feel out the environment better before you commit and predict whether it can meet your expectations. Usually it will be the more rigorous ones if you haven’t noticed. The phenomenon you describe can happen at any elite sadly. If the instructor doesn’t put pressure on, most will take advantage and it will often result in an underwhelming experience.
So what is the plan for the fully built out residential colleges at Vandy?
Will there still be the Commons for all frosh, followed by a residential college for the later years?
That’s sort of how Dartmouth does it – all frosh get assigned to a residential college on day one. The frosh kids assigned to X college live in a frosh only dorm for the X college kids. Then those kids move on from the frosh dorm but stay together as X college members for the next three years.
Or will it become eventually like Rice, Yale, Notre Dame where live in your college/hall/house for all four years?
Is Vandy’s res college plan designed (like Dartmouth’s plan was) to take some of the focus away from the greek organizations?
The design is something like that, with freshmen still living on commons, and then you are supposed to live in the same “living learning community” for the rest of your time on campus (although you don’t find out which one it will be until the end of your freshman year).
I think it is part of an attempt by the administration to help strangle greek life, but I don’t think the system will be a real alternative for a long time. Only around ~10% of each class lives in Kissam right now, so people don’t really buy in (i.e. even though there is an effort to make dorm programming a thing people don’t really participate, and kind of just consider it a place to sleep at night, just like towers/branscomb/etc. but nicer/newer). They can’t really make it work until the whole plan is finished, which will probably be another 12-15 years or so.
Another interesting thing that might really affect the campus is this plan to remove most of the streets over by towers/greek row and turn it into sidewalks/grass.
FDG – thanks. Will be interesting to see how the 1+3 set up works once it is fully rolled out. That’s a bit different from the sorting hat system that is more common.
@fdgjfg : Hmmm…now that I think about it. Perhaps buy-in could be enhanced by having VU’s residential system but moving in the direction of somewhere like Northeastern (I think it is NE that I am thinking of. Emory has a “lite” version of it developing. It is decent at the freshman level but only recently have these expanded to future year programming)) where you have at least some themed programmatic options in the frosh reshalls and then a decent chunk of themed communities/programs can sustain themselves in residential colleges for upper-classmen (it would be like a hydbrid residential college/Living Learning Community type of system). Basically make a decent chunk feel as if they are part of a more continuous experience that may involve some more formal intellectual pursuits/options. This is often the problem of residential colleges or housing systems that do not fully achieve their goals. Lack of continuity or ability to adequately integrate the academic aspect (or at least getting the students to get involved with it). Places that put a lot of effort in the freshman accommodations are especially prone to this. The residential college system can solve a lot of this problem if there was a bigger “hook” that created more affinity towards the less I guess “social” portions of the programming in earlier years and then they can continue with similar programming later years…