FBS how do singles in Max work? I thought everything was a double/double suite? Are the singles also suite style?
@JBStillFlying yes they are suite style singles. Common area and shared bathroom for two singles.
I suspect the policy change has little to do with “fairness” or “unfairness” and more to do with “outrage” and “cost to quiet it was less then the cost to fight it.” Welcome to 2018.
I do believe that these policy changes will also have unintended and unknown consequences that will cause further “outrage” which we will see in due time.
You are probably right, @BrianBoiler , as to there being unintended consequences of the change, and likely also right that these in turn will produce further frenzies of indignation, with the administration being always inclined to appease the loudest voices. That’s Late Capitalist Human Nature 101.
However amidst all the absurd screams of pain and injustice about assignment to the ihouse gulag there were a couple of good points being made: It seems undeniable that the old system had the result of segregating RD-round kids there. That was not because they were being punished with a residence so much worse than all others as because in the pecking order of desirability it was least favored (even if unfairly so, in my view). Hence the RD admittees tended to end up there merely as an inevitable consequence of a system privileging early deposits. That doesn’t seem perfectly fair nor does it seem like good policy. Why would the University want to reinforce divisions of the student body along those ED/RD fault lines, privileging the former and creating a grievance in the minds of the latter, who will comprise those very kids for whom the U of C was not the first choice. Most of them will be happy to be there notwithstanding, but some will have their antenna out for all the ways the place falls short of the perfection they could have had at Harvard et. al. Some of that attitude is inevitable and is perennial at Chicago, and it is a time of life when self-pity easily flairs up. Nevertheless, the old policy was exacerbating this new iteration of a bad syndrome. I am glad to see the end of the RD gulag at ihouse.
@marlowe1 I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Additionally, I can’t for see any unintended consequences to this part of the policy change. I guess that’s why I included unknown after I originally wrote the post. I am looking forward to observing this though as these discussions are always the most interesting. I also know that the worst housing option (Stony) goes away soon. I also, can concede that regardless of what I or others perceive, when nobody picks I House in their top three, and that relegates all RD kids into IHouse, that it is most likely the least desirable option.
I also understand that having a dorm full of RD kids isn’t really the diverse population that you’d go for. Just like a dorm full of ED1 kids lacks diversity.
Ok, now to the comment about Late Capitalist Human Nature 101, I’d more properly title it Early Entitled Socialist Nature 101, but that is just me.
Amazed at the longevity of this discussion.
I think a lot of girls in I-House found boyfriends in North/Max/South because those dorms account for 2/3 of the rooms in Housing. In general, 2/3 of the guys living on campus will account for a decent share of the boyfriends, because that’s the way probability works.
I’m a big fan of randomized priority for housing. Especially given the other option - there was some talk, internally, of eliminating housing preferences, which I can’t see anyone being a fan of except the paper-pushers at the top. A good friend who recently graduated summed it up as well as anyone - he called housing “the best campus institution under the worst campus administration unit” on campus.
And interesting to see breakfast at I-House as an option. With the possibility that undergrad houses will move to the new dorm in 2020, maybe the College saw it as a cost they could absorb for a year or two.
I recently learned B-J had something similar - a small cafe/burger joint/snack bar/something in that style, located in the basement (a.k.a. the Pit) and known as the Pit Stop. It was still open when my RH graduated (he was class of '02), but had faded from the student body’s collective memory by my first year (fall 2016). That space is now home to the dorm’s communal kitchen - not a bad trade.
@DunBoyer - will I House cease to be an undergrad dorm once the new one goes up? And when would that be - for incoming class of '23 or '24?
My non insider and civil engineering knowledge deficit opinion will be for Class of 2024. A couple of weeks ago when I walked by the site of Woodlawn Residential Commons(WRC), the construction was in full swing. I can imagine that outside structure can be finished in six to eight months. But there is no way they can get the infrastructure and interior furnishing ready by this September. And I can’t imagine that they will let Class of 2023 move in the dorm in the Winter or Spring Quarter of 2021. There will be a logistic nightmare of placing students in a few temporary dorms and then move them en mass at the beginning of second or third quarter of the school year. So my best guess is that the WRC will be ready for Class of 2024.
In addition, I think closing up I-House after WRC is done will be unwise. I-House can be turned into graduate student housing. Or they can stay as undergrad dorm. It is not as if after WRC is open and then 80% of the undergrad will be in dorm. Far from it.
^They tried closing I-House once before but were unsuccessful. With the shortage of grad housing, I-house and Stony could easily convert to grad housing. Hate the idea of some pretty well-established houses moving to a new dorm, however.
Woodlawn is slated to open in fall of 2020. State-run media has confirmed that date: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/university-chicago-continue-expansion-college-housing
I agree it’s an outstanding pace - roughly two years from groundbreaking to completion. All of this on a lower budget, for more beds, than North. In the “do everything quickly, cheaply, and well” triangle, Woodlawn is being done quickly and cheaply, which suggests the “known unknown” of planning and construction SNAFUS will be rougher than usual.
As for moving undergrad houses from I-House, that’s partly conjecture on my part. The new dorm (again per the press release) will house about 1,200 students. Pulling out of the money sink known as Vue 53 will put 100-200 students in the new dorm (I assume a number of Vue occupants will move off campus - especially since the dorm has more upperclass students than most). Redirecting some first-years who would otherwise be in new doubles elsewhere (converted singles, RA rooms, etc.) will add 50, maybe 100, to that total. Maybe you get another 100 or so by closing Stony. But Woodlawn would still have 800-900 vacancies, and very few upperclassmen (before factoring in the effect of second-years staying in housing - I’ll get to that).
That’s a problem for a couple of reasons. First, the dorm will be owned by outside investors - with the University leasing the space for the long run. This is mostly because we’re very leveraged at the moment, and I doubt Zimmer wants a credit downgrade. Since the outside investors’ profit will depend on filling the dorm, I’m sure their contract with the University requires us to take certain steps to fill every bed. I imagine this is why second-years will be required to live on campus in the future.
Keeping every second-year on campus would add plenty of students. I don’t know how many, exactly, but I’d guess 600-700 at least. That solves the vacancy problem, mostly. The lack of upperclass students can’t be solved without moving existing houses, though. And that’s a major concern for Housing, because it undermines a key element of the Housing experience: having people who know the University and the city better, have “been there, done that” academically, and know the inside baseball of campus better, there to help first-years navigate everything. Plus it’s hard to have anything in the way of house culture when everyone’s a first-year.
The heavy concentration of first-years will be exacerbated by making everyone stay on campus for two years - since there’ll be a lot of rising second-years staying on campus, and ~90% of those rising second-years will be in dorms not named Stony/Vue 53. Fewer old dorms + lots more second-years staying in those dorms = fewer spaces for first-years in dorms not named Woodlawn.
Moving a few existing houses helps with both sides of the equation. It’ll free up space in the old dorms (which can help disperse the first-year class some), put some second-years in the new dorm, and reduce the strain on existing buildings and facilities (dining halls have been noticeably more crowded this year). But the options to do so are limited.
- Maybe you move one or two houses from a larger dorm (North, South, Max), and add some rooms to each of the existing houses. But many rising third-years would move off campus, limiting the number of upperclass students this brings to Woodlawn, and expanding other houses would weaken the sense of community in North/South/Max - already a problem - even more. Houses with 150+ people are actively detrimental to the culture Housing's trying to build, and they'll try hard to avoid this.
- If Housing tries to move Snell or Hitchcock, the residents will build a laser and guillotine their RH or something.
- B-J houses are physically separate, so it's hard to move one and reassign its rooms. Plus B-J people emphatically do *not* want the North/Max/South experience, and many would move off rather than move to Woodlawn.
These issues cropped up, to a degree, with North. A lot of upperclass students moved off campus when the satellites closed, and North had a bumper crop of first-years when it opened. As a result, house culture is still fairly weak in North. Woodlawn will have more beds than North, there are fewer satellites left to close, and the class of 2024 will be larger than the class of 2020, so this issue will crop up again. The question is how to mitigate it.
Stony is closing after the 2019-2020 academic year, and Vue 53 is too costly not to close. But they’re too small to put a big dent in the first-year population of Woodlawn. So after those two are taken care of, I-House is the path of least resistance. Maybe a few houses move; I think it’s just as likely that most of them do, and the building is put to other uses - grad housing, event space, offices, etc. Something’s got to give.
@DunBoyer Really? Woodlawn Residential Commons is owned by outside investors? That is news to me.
So how are investors compensated? Based on revenue generated by housing and dining hall? If that is the case, I would expect the administration will try to squeeze in as many students as possible in this dorm to maximize revenue.
I was a graduate student in the 1980’s. I did not stay in college dorms in that era. However, I did have friends in The College those days. None of them ever mentioned the house system to me. Correct me if I am wrong: is this house culture a recent (meaning in the last 20 years) phenomenon?
There is a basic disconnect somewhere. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of 1st year (and even 2nd year) enjoying the House system. But there also seems to be a lot of 3rd year and 4th year moving off campus. If House culture is so great, why aren’t the upper classmen staying? Will some current College students enlighten me?
^^^ been wondering the same.
@85bears46 Not a student, but I am a parent of a current third year. She has already told us that she plans to stay on campus all four years. She lives in Burton-Judson, where the house names were carved above the doors when the structure was built in 1931. That would seem to indicate that those houses have been around since then, with some changes occurring as houses are combined, like Linn-Mathews or Dodd-Mead. Ex-pats, those who move off campus, can petition to become Associates, which means they can come back to their house without being signed in by current house members. Many students choose this option so that they can continue to be involved with their houses.
Each house participates in activities on campus and becomes known for those. For example, Snitchcock and B-J (each dorm combines their houses to become a single team) as well as Breck are heavy into Scav, Max P houses tend to be more involved with intramural sports like Midnight Soccer or 3 on 3 basketball. For Kangeiko, Dodd-Mead from B-J has won with highest house participation for over 30 years. Those that live in the older dorms also know which famous alumni lived in their houses. Those past students are forever tied to their houses.
Each house also has traditions that it maintains, all of which used to be listed on the school’s housing page, but were removed earlier this year. Movie nights, weekend camping trips, ice cream socials, cider nights, special dinners, formals, and walks to brunch on the loop are some of the activities I can remember off the top of my head.
For my daughter, the house culture was definitely a selling point for the school, so being in an older dorm with strong houses is something she enjoys.
Actually, looking back, I have no idea of the specific compensation structure. I think the most likely arrangement is the University leasing the buildings for some long term (Probably a few decades). Could be wrong.
Still gives the College 1200 beds to fill, so I don’t think it affects most of what I wrote above.
The City of Chicago reached a similar arrangement some years ago with parking meters - outsourcing their operation and selling off parking fees for a flat fee to address a short-term revenue crunch. Although the investors who bought those rights made back their money in a decade, with 50+ years left in that contract. Hopefully this approach works out better for the U of C than it did for the city.
Historically, a big driver has been cost, plus a preference among some people for an environment with fewer rules (no drugs in housing, restrictions on noise after hours/during finals week, need to get parties approved in advance, etc.). Plus, house culture is dependent on the house you’re in, your cohort, and individual preferences. Many people love it, a few hate it. A sizable contingent doesn’t really care. Some people just don’t do social interaction, or their friends are all in other houses, or they keep weird hours and don’t eat at the house table, so we see them once a week and they have zero attachment to the house/zero qualms about moving off.
After two years your original RA has almost definitely moved off, and house culture can change a bit with the new RA or RAs. So people who liked it before may be OK with moving off then.
Plus many people study abroad 2nd/3rd year, which is a natural point of separation; the College will fill your vacant room for the year, so it’s easier to have someplace else when you return (though people have studied abroad and then requested rooms in their house for the following year, so that’s an option).
In my experience, the largest number of departures was at the end of my first year - when people who didn’t care for dorm life were allowed to move off, and did. With second-years required to live in housing for two years, this group will move off as rising third-years going forward. Most people who stayed as second-years are still here as third-years.
The larger number of upperclass students living off campus is a question of accumulation: attrition declines with each passing year (if you’re still in housing after two/three years, you’ll probably stay for a third/fourth), but very few people move back into housing, so the departures add up. Though there are some exceptions - one of my best friends as a first-year was a fourth-year who lived in a different house, moved off, decided off-campus life wasn’t for him, and ended up getting an open room in our house.
Parent of a freshmen here. My son is really enjoying living on campus. Already planning on returning next year.