Last year, ResLife stressed its ambition to eventually have nearly all University students living on-campus. Off-campus housing was effectively eliminated, excepting those who are “married, have children, [are] over 25, or have special medical or physical needs” (Argus 2/24/06).
Due to a higher-than-expected number of students here this fall, ResLife now faces overcrowding. More accepted transfers than expected enrolled, and less returning students chose to study abroad. All told, 78 more students than expected came to campus, and each needed a bed. To compensate, ResLife placed 66 freshmen in 22 makeshift triples, reopened six unfurnished former program houses that had been stripped of internet and cable wiring, and sent returning students an e-mail that sought volunteers to live off campus.
We understand that housing numbers are impossible to precisely calculate, ResLife has the unenviable task of preparing for the unpredictable, and the Office’s creative problem solving has prevented anyone from having to pitch a tent. Still, we’re critical of ResLife’s short-sightedness. While the incessant reassurances that the new Fauver residences would more than make up for the shuttered In-Town, program houses, and off-campus student apartments, the numbers never really seemed to make sense. Add to that more-than-expected enrollment and you may just find yourself head-to-foot in a Butterfield triple.
If more of those students who had sought off-campus housing in the spring had been accommodated, perhaps this problem could have been avoided. We also think that better communication between the administration and ResLife, and subsequently ResLife and students, would have alleviated much of the stress and uncertainty experienced during the summer months.
If ResLife and the University want to make on-campus housing mandatory, they must first earn the trust of the student body—and secure enough rooms for those bodies. Guaranteed housing means guaranteed housing.
Leave a Reply