|
The Housing Options Subcommittee
(Mela Dutka, dean of students, chair; Lindy Davis '04; Susan Etheredge '77,
assistant professor, Education and Child
Study; Ateth Siv '05, fall semester only; and Megan Thomas AC) was asked
to evaluate questions dealing with the types of housing facilities offered
to students. These questions, broadly stated, include:
What living options will best
achieve desired educational outcomes?
What living options will serve the needs
of students now and in the next
three decades?
Should the college hire consultants to
help plan for future renovation and redesign of houses?
Members of the subcommittee,
building on the work of the mission subcommittee, determined that housing
or living options support the mission of residence
life by providing choices that:
Encourage students to seek living
options designed to bring them into contact with others (students, faculty
and staff) who would challenge their ideas and
beliefs by exposing them to personal, racial, cultural, moral and
political differences.
Afford students opportunities to be actively involved
in the Smith community while supporting the need for solitude and reflection.
Furnish
students and faculty with sufficient opportunities for lively, enjoyable
and educationally rich interaction.
Members of the
subcommittee began by examining trends in housing at other colleges and universities
(see Appendix 6 for a
comparative chart).
Trends in college housing options include:
Suites,
apartments/townhouses
Theme living, Special Interest, Living and Learning
"Block Housing"
First Year Housing
Singles, doubles, triples, quadruples
Kitchen facilities
Common or community space
Currently,
97% of students live in traditional houses with dining rooms
or shared dining. Tenney House and Hopkins
House, our two
co-ops, house
0.57%
and 0.73% of the students in residence, respectively;
2% live in Friedman apartments; 2.3% of students live
in Chase
House,
which
is reserved
for seniors; and 0.0075%
live in French-speaking Dawes House. Perennial waitlists
for these limited facilities is our first indicator
of demand for
more housing
options
on campus. The Housing and Dining Survey included
Ada Comstock Scholars. Because
the
needs of our non-traditional students are unique,
and over half live off campus,
the task force did not focus on the preferences of
Adas. We were also aware that a study devoted to the
needs of Adas was
conducted
relatively
recently.
(See Appendix
7 for a complete listing of houses,
occupancy, and other features.)Housing and Dining Survey
The Housing and Dining Survey conducted in October
2002 (see Appendices
3 and 4) included several questions
of
interest
to the subcommittee.
Survey results
indicated a number of student preferences regarding
housing options, including:
Increased options across all classes
(except for Ada Comstock Scholars) for suite style living
(typically a shared bathroom
and small living or sitting
area, or at minimum a shared bathroom).
Increased
options for apartment style living particularly for juniors,
seniors and Ada Comstock Scholars.
Increased
independent living structures for juniors
and seniors, reflected in dining and house policy and governance options.
Increased
options for thematic living.
Increased access to
adequate kitchen facilities (not “kitchenettes” or
access only to a microwave unit).
The results of the
fall survey suggest there is a low level of interest in off-campus
housing options
and
co-op housing.
In
particular, co-op
housing, which is often reported anecdotally to be
of interest to students, would
be chosen as a living option by only 6% of juniors
and 7% of seniors responding to the survey (the two
groups
with
the highest
reported
interest). As noted
below, this low-level interest may relate to students'
understanding of co-op
housing at Smith. Currently, co-op housing appears
to be viewed by some students as a way of escaping
a restrictive
house dining
system
(both
co-ops cook
their
own meals) or the only type of independent living
choice available, rather than as a way of exploring
a more
richly developed co-operative
living
experience.
Three focus groups were conducted
in February and early March to follow up on questions raised by
the Housing
and Dining
Survey. The groups
included: residential life staff and house presidents;
a stratified randomly selected
sample of students; and Residence and Dining
Service staff. Invitations were
issued to approximately 100 students for the
first group and 80
students for the randomly selected group. Although
the actual number of participants
in
each student group was small (6-7), the discussion
was quite rich and echoed the results found in
the online
survey, thus
supporting
the
validity of
the focus group results. Thirteen members of
the Residence and Dining Services staff were invited
to attend the
focus group
and almost
all those invited
attended.
Overall, students describe the current housing
system and options in positive terms. They
enjoy the opportunity
to
live in small
communities that allow
them to form close friendships. They believe
that having all four classes
reside
in a house confers both social and academic
advantages. These advantages include learning
from more senior
peers, being
able to form friendships
more easily
with younger or older peers, and having almost
around-the-clock access to others more knowledgeable
about majors
and coursework. First year
students describe
their houses as providing a “ready-made” community
with all the necessary ingredients, thus
saving the time and energy it would have
taken
to construct this kind of social setting
for themselves. Students also spoke favorably
about
the effects of in-house dining on the house
community and the
benefits they derive. The constant daily
interaction occasioned by in-house dining
reinforces the
perception, and thus for some the reality,
of close and
mostly positive relationships.
Most students
like the houses and the amenities offered.
The exceptionally high desirability
of single rooms
was evident. Some frustration
was voiced about not being able to obtain a
single room, particularly
by the sophomore
year, a point at which it seems most students
perceive they should be able to secure a single
room. (Our
comparative study revealed
that at
many peer
colleges, single rooms are not available until
the junior or even senior year.) Students like
the conviviality
offered by
house common
spaces
(living rooms,
study rooms, dining areas, etc.), where they
know they can
find people
to talk to or be with easily in most houses.
The notion of a readily available group
of peers seems to underlie the positive description
of
house common spaces.
In the focus group discussions,
comments varied according to class standing. Students who
are
in their first
or second year
at the
college tend to
describe the system in very positive terms,
whereas juniors and seniors tend to
have a more complex understanding that includes
awareness of the negative outcomes
produced by the current housing system.
Despite the generally positive
terms used to describe the current house system, students
raised
concerns
about its
limitations.
These concerns
range from
a sense of isolation to the influence of the
quality of day-to-day house life
on a student’s ability to thrive at Smith.
The most profoundly influential factor in the
quality of students' lives at Smith is the degree
to which they
feel a part of their house community. Students
who describe feeling very connected to their
community, and see that mirrored in those around
them, speak of the
system in glowing terms. For the most part, these
students do not see the need for change and want
things to remain as they are. Students who have
experienced
frustration with their house community at one
time or another—or have
observed others struggle with this experience—talk
about the challenge of living in a community
where leaving the house is not viewed as an option
(too few spaces available elsewhere, the sense
that other communities have
formed and will not easily accept newcomers,
etc.).
A number of students spoke about the isolation
that can occur in the current housing system.
Members of a house
may know
each other
well
but lack substantial
interaction beyond the house. There is little
talk of interaction among or between houses.
Students
describe interaction
between houses as
resisted, best illustrated in houses with shared
(consolidated) dining facilities
where
students
still sit in groups segregated by house. Even
when frequent
interaction is possible, the definition and tradition
of house life (i.e.,
people who eat
together) minimizes inter-house relationships.
Some
students described connections with students
in their major as
another form of non-house
based grouping
that offsets the isolation of the house community,
but it was not a universal experience.
Athletics, theater, student government and student
organizations operate this way for some students,
but juniors and seniors
were especially
likely to describe observing or feeling a sense of isolation in
houses, recognizing that the house community
was tight-knit,
but at a cost
of participation in a larger
set of
communities.
While isolation is a facet of house
community life, so too is a lack of anonymity.
House life
can become
too
intense for some
students
(in the
sense that everyone
knows everyone else’s business), leaving
them with little place to turn to find relief,
even temporarily. Students describe the need
to leave the house
to reduce the stress of house life but acknowledge
there are too few places to go on the campus.
In this context, students find the idea of smaller
common
spaces, in addition to the large first floor
common spaces, attractive. Moreover, one student
suggested the smaller common spaces would facilitate
a variety
of programming that could occur to create choices
for students in house events, and avoid the displacement
of students that currently occurs when events
take
place in the only common space in the house.
The Campus Center should also provide a welcome
alternative for students.
Suites and Apartments. Some students, especially juniors and seniors, liked the
idea of increasing
the variety
of housing
options. There
was significant
interest in suites and apartments. The concept
of suites (2- 4 bedrooms around a common bathroom
and
sitting/living
room)
was
very attractive
to students
of all class standings and ages. However, many
indicated that as students developed and matured,
so too did
their interest
in a
more independent
style of living.
The idea that suites and apartment living options
would be available for some juniors and seniors,
and traditional
houses
for first
years and sophomores,
was strongly supported.
Kitchens. Many students
expressed a desire for kitchens and were largely dissatisfied with the
current “kitchenettes” which have
limited functionality. Students wanted full kitchens
in more houses, although they did not support
placing kitchens in suites. Kitchen facilities
would enhance community and
would also afford students the opportunity to
add variety to their diets.
Theme living. Special
interest or theme living was also of interest
to students, but was not
as strongly
endorsed
as
suite/apartment style living
and was
met with some wariness. Some students were attracted
by the idea
of living based
on special or thematic interest, while many felt
such a style of living would be too isolating
or would interfere
with
the “getting away from academic
pressure” that house life provides. (Several
students liked house life for that reason --
it felt like going home, a refuge from daily
academic
stress.)
Co-op Housing. Co-op housing is defined
as a living situation in which residents assume
responsibility
for managing
all aspects of the living
environment,
including purchasing food, cooking, and cleaning
the kitchens. One student said that
co-op housing should be increased, but that
was countered almost immediately by another whose
opinion
was that
co-op housing
was popular because
there were too few other living options. This
interchange reveals both the
desire among
students for different kinds of living options,
and the acknowledgement that too few exist.
Students mention the Friedman apartments
but
say that with
so few spaces realistically available, the
only remaining
options are co-ops. Students can envision this
type of
housing expanding
because
no special
facilities (as in apartment style construction)
are necessarily required. However, while
there is some level of interest in co-ops,
it may be as a result of limited options.
First Year
Housing. While the majority of students did not support the
idea of first year housing,
one student,
who
currently lives
in a senior
house,
thought that being with others having the same
experience was positive. Other students agreed,
noting that
first years did
better socially
and academically
when able to interact and form friendships with
older peers. Students generally talked positively
about
their own first
year experience
and interaction
with non-first year students, and juniors and
seniors reported they enjoyed interacting
with first years. However, many students acknowledged
that a de facto separation by class exists in
many houses based
on the
location
of
double rooms, in
which a large number of first years are housed.
Often these rooms are located on
the top floor of a house, particularly in the
Quad, so this floor frequently becomes the "first
year floor." Students thought this was the
best of both worlds because, from their perspective,
there is close community among
first years living together as well as positive
interaction with juniors and seniors living elsewhere
in the house.
Block
Housing. Students were somewhat
confused
by the concept of “block
housing” whereby students move as a group
to the same or another house occupying a set
number of rooms. Students who wanted to leave
their houses
due to poor facilities but enjoyed many of their
housemates thought the idea was very attractive.
Others felt it would have a negative impact by
creating
cliques. Although students acknowledge there
is some ability to do that in the current system
over time and with luck, they were reluctant
to endorse
the concept.
Room Selection. Students indicated
that members of their houses felt the only fair
way for rooms
to
be selected
was for everyone
individually
to
have to
re-select a room in the house. This seemed to
reflect the perception that rooms varied in quality
and
desirability. It is worth
noting that little
discussion
occurred about moving to other houses, reflecting
the current
system’s
disadvantaging of those who would do so. Students
acknowledged, and several readily described,
the difficulties of moving out of one's house.
There was
some mention of students who wish to leave a
house having to endure the "TBA" experience
("to be assigned"). This occurs for
students who wish to either move to a specific
house or simply leave their own, but find no
spaces are available
for them during the spring room selection process.
These students are placed in a "to be assigned" status
by the housing coordinator who attempts to place
them in their requested house, or as near as
possible, over the summer.
Students are not guaranteed their desired house
and, especially during years of high student
occupancy, many students are forced to wait for
most of the
summer before finding out their fall room assignment.
The difficulty of leaving the house, coupled
with the perceived difficulty of fitting in to
a new house
community, act together to induce students to
remain in the house to which they were first
assigned. The structure and operation of the
current room selection
process disadvantages those students who for
whatever reason wish to consider a change in
house, and advantages those who wish to remain
in place. (See Appendix
8 for a description of the lottery process.)
Students were
unclear about what role faculty could play in residential life and approached
the idea
with trepidation.
A few liked the
idea that faculty
could participate more in programming shaped
by theme living, but several did not want faculty
to be in
the residence
area a significant
amount
of time.
At one point, a facilitator noted that some
colleges or universities have thematic living programs
in
which faculty
live in residence.
Several students
quickly
jumped in to say they wouldn’t want that.
A few indicated they are more conscious of their
behavior around faculty and wouldn’t feel
relaxed, others thought it would interfere with
student self-governance, and still others
thought faculty wouldn’t want it either.
Given
the educational mission of residential life,
the absence of unprompted conversation
about the
role of
academic life
and faculty
in the residential
experience was notable. Students perceive the
houses and the residential life experience as
largely—and often intentionally—apart
from academic life and faculty. For some students
it is this very separateness that permits
them to relax after the rigors of classes and
other academic demands. For others, it has yet
to occur to them (or yet to be suggested) that
an appropriate interweaving
of academic life and out-of-class life can yield
enjoyment, as well as intellectual and personal
development. Students for the most part enjoy
their interactions
with faculty during teas or at occasional dinners
as part of the House Fellows program. A few—not
surprisingly juniors and seniors—desire
interaction with faculty not only around common
interests but also to learn more about
them (and adult life). While students do not
have preconceived expectations about interaction
with faculty, they seem to appreciate what interaction
they
do have. However, there does not appear to be
an understanding of or set of expectations about
what type of faculty interaction and involvement
in the
residential life experience is possible and desirable.
Even after the focus group facilitators explained
the educational mission of residential life in
a liberal arts college, questions asking students
to discuss what type of housing
options and facilities would support high quality
faculty interaction were met with little response.
The findings from interviews
with the focus groups reinforce those of the Housing and Dining Survey.
The key findings
from both research
activities
include:
There are many positive aspects of house-based
life that students enjoy and from which they derive educational, social and
emotional benefits.
In its current state, the housing system
limits students’ engagement
in the larger Smith community and beyond.
It creates a house community that is often isolated from other houses
and other
aspects of Smith life and is
removed from academic and intellectual
engagement. The system of choosing houses and rooms advantages those
who wish to remain
in place and disadvantages those
who seek something different.
Students, especially juniors
and seniors, are interested in increased housing options in the form of
suites and apartments.
Students desire additional more
flexible common spaces, and want full kitchen
facilities to supplement individual dietary needs and interests as well as
create community.
Students are unsure of the role of faculty
and academic life in the residential experience. They are unaware of the
possibilities for faculty involvement and
the positive outcomes to be gained and thus
tend to focus on a limited number of negative outcomes (e.g., increased academic
pressure). When discussing faculty,
students seem genuinely interested in increased
interaction but have little idea about how that can happen and what form
it
would take.
Basic tenets:
Acknowledge and maintain rewarding aspects of
traditional housing.
Acknowledge that traditional housing does not
meet all students' needs
for four years.
Expand
options for other modes of housing – especially
apartments,
co-ops and suites.
Room selection process should allow choice and
ease of movement among houses.
- Increase the availability of suite and apartment
style options for all students, but particularly juniors
and seniors.
- Retain majority of housing capacity in
traditional mode (houses with dining).
- Introduce theme living
options, revising existing programs to reflect a more
intentionally structured
and supported
living experience.
- Provide facilities that support
theme living options (see Section 3, Theme Based Living).
- Establish
a committee, comprising students, faculty and staff,
in fall of 2003 to assess
the room selection
process.
Particular
attention
should
be given
to ensuring that students who wish to remain
in the same house may do so, but those
who wish to
move
are not discouraged
from
doing
so by the
system.
- Create small common spaces in houses.
- Increase the number
of full kitchens for student use, to be shared by two
or more houses (access
to kitchens
by OneCard).
- To facilitate faculty and student
interaction around shared intellectual and other common
interests, add
small dining
rooms (similar to Duckett
Special Dining Room) for general use in
more houses.
- Enhance lighting in public spaces of
houses.
- Add data
ports or wireless capacity in public spaces of houses.
- Engage consultants to assist
the college in creating a long-term plan to accomplish
these recommendations.
- Continually assess and respond to changing
student and institutional needs.
- Ensure that all future renovations are guided
by these recognized needs.
|
