The Battle Over College Residential Life

It’s often said that students go to college to learn.  Yet the statement misses an important point in its simplicity.  Students also go to college to live.

Politically, there are raging debates that continue in social media and often spill out into print about the development and direction of the academic program and the ideologies and faddishness that sometimes guide it.  These debates over ideology, purpose, and outcomes will always take place.  But what we miss sometimes is that much of the perception of college life arises from the thousand teachable moments that exist outside the college classroom.  It’s the place where students live.

It’s also where students – and the colleges that accept them – are most likely to earn a black eye in the community.

For the college-bound, colleges and universities have a responsibility to think long and hard about what kind of community they create.

This debate about the out-of-classroom experience boiled over this week when the Boston Globe published a report that detailed the poor and overcrowded living conditions endured by off-campus students enrolled at Boston’s colleges and universities.  Boston’s new mayor, Marty Walsh, promised to enforce the fines levied on landlords and increase the number of inspectors.  Mayor Walsh also demanded that colleges in Boston provide the addresses of undergraduate students living off campus, to protect the safety of tens of thousands of college and university students living in the city.

Walsh’s actions raise important issues for American higher education.

What responsibility does American higher education have to its students when promising them a residential learning experience?  Is what they are promising – in fact and by their actions – carried out?
If many of Boston’s colleges and universities don’t guarantee housing for four years, what plans do they have to be certain that the housing situation mirrors the promises they made to provide a comprehensive residential learning experience?

There is a bottom line to these questions.  The fact is that most colleges and universities – especially large, research-oriented institutions in dense urban environments – have made a conscious decision not to provide a four-year, on-campus experience.

There are many justifiable reasons for doing so.  To expand the residential environment fully will require more land, substantially increased debt, and renewed pressures on their tax exempt status now under more or less constant attack in cash-strapped municipalities.  New construction could easily exceed $100,000 per bed when “all in” costs of land, labor and neighborhood concessions are added into the full accounting of costs.

The fact is that even the most well-endowed colleges and universities have a complex list of priorities that may not include upper division housing in terms of where they make capital outlays or take on new debt.  Academic programs – especially in the sciences and engineering – are capital intensive and expensive to maintain and grow.

Additionally, their students have had a taste of freedom and independence in an unregulated environment.  Students may complain about living conditions in the “adult entertainment zones” that surround America’s universities but most likely want the freedom and flexibility that comes with living there.

That having been said colleges and universities can no longer turn a blind eye to how their housing impacts their sense of campus community or affects that broader community that surrounds them.  It’s simplistic to “wink” and argue that colleges and universities are giving students what they want by allowing these students to experience life in great cities like Boston, Washington, Chicago, and New York.

Among a number of changes, two must occur immediately.

First, colleges and universities must review their housing strategy in light of their strategic plan and against what they present to their students (and their families) as the “value added” from the residential learning experience that they offer.  “Truth in advertising” must include a clear policy on what off campus housing is acceptable and the terms to which landlords and students must agree as part of their “social contract” with their university.

Second, America’s colleges and universities should look to find different ways to finance housing that does not require use of bond capacity or mandate too narrowly a direct feed of students who should have choices among clean, livable and affordable spaces.

There is a huge market and available capital to build upper division, graduate and professional private housing in many cities with large university-aged student populations.  The newly constructed housing must be market-driven so that, should the use change, the space can be repurposed to general housing stock.  It’s not rocket science to imagine how Boston and other cities could work with colleges and rating agencies to get the job done.

It will also require a looser interpretation of the definition of a contingent obligation placed on a college or university by analysts like Moody’s who rate related debt capacity.  And most important it will mean that colleges and universities get intentional about relating their housing practices to their residential life policies.

Mayor Walsh is right to cast the question as a health and safety issue.  These changes may also foster greater persistence and higher graduation rates.  For colleges and universities, it starts with thinking differently about how they do business, cooperate in their regions, and live up to the standards they profess.


2 thoughts on “The Battle Over College Residential Life

  1. One statement struck me as rather narrow in its application: “There is a huge market and available capital to build upper division, graduate and professional private housing in many cities with large university-aged student populations. The newly constructed housing must be market-driven so that, should the use change, the space can be repurposed to general housing stock. It’s not rocket science to imagine how Boston and other cities could work with colleges and rating agencies to get the job done.”

    Many college communities do not have the “huge market and available capital” to provide housing that can be repurposed. One case: Santa Cruz has an enormous need for more housing, particularly affordable housing, but real estate is so expensive and water supplies so limited that little new housing can be built in the city. Furthermore, the limited road access to UCSC makes off-campus housing a difficult problem for mitigating traffic problems, and on-campus housing cannot be easily repurposed.

    I’m sure that other college communities have other difficulties that would make Brian Mitchell’s suggestions inappropriate for them.

    There are, undoubtedly, places for which his suggestions are spot-on, but the tone of the post implies much wider applicability than I believe is warranted.

  2. Universities cannot guarantee an on-campus life or experience anymore. Not with the way our society is today, and not with the numbers of students looking to gain entrance. Case in point: University of Missouri recently had the front of a building collapse that killed and injured people. No one was keeping up on maintenance. Our colleges and universities were not intended for the kinds of populations we encounter today. In addition, how can they possibly monitor people, especially outside of the campus? Students are adults and will do what they want. All they can do is enforce rules and regulations on campus. As soon as you go off-campus, all bets are off. Even then, there are limits to what can be done on campus.

    Universities used to be out in the middle of nowhere. Now, they are in the middle of somewhere. Unless you want to vacate and head out into the rural parts of the country again like the military bases and prisons, you are going to pay a fortune for real estate. Even if you could afford it, many places have none to be purchased.

    I think the new model for colleges and universities should be to purely provide an academic experience like University of Phoenix, ITT Institute, etc. and discontinue a hard campus requirement. Providing classrooms, teachers and administration should suffice in the future, Even then, internet classrooms should be used as much as possible and physical buildings kept to a minimum.

Your comments are welcome. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name, but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don't impersonate a real person.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s