Journal of College & University Student Housing Volume 50, No. 1 - 72

Deposit-Based Housing Selection
increased availability of this data will enable future researchers to refine the perceived
and realized value and impacts of DBHS versus CBHS, as well as the cost of housing
deposits, into a more equitable system.
SUGGESTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD
Lack of funding in higher education is a harsh reality and a significant challenge that institutions
across the nation face, and administrations across the field must address how
the means of tackling this challenge perpetuates and reinforces systems of oppression.
A critical reimagining of current practices would benefit marginalized students by illuminating
undiscovered pathways that could allow for both institutional financial security
and the revision of harmful systems perpetuating residential gentrification. Above
all, the authors of this article emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this
dilemma because colleges and universities have varying needs and priorities based on a
variety of factors, such as institutional size and status, state laws, housing requirements,
and student population. Therefore, a solution to the puzzle requires a degree of creativity
and intentional thought. By studying the methods of other institutions, an already
established collection of practices is available for consideration as potential solutions.
One such solution would be to implement a CBHS system which, like the DBHS
model, would rely on chronological submission of required materials; however, the
signed housing contract, rather than a monetary deposit, would secure placement in
the selection queue or confirm one's intent to enroll. This practice would allow an
incoming student time to receive financial aid before requiring them to pay anything,
making the system more equitable from a socioeconomic standpoint. CBHS does not,
however, necessarily eliminate the potential effect of marginalizing a first-generation
student. It would still require some level of operational understanding from parents
or guardians who might be lacking when it comes to the general practices of higher
education, the privilege of committing to an institution, or the decision to persist at an
institution earlier without a financial aid package.
Perhaps, then, the only truly equitable solution to the DBHS issue would be a
random lottery for housing selection. In this case, a student seeking on-campus housing
would simply be assigned an entirely random number that would represent their
placement in the housing selection queue. This practice would, in theory, eliminate any
racial, socioeconomic, generational, and other privileges that might give a student an
advantage in the process and contribute to the gentrification of space. A lottery-based
system could allow for more genuinely diverse residence hall communities and altogether
equalize students' residential experience, which is so often championed as the
pinnacle of the college experience.
In the context of higher education, gentrification is not typically displayed
in fervent acts of physical violence, but instead relies on various systems
and structures to perpetuate it more covertly. Such a system, like DBHS,
can then maintain its ability to segregate the marginalized from the privileged
and is able to do so easily as common practice.
Volume 50, No. 1 * 2023 69

Journal of College & University Student Housing Volume 50, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of College & University Student Housing Volume 50, No. 1