The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1 - 108

S. Stewart Gordon

do not seem to think they are.
Stephen Hatch argues that any cohesive
residence, whether of this “hothouse,” experimental type or any “traditional, cohesive residential community is not a model that can be
widely reproduced or initiated.”11 He bases his
argument in large part on his perception of the
student life-style, with its insistence upon democratization. But taking pride in being chosen
and in remaining a member of a group looked
on with some envy as elite is a human trait, hard
to eradicate, and it seems to be characteristic of
students in experimental colleges.12
Operating against residential colleges is the
feeling shared by many students (and some
housing directors and deans of students) that
they don’t want learning to intrude on living.
Students want to “unwind” in their “home” as
adults do. In a study made at Indiana University:
Approximately 70 percent of the students
and 52 percent of the staff members replied
negatively to the statement that faculty offices
and classrooms should be located within
each residence quadrangle in order to make
it more convenient to get to class and contact
classmates and faculty members.13
Similar findings resulted from a study at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute: “The incorporation of classrooms in dormitories is very
unpopular among students. They want a
clear separation of formal teaching and living
spaces.”14 In a new and innovative college in
Washington, Evergreen State College, the task
force to determine basic policy decided against
locating any formal educational programs in
residence areas. At the University of Iowa the
Director of Housing and his assistant pointed
out to me that there is something to be said
for getting away from academics in the resi-

108

“The incorporation of
classrooms in dormitories
is very unpopular among
students. They want a clear
separation of formal teaching
and living spaces.”

dence halls. Residence halls, T.M. Rehder said,
should be “decompression chambers instead
of pressure cookers.” I was not surprised when
these administrators reported that “livinglearning centers went down the drain here.”
Students who are actively engaged in residential programs do not regard themselves as
in a hothouse or a pressure cooker. At Nebraska, the students in the Centennial program
patiently explained to me that the analogy is
not a good one. Students going to class fifteen
hours a week are not like businessmen going
to work for forty hours a week. All students,
not just residential college students, have
to work outside class and in their “homes.”
Homes, too, should be intellectual as well as
social—relaxation should be appropriate to the
current vocations of the residents. Relaxation
does not necessarily mean lack of stimulation.
The home atmosphere depends on the type of
person who lives there. Some students go to the
university for the social life, or to get a degree in
order to get a job. They, the Centennial students,
do not think of themselves as at Nebraska for
these reasons. Their persuasiveness suggests
that there should be provision for the kind of
educational setting they want. But, since so

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1