“It’s surprising that colleges with a combination of nice new and crappy old dorms, doesn’t care if you are paying $75,000 or $0. As donors can buy seats in admissions, one would think dorm assignments would also have a price tag. Even though it sucks for full pay students, it prevents classism in colleges. Probably some influential parents do pull strings to get desired rooms but hopefully it’s not a common practice to prioritize room assignments.”
What’s really surprising to me is that at UMich ( where students are randomly assigned except for those in LLC or honors and pay the same price no matter what) the nice new dorm is NOT the one the social wealthy kids want. Instead most hope for one of the oldest and frankly most disgusting dorms. Why? Because it’s freshman only and has a reputation at being very fun and social. My D showed me messages in a social media group where wealthy kids were offering to pay others to trade with them so that they could live in this horrible dorm. The beautiful new dorm was considered a “ bad” assignment by those super social seekers.
"What’s really surprising to me is that at UMich ( where students are randomly assigned except for those in LLC or honors and pay the same price no matter what) the nice new dorm is NOT the one the social wealthy kids want. Instead most hope for one of the oldest and frankly most disgusting dorms. Why? Because it’s freshman only and has a reputation at being very fun and social. My D showed me messages in a social media group where wealthy kids were offering to pay others to trade with them so that they could live in this horrible dorm. The beautiful new dorm was considered a “ bad” assignment by those super social seekers. "
UChicago has some similar oddities in what is considered a desireable dorm. It also has a range of ages and conditions - from 100+ year old grubby dorms that don’t even have A/C to brand new dorms. Due to overcrowding, they even leased some very nice, upscale private condos in a brand new luxury development. You’d think the luxury condos would be the first to book up, but they were so unpopular that housing had to offer a $1500 discount for people to go there. Why? Location and lack of residential house culture. They’re a few more blocks from campus (still in a decent area) and not known to be social. The first dorm to book up most years is that old, super grubby no AC dorm; it’s in a great location and is known to have interesting (weird), quirky types that always win the big Scav event. Not to say that the new dorms aren’t popular, they are, but they appear to be chosen by students primarily for where they are located and the other types of students living there. Bottom line - many students seem to value location and house culture more than they value new dorms with updated amenities.
No one tends to want the singles w/private baths at DD’s school either. It tends to be international students or upperclassmen, and freshmen who did get assigned there had parents complaining up a storm. Also agree that location is a big deal too.
Yup, old two-person dorms with communal baths rule here as well for the same reasons that maya54 mentioned: closer to the middle of campus, freshman, single-sex, fun and social. The new dorms have been allocated as learning communities for the honors students, aka “nerds.” (But, as a nerd, I wouldn’t want to live in them either - they are smaller and have itty bitty windows and they are on the edge of campus. The older dorms are slightly larger with those mid-century modern walls of windows.)
The dorms in the original article are the result of a public-private partnership. Perhaps one solution is for the developer to allocate a percentage of dorm rooms to kids on financial aid at reduced costs similar to section 8 housing in the “real” world.
I think it is lazy for the college and short-sighted. They could have spent $100M to build a new dorm. Once it is paid off then it is a serious income generator. Think fully owned rental property. Now they will just get a small amount from leasing the land.
Plus I don’t like the tiers for the students. Once on campus all students should be equal.
However, if the college does not have the $100M up front (or capability to borrow such) and/or does not want to take on additional risks (e.g. not being able to fill it up with paying tenants), leasing the land for private dorms may be a lower risk option.
Her last semester, my daughter lived in what was then the most expensive dorm room available at Northeastern. It was a huge single with full kitchen and bath in a fairly new building. We could afford it and she had had it with roommates and suitemates. She also had sleeping problems whenever she shared a bedroom and her room selection number was 1! Her room became the place her friends hung out in (she ended up with custody of the TV and video game system). I think it was the right choice. None of her friends cared who dormed in which priced rooms. Many of her friends spent most of their college life in the very inexpensive dorms (4 to a suite in an older non-AC building) or in dumpy Mission Hill rentals.
I will have kids at both campuses next year. I am fine with this system.
This is how life works. Not everybody gets everything for free and/or subsidized throughout their lives. It’s a good life lesson for kids to realize this. I’d like all sorts of nicer, new,fancier things in my life but I’m not expecting my neighbors to subsidize my desires. I don’t think there are too many kids complaining about not being able to afford swank dorms. It seems the kids just want to learn and have fun with their friends during their 4 years.
My alma mater, Swarthmore, has the policy of same-price-for-everyone in dorms. Lottery numbers get better as you move up through the classes, so you’re more or less guaranteed to have a more desirable room each year. The policy is in line with the (Quaker influenced) policy of egalitarianism. Same policy means no fees for any on-campus events such as movies or concerts. Works for me.
Even if all the housing is alike, kids sometimes cluster with others of their socioeconomic background. The people who go skiing on the weekends and the people who eat Ramen noodles and watch TV in the dorm lounge on the weekends because they can’t afford anything else live different lifestyles in different locations. I think this can only be overcome if kids who could afford the ski trips choose not to go, but that doesn’t happen much, in my experience.
There are lots of colleges where virtually every fun activity on campus is free; there are lots of colleges where kids mostly spend weekends doing pricey things in a nearby city, and everything in between.
I have family members (younger generation) who are recent graduates of Princeton, Yale, MIT, Cal Tech, Middlebury, U Chicago, Cornell where I think you’d be hard-pressed to figure out who are the kids with money vs. everyone else. And I’m sure posters here can come up with a robust list of their own “you can’t tell” colleges. And I’ve got friends with kids (and family members) at colleges like Villanova, Fairfield U, Wake Forest, SMU, Indiana (and a bunch more) where the “standard of living” diverges dramatically. And a bunch of state flagships where if you don’t own a car and can’t afford some of the “better amenities” your social circle is going to be defined by your standard of living.
But it’s not everywhere. And there are some colleges which work hard to make sure the 1%'ers and the “on full financial aid” kids live, play, and study together.
If schools want to teach students about real life housing issues by assigning dorms according to payment amount then might as well also hold them responsible to pay it forward what colleges spend on their education with their income after graduation. Just keep reinvesting aid money to keep this cycle of support going. Every college doesn’t have a big endowment to make education affordable for all.
The problem with tiered dorm options is that it doesn’t teach kids that “this is the way life is”, but “this is the way life should be”. Kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds are simply being told, once again, “yep, you’re smart enough to go to this elite school, but you aren’t deserving of the REAL school amenities. Only kids born to privilege deserve those”. And it teaches the rich kids that being born to rich parents means that they automatically deserve more.
Moreover, one of the biggest advantages in going to an “elite” school is the fact that you make important contacts. Segregating poor kids in worse dorms denies them this advantage.
Universities and colleges should provide the same opportunities, both academic and residential, for everybody who has been accepted, regardless of whether they are scholarship kids or trust fund kids. Yes, if somebody wants to live alone in a double, they should pay more, but, as others have written, living alone is more likely to be perceived as the result of personal issues than as a benefit of privilege.
I’m sorry, but when people say “it’s good because it teaches kids How The Real World Works”, what I hear is “let’s not let those uppity poor kids forget their place”, and “let’s allow the Better Kids to stay in their own place, away from all the riffraff”.
Basically, having income-based housing is Red-Lining university residence halls.
At the college I went to and the one my daughter went to, all dorms and campus housing is/was the same price. At my daughter’s school all freshman had to live on campus and all dorms are the same and you are placed via a lottery system. Sophomore year and above when you are no longer required to live on campus and you are placed on a space available basis and the price is mostly all the same. I do think the on campus apartments and family/married housing is slightly more expensive but not much. Anyone who wants a place that is really luxury would have to live off campus…
@MWolf my kid goes to NEU. They have a tiered housing system, with different levels for apartments, suites, singles, new/old etc. They have a lottery system to get rooms in the "tier"you select. I can honestly afford to pay for the “highest” tier, but my son didn’t even want to live in one of the units considered at the highest tier. In fact, his first semester he lived in the cheapest possible option. There is no “away from the riff raff” there.
I think public universities should try to keep housing options similar in price so there is no Red Lining. I personally feel that privately run colleges/universities can do whatever they want, and you have a choice as a parent/student to go there and subject yourself to their policies.
A lot of the kids going to BU/NEU/Harvard with " wealth" actually live in condos their parents. buy for them. They flip them once the kid finishes school and hope to make a profit.
Of my son’s top two choices, one had the tiered dorm situation. No one would let us in to see this a/c dorm. The other college had same price for all, be it a single, a renovated dorm, whatever. If you didn’t wish to be part of the 7 House system, you could opt for a different dorm, that was mixed with grad students. All singles.
I have no dog in this hunt. But to say you would be hard pressed to know who has money or not at Princeton is not my experience.
And at state flagship schools it’s more of an issue?
Middlebury. Great kids and certainly a great school. But no difference ? as long as you have enough money to ski wherever you want beside the Snowbowl and you have worked on your squash game at the public high school or have enough money to enjoy your breadloaf summer abroad comfortably. Yale? Skull and Bones takes everyone ?
No more work study at these elite schools?
I am sure most students go out of their way to be nice. But you can tell. When someone can’t afford Uber to go into the city or dinner out, the kid can tell. And it’s not just Canada goose jackets vs a regular parka.
I don’t agree in better dorms for one student versus another. I think it’s part of the growth.
It’s just not fair to target flagships vs certain elites and say it’s the public school that’s status oriented. It’s everywhere. And not enough the schools are better, they are also more noble and enlightened as well?
My daughter’s school had a freshman village. 95% of the freshmen lived in it, and it was pretty expensive as they were all suites with a single bedroom, shared kitchenette, living room and bathrooms. There was one other dorm freshmen could live in and it had singles w/ private bath up to double room with shared bath at the end of the hall. If you took the cheapest option, it was about $2000 cheaper than the freshman village.
I don’t know if the cost was the reason a few freshmen chose that dorm. It was a little closer to the cafeteria, student union, and the classrooms. It was the only way to have a single/private bath.