<p>Not sure if I believe the accuracy of this claim.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ephblog.com/archives/001594.html#more[/url]”>http://www.ephblog.com/archives/001594.html#more</a></p>
<p>This isn’t at all the feeling I got when I visited and talked with students there. Maybe those few were a biased sample as well, but it seems like the article itself provides a great many reasons this can’t be accounted for on its own. I mean if you really want to be pessimistic about things, how many college-age kids in general claim to be “very satisfied” with their social lives? It just doesn’t seem like a valid statistic… I wouldn’t take this claim very seriously.</p>
<p>I don’t think that survey means much.</p>
<p>I am more interested in the rationale behind the “anchor house” proposal. I find that move somewhat ironic, because the ‘anchor house’ system was in place when I was at Williams in the 1970s. It was basically a non-fraternity version of the fraternity house system it replaced. </p>
<p>I suspect that the underlying motivation is a perception that there is too much de facto segregation in campus housing (athletes living with athletes, blacks with blacks, etc.) and not enough campus-wide community. The primary aspect of the “anchor house” system seems to be the random assignment of students to an “anchor house”.</p>
<p>ID, there’s a lot of interesting background on the anchor house debate on ephblog.com.</p>
<p>Yeah. I’ve read it. That’s why I’m curious. I get the sense that the stated reasons are all “academic speak” for some real issue.</p>