<p>Rice considers the percentage of students housed on campus to be so important as to be central to their growth plan. As a result they are building more student housing before increasing the numbers of accepted students. From their plan:
"an eventual goal of increasing the percentage of students housed on campus from its present level of 71 percent to approximately 80 percent.’ <a href=“http://www.professor.rice.edu/professor/10_Points.asp?SnID=1474462909[/url]”>http://www.professor.rice.edu/professor/10_Points.asp?SnID=1474462909</a></p>
<p>Personally I’d be more interested in knowing the % of kids who are commuting to school rather than the % living on campus … I do not really care if they live on campus or in apartments right next to campus as long as the campus/school is the center of their social life.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure it would be a measure of school quality but I’d bet it is a pretty good indicator of the quality of life on campus or the level of school commitment … that the lower the percentage of commuters the stronger the campus feel is.</p>
<p>3togo, I agree.
Singersmom, There can be a downside to building more dorms. I’m thinking of those schools that I’m personally aware of (I don’t know Rice); I’d rather keep the cute little houses and apartment complexes than clear land in the middle of campus and build a skyscraper dorm. My son’s little house where he’s living next year in Gainesville is actually closer to campus than my high rise dorm was when I went to UNC. And UNC now has dorms even taller and farther away.</p>
<p>There have been some mentions of size and type of institution as determinants of typical on-campus population. Just for the fun of it, the correlation between U.S. News rank and % of on-campus student residents for their Top 25 Liberal Arts Colleges is still .42, which is still significant at p=<.05.</p>
<p>I’d agree that there is a difference between commuting from home and commuting from an apartment nearby, but the nearby apartment is still quite different from living in campus housing. Colleges strive to make the residence halls a part of and extension of the curricular and extracurricular life of the campus, while the off-campus apartment is often an escape from campus influences. Also, at the campus where I work, we’ve determined that high-risk alcohol use is 25% higher in off campus-housing, and drug usage is 78% higher off-campus. That’s even counting those students who live in their parents’ homes, so the prevalence at the off-campus student rentals is probably higher than that.</p>
<p>That’s funny – all last year, my daughter would go to campus to party, and then return to her quiet, neat off campus apartment to escape from the campus madness.</p>
<p>I think most kids move off campus to get away from the cafeteria food!</p>
<p>I have a son who attends a college where all students are required to live on campus for 4 years. At first it seemed like a great idea. Now, 2 years later, I sort of wish he had the option of moving off campus.</p>
<p>gadad,
At most schools, it is <em>illegal</em> to drink on campus, so by default, ALL of the drinking/drugging parties are off-campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you be interested in investing in the Brooklyn Bridge? I can get you the insiders’ price! Send me a check right now!</p>
<p>Both the percentage of students living on campus and the ranking of most colleges are simply a surrogate for income. The vast majority of U.S. college students (the median age of a U.S. undergraduate being 24.5 years of age) do not live on campus, couldn’t afford to live on campus, and/or have other commitments (family and financial) that would make it impossible for them to live on campus.</p>
<p>The relevant comparison is not being Dartmouth and Murray State; it is between Dartmouth and the University of Phoenix.</p>
<p>Huh? To whom is the comparison between Dartmouth and The University of Phoenix relevant? The two institutions serve markets so different that they might as well be on different planets.</p>
<p>You got that right, and that’s about the distance between the top 25 or 50 schools in income/family/status, etc. and the average American college student. The majority of the top 25 private universities and LACs have virtually NO students who in age or life experience resemble the average American undergraduate. (And their share of the market is miniscule.)</p>
<p>Murray State would be about in the middle.</p>
<p>JHS, OK, maybe not all. But, for example, according to my son many of the frats have off-campus parties to avoid sanctions. And I’ve NEVER heard of an actual large organized drinking/drug party (I’m talking 100’s of people) in a dorm, or outside of a dorm. Yes, there is probably individual or small group <em>closet</em> drinking and drug use at locations on campus, but the big blowouts are going to be off campus.</p>
<p>I’ll let mini find you the great campus paper articles about repairing the damage after dorm parties at his alma mater.</p>
<p>I think this varies pretty considerably from school to school. The more “residential” a college is – which as we’re all pointing out also means the richer and more “prestigious” it is, too – the more likely it is that the big blowouts are going to be where the kids are: on campus.</p>
<p>How does that square with the thesis of this thread then? “Percent of on-campus students as a correlate of quality.” Is the OP suggesting that more on-campus alcohol and drug abuse does not factor into quality? I am confused.</p>
<p>I am somewhat sensitized to the <em>smaller/wealthier schools have better quality</em> issue, especially when it comes to quality of life or character. Having sent my two sons to a private jr/sr high school, where for years we were told, “Aren’t you glad your kids go here? We don’t have those problems like the <em>public</em> schools do”…I have to :rolleyes: As an insider I witnessed more drugging and drinking, in addition to cheating, than I ever saw in a public school. One teacher put it, “I can leave a $20 bill out on my desk all day and no one will touch it. If I have the answer key to next weeks quiz in my desk, it won’t last 10 minutes.”</p>
<p>Anyhoo, not to rant about my past, but I am confused by what is considered quality of life, at least from the standpoint of a parent. (I don’t want my kids going to a school where there are blowout substance abuse parties right there in the dorm.)</p>
<p>I think “quality” here was USNWR ranking. The original observation was that “residentiality” of a national university correlated very highly with its USNWR ranking. I don’t think those rankings take into account substance abuse information.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, “blowout substance abuse parties” may mean something different in Cambridge MA than in Gainsville FL. (Note, however, that Cambridge MA may have had more proven student deaths from alcohol.) The exit velocity on the blow-out may be a little less, and the participants’ futures compromised less, too. On the whole, I think there are plenty of parents who are willing to accept the tradeoff between having a Harvard or MIT sticker on the family car and having less-than-perfect enforcement of alcohol policies on campus.</p>
<p>LOL, that’s a pretty expensive bumper sticker! :D</p>
<p>I think Mini has a key point, not necessarily because students with lesser means cannot afford to attend a school at which they’d live on campus, but because they are less likely to come from families which value the quality of the college experience enough to invest in it. In our rural area, it’s quite easy to do joint enrollment at the local college for courses that count toward high school graduation, then double-count those hours toward college, round them out with enough credits at the local community college to get to 60 hours, and then commute from home for the last four semesters of college. Many people, especially perhaps those from families in which the parents aren’t college-educated, find this a very attractive way to gain college credentials as inexpensively as possible, and aren’t very impressed by the view that there’s a qualitative tradeoff for the frugal college approach. But that still may not account for the differences at the “top 25” schools.</p>
<p>gadad:</p>
<p>You focused on the ‘top 25’ schools for your study and proposed a correlation between the percentage of on-campus residents and ranking (and possibly ‘quality’ but that’s very subjective). Given this possible conclusion, have you done an relational search of % on-campus versus ranking for below the top 25? I think there are many colleges below the top 25 that would have a very high % due simply to availability of 4 year housing (and students who can afford it) and many highly ranked Universities that would have a low % due to lack of availability of on-campus housing together with large student populations. </p>
<p>Given the above, I don’t think a true correlation can be made and thus this criterion shouldn’t be used to select a college. I do think however, that the ‘availability’ of 4 year on-campus housing, number of students living on campus (not necessarily a percentage), and availability of housing in the immediate area that essentially serves as slightly off-campus housing, should be considered according to what one is looking for in their college experience. </p>
<p>Even if the % of on-campus residents is low, as long as the numbers are still high then there’s still an adequate number of students living on-campus to generate that ‘quality of experience’ for those living on-campus and in the immediate off-campus area. This is probably most important for the first couple of years and diminishes somewhat after that, especially as the student would just as soon be living a bit more on their own off-campus.</p>
<p>I’m trying to draw a distinction between a mostly commuter school (like community colleges and smaller state schools) versus a school with students not commuting but not necessarily living on-campus an thus still able to readily enjoy campus events. At UCLA for example, there are a number of off-campus housing locations that are actually closer to the core campus than some of the dorms. At UCSD, housing is generally only available for the first 2 years (first year in res hall, second year in on-campus apartments) and then people must move off-campus but most will move to readily available apartments within a mile or two from campus which is server by the campus shuttle - i.e. they can readily attend any on-campus events even though technically not living on-campus.</p>
<p>One factor that makes a difference in students commuting or not commuting home every weekend- a thriving sports program, especially football in the fall. This obviously doesn’t apply to residential LACs without football, but I know in the big publics that you won’t find many students leaving campus on weekends of big games.</p>
<p>Is dorm living usually more expensive than off-campus? I always thought furnishing an apartment negated any “savings.”</p>
<p>You should see some of the new off-campus apartment complexes going up around here, though! They have individual 9-month leases with all utilities included (and that includes cable TV and internet). The students can choose from 4 bedroom/2 bath or 2 bedroom/2bath. They’re completely furnished and have resort-like amenities: pool, sand volleyball, workout room, tanning beds, clubhouse…</p>