One of my test-prep students tonight said that she is likely eschewing one local university because it insists that 1st and 2nd year students board on campus in the dorms, and cannot live off-campus. She lives 10 minutes away, and considers this requirement unreasonable, intrusive, and completely unnecessary.
So what is the rationale behind this policy? Ensure that students are a part of campus life? Ensure that the dorms in question don’t go unused? I will point out that dorms could be distracting if one is trying to study, and I myself endured a series of “odd” roommates during my 1st sojourn to college, none of which made my efforts at being a student any easier.
They need to make sure dorms are full if that’s an issue. (some have a shortage of dorms, and of course, don’t mind people living off campus). They don’t about “campus life” so much. I say this as a Trustee.
One consideration is that most freshman students are living away from home for the first time. I think that living in dorms may be felt to give them more social support and a more structured experience while they are learning the ropes of living on their own.
Of course, this doesn’t make sense for older students or for those who are living with family.
Wait, they’re making her move on campus even though her home address is in the area? That’s weird. I’ve heard of similar restrictions for out-of-state students, but not someone living locally.
When I was at Villanova University, they had both a shortage of dorms, and a rule that freshmen had to live on campus. My guess is that it was a way of making yet another bit of gouging a bit less obvious: Freshmen living on campus were also required to buy one of the top two meal plans, both of which were outrageously overpriced. Though I think the “social support and more structured experience” angle was the official justification.
The policy at Villanova had a specific exemption for students living with family.
Just like your father, they are free to make rules about what you may or may not do while living in THEIR house. They can make no such rules about what you do in off-campus housing that belongs to someone else and is rented by you.
They sell it as a way to create a sense of community in the student body, but I suspect it is mainly about things like drinking and sex.
I attended a college with a similar rule, but they would admit some undergrads as “commuters”. I grew up in a house 4 miles off campus, and continued to live there and drive to school.
Commuters got the worst parking spaces on campus, having to park in the most remote of the Student lots, but that wasn’t an issue for me because my car had a Faculty parking sticker.
The traditional college freshman is someone who is seventeen or eighteen years old and who until then lived with his or her parent(s). Some have never had to prepare their own meals or launder their clothes. This isn’t true of everyone, of course, but the transition to college is enough of a change for most students that living in a dormitory and eating in a dining hall is helpful. And it does help one to feel a part of college life. I’m still friends with people from my freshman dorm.
As for the OP, some schools allow local students to live at home. The test-prep student should ask the college what the policy is.
Yes. When I was at Michigan State, Freshmen were required to live on-campus, but I believe there was an exception for students living at home. She should specifically ask about that case.
The odd thing is it sounds like the OP’s student would be living at home with family. :dubious: AFAIK even Bible let students commute from their family home.
I know of several schools that are buying all of the fraternity/sorority houses so the school will have authority over what happens in them. Alcohol abuse and hazing are the primary issues driving this change. If a Greek organization really gets out of line, they will sell off the house and make the members live in the dorms (or off-campus if that’s allowed).
Schools owning frat houses is not new but I think in recent years some frats have moved into houses not owned by the school. So maybe that trend is being reversed now.
The American university where I attended grad school had that requirement (including the meal plan part), waived only if you were going to live with relatives. I thought it needed another waiver if you happened to be above a certain age or some such; several of my undergrads were in their mid-20s.
Columbia University doesn’t require it, but you can’t get decent housing in NYC for the cost of staying in their dorms. (Though students from NYC can live at home.)
But an important part of the college’s budget comes from housing fees. While there are certainly good reasons for dorm living (commuters usually miss out on a lot), having full dorms is often a financial issue.
The school I went to (Eastern Illinois) had an on-campus requirement for freshmen (blah, blah “social support” blah, blah “structured environment”) but you were still allowed to live with local family/relatives and it was waived if you were over 21. I guess they didn’t need 21 year olds slumming in the freshman dorms.
Since most schools have an exemption if you are living with family, I thought it was possible that it might be an older student who was already living in town. (Although most schools probably have an age exemption too.)
When I went to college (back in the Paleozoic) we had the same restriction that freshmen had to live on-campus.
I went to Tulane as an undergrad and they required us to live on campus for freshman year at least. It is all about college culture and forced assimilation. There is a component of money as well (dorm rooms there were hideously expensive for what you actually got but we did get maid service to make sure that everything was sanitary).
I can’t say I really disagree with it. You don’t want a bunch of rich 18 year olds from NYC or Long Island (the typical clientele) running around New Orleans without any transition period. I think you will find that most of the more prestigious schools follow the same model. Local commuter students are allowed but they don’t usually get full immersed in the whole culture and experience. That is really what the more prestigious colleges and universities are selling. They can take an 18 year old straight out of high school and turn them into an adult through a series of indoctrination exercises and most of those are not classroom based.
It is an expensive model and the textbooks are largely the same no matter what school you attend but the indoctrination and culture model is what they are trying to achieve, I would say the model works pretty well if you can afford it or if someone is willing to fund it for you but is a really inefficient way to go about the overall goal.
Yeah, that was my experience, albeit a long time ago. Frosh were required to live in the dorms for the most part, which acted in loco parentis, unless they were 21 or older. However, I knew at least one 18yo “townie” who lived with her parents off campus and this was allowed. (Missouri University, Columbia, MO, 1960’s)
Until 1967 (?) the age of majority was 21 almost everywhere in America. 18,19,20 year olds were legally still children, not allowed to sign contracts, etc…And the university was legally required* to act in loco parentis, just like your mommy and daddy. That changed with the Vietnam war and the social protests,which led to Federal voting age being lowered to 18.
At my university in the 1970’s there were still older students around, who could tell horror stories about the days of in loco parentis: The dorms had curfews, and “dorm mothers”, who locked the doors at 11:00 p.m on weeknights, and 12:00 p.m on weekends. If you were caught outside your dorm later than that (especially with a member of the opposite gender), it was a disciplinary offense,and could lead to being expelled.
)