ResEd Needs To Reorganize

In the end of March, housing events shook up the campus and raised the issue of who is really in control when it comes to the room selection process — ResEd or the Board of Trustees. After these events, it is clear that the Office of Residential Education and Dining Services need to pause and reflect on the processes they have implemented. Last year, almost all of the senior staff in the department were reorganized. Other structural changes took place as well, yet not all of these changes proved to be very beneficial.

During the housing selection last year, students with higher numbers of credits, in some cases as a result of more transferred credits from AP exams, were given priority over students who have been on campus for longer. This created situations such as a loophole for sophomores that allowed them to get singles over juniors. Prior to the process this year, this particular problem was eliminated by the changes that ResEd implemented to the housing selection process.

However, the new system still did not solve all of the old one’s problems. For example, students who were designated single room assignments found that by their appointment times there were no single rooms left. The same issue occurred last year when students with later appointment times met empty tables in the Science Center Atrium, with no representative from ResEd there to tell them directly that the department had run out of singles.

The housing selection system this year offered some significant improvements, such as the convenient online room application form. It also gave the semesters-on-campus criteria more weight than the number of credits students had on their transcripts. Even though the implementation of these changes solved some old problems, there are other issues that must be addressed. An example includes the singles appointment list, which should include only the number of students that the College has available singles to accommodate.

Another unresolved issue is the criteria for seniors who wish to receive off-campus residence status. The problems that brought students out to protest in front of Stevenson-Griswold Commons were in part a result of the poor organization of the selection process as well. Even though eventually most, if not all the people who were on the waitlist, received off-campus status, this does not mean that everyone got exactly what they wanted. Students on the waitlist were let off-campus because some who were let off-campus chose to come back and live with the group with which they had planned to live. However, some students who were initially given priority based on their random numbers could not actually take the opportunity to get their first housing choice. This issue calls for an implementation of group off-campus applications the same as the group village housing applications.

ResEd needs to think about the housing selection process and how to reorganize it in order to avoid problems for a third consecutive year. Even though the Board of Trustees and the Office of Finance inevitably make the decisions of how many people get off-campus housing status and how many are to be accommodated on-campus, it is ResEd’s responsibility to plan the process accordingly and communicate to the students all options and requirements involved with the housing selection process.
 
 

About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

Previous issue
Archives

Powered by