Princeton house planis similar to U. draft

Students hate it. Faculty have mixed feelings about it. The administration wants to expand it. And it might be coming to the University. Plans to expand Princeton University's current residential college system -- a system that resembles the one proposed in the recent University report -- have met with widespread student and faculty opposition. The University's report, drafted by Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson, quotes a Princeton report released earlier this year that proposed an expansion of Princeton's current residential college system, which includes only freshmen and sophmores, to a system that would include upperclassmen as well. The University's report suggests that six residential colleges be created at the University. Every undergraduate would have an affiliation with one of these colleges and have the option of living in the college house during their junior and senior years. Each college would have dedicated faculty masters, dining facilities, and social and residential programs, the report said. The intent of the Princeton changes are to broaden the scope of "residential education while preserving elements of flexibility and choice for juniors and seniors," the report said. "This is a goal that many at Penn also share, just as many of the issues articulated in Princeton's report have resonance for us at Penn," Morrisson's report said. But many at Princeton said they did not support the expansion of the residential college system, which would be carried out over the next decade at an estimated cost of $80 to $90 million. Some Princeton students said that they felt overly "mothered" by the current two-year residential college system and that its expansion would cut down on the independence and flexibility of upperclassmen. "Considering the residential college system does not work during the first two years, I doubt it would work as a four year system," Princeton junior Anna Raytcheva said. "[The residential college system] is bad for people who want to be more independent. The social life becomes restricted to the residential college houses during the first two years, and you have very little interaction with people from other [college houses]." Several University students have said they felt similarly smothered by living in the University's residences and that they feared a college house sytem would mean giving up the choice of living off campus. Other Princeton students said that a more flexible plan than the one currently proposed should be adopted. "Any four-year college systems will have to be more flexible than the current two-year system, with more flexible meal programs," Princeton junior Lucy Tai said. "The four-year college system might make it easier for freshmen and sophmores to meet juniors and seniors, but it would create rooming problems. I think freshmen benefit from [Princeton's system] the most." Tai added that she was in favor of measures that increased both faculty and graduate student contact with undergraduates, but that the measures currently in place in the residential colleges do not always work. "I guess I know my faculty master relatively well," she said. "But I think that more could be done, particularly in terms of faculty and administration interaction with students. A bunch of faculty fellows eat in the [college houses] but they tend to eat with students they already know, like residence advisors, or in their own group, so it is still very separate." One of the goals of the proposed residential college system at the University is to increase student-faculty contact outside of the classroom. Several Princeton faculty members have voiced opposition to that university's proposed college house expansion. Literature professor and Butler College master Robert Hollander described himself as the college master "least enthusiastic about the four-year system," according to an article which appeared in The Daily Princetonian. Hollander said he was particularly concerned with the poor quality of the food at the residential colleges, where college members are required to eat several meals, in comparison to the private eating clubs, with which many juniors and seniors choose to affiliate. "I do not see faculty eating at Butler simply because most of them have eaten a meal here," Hollander said. "The food here has been scandalously bad, and needlessly so." Morrisson and several others who have seen her report said last week that whatever plan the University eventually adopts, it will be tailored to the University and not be a copy of models currently being used at other schools. "Princeton was mentioned in the report because they reached some of the same conclusions that we have reached," Morrisson said. "But we will not follow their specific model." Morrisson said she felt that if the University were to adopt a residential college system it would be designed to prevent students from feeling "mothered" by the University administration. "There needs to be opportunites for graduate students and upperclass undergraduates to exert the same leadership and organizational skills [in the college houses] they would need if they were to move off campus," Morrisson said. Morrisson will present her report to a group of student leaders tonight.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.