Students respond to house plan

A report drafted by Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson which advocates expanding the University's current house system has sparked mixed reactions among University students. The report examines the history of the University's residential living system and calls for the University community to begin discussing ways to modify the current residential programs so they promote a more intellectual environment, according to faculty members who have seen the report. The report is not available to the public. College senior Brad Armistead, chairperson of the School of Arts and Sciences Dean's Advisory Board, said the board discusses ways of intellectualizing undergraduate education at the University. But, he noted that the board has not read the report. "[Morrisson's report] is very much along the same lines as what we've been talking about in our efforts to intellectualize the University," Armistead said. "This is an idea [the Dean's Advisory Board has] tossed around in what are no doubt parallel discussions to those taking place in the Vice Provost's office." One of the report's suggestions include instituting programs to bring undergraduates, graduate students and faculty in closer contact with each other, Director of Academic Programs in Residence Chris Dennis said last week. The report calls for having more faculty members live on campus. Armistead said that a college house system would break down the barriers between undergraduates and faculty and graduates that currently exists within the University. Under a new residence system efforts would also be made to increase the number of undergraduates living on campus, both Dennis and Community House's Senior Faculty Resident Peter Conn said. Some faculty members declined comment on the report until it is made public or presented to the Faculty Senate. Many students said they were in favor of intellectualizing undergraduate education, but they were opposed to a compulsory residence system. Faculty members said the report advocates increasing the number of students living on campus, but does not require students to live in University housing. Students, however, said they believe the only way the University could increase the number of students living on campus would be to make it mandatory. "I'm not in favor of an expansion of the house system if it means that students don't have the option of living off campus," Engineering sophomore Matt Keegan said. "After a year or two of living in [University housing] you look forward to being off campus because it is usually cheaper than living on campus and you have more independence." Some students said they believe that other programs should be intitiated to increase undergraduate and graduate students contact with each other and the faculty. "I think graduates and undergraduates should always mix together, but I don't believe in University housing at all," second year Dental student Dale Salomon said. Conn said that the University was a commuter school long before it had a residential system. "Penn has its own educational traditions and its own style and customs," Conn said. "A lot of [students] live off campus by choice and many will continue to want to do that. I can't see restricting anyone's options anytime soon." While some universities with residential college houses restrict students from living outside of their particular college house, both Conn and Dennis said that if a new residential or college house system is created, it would be tailored specifically to the University.