COLUMN: College House Blunder

From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95 From Peter Morrison's "Think For Yourself," Fall '95A college house system seems to be inevitable for the University in the near future. In order to spur a more academic environment on campus, the administration and many faculty members have advocated a new residential system comprised of smaller living units. The smaller units, as the argument goes, will foster a sense of community among students and will stimulate intellectual discussion and debate. The students living in each house will live together, work together and, in most college houses, eat together. At Penn, students want to be individuals. Students want to make their own decisions and budget their own time. It is the student who wants to make the decision to be intellectual, not have it forced on him by a residential structure. It is this individualism that is the University's strength and makes it an attractive place to go to school. Here, students have true control over their lives. They can determine their interests. They can get a sense of who they are and who they want to be. The students themselves mold their lives as they approach adulthood. Look at, for instance, the wide variety of clubs and activities that exist on campus for students to join. Students can join Kite and Key. Students can join the DP. Students can join the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education. The Philomathean Society's main purpose is to inspire intellectual thought. All of these clubs have close-knit environments and their own sense of community. Intellectual pursuits are part of all of these clubs. Or look at, for instance, the forum between the Black Student League and the Korean Student Association. Students sat down with each other on their own to start a dialogue, just like students would do in a college house system. And the most beautiful part about all these endeavors is that students motivated them on their own, proving that students do not need intellectualism forced upon them by a residential system. The University must continue to provide a wide variety of options for students and then have faith in the students' decisions to become involved. It is this individualism -- the ability to take responsibility for your own interests and desires -- that must be preserved. If students choose intellectual pursuits, it is because they make the decision to do so. Those students who want more intellectual activities can certainly find them on campus or plan them on their own. By the number of clubs and activities available on campus, it would seem for the most part that students have chosen to be intellectually active. A college house system is an attempt to resurrect en loco parentis, which the University abandoned years ago. A college house system sends a message that belittles the students' desires for academic thought. The message is clear: Students will be intellectual, whether they want to or not. A college house system restrains freedom and channels students toward certain communities and dialogues, without giving them the chance to embrace intellectualism for themselves. The other problems with the college house system involve its implementation. College house systems call for self-contained, stand-alone residences for students. The University does not have the appropriate structures for these types of buildings. At other Ivy League schools with college house systems, the buildings have their own dining commons so that the students of the college house can eat together. But the University does not have small separate buildings with their own eating areas. The high rises are not adaptable because there are too many floors and each room has its own kitchenette. The Quad would be difficult to use because it doesn't have an eating facility and the building itself houses too many students. The list of dorms that cannot be used for a college house goes on and on. The University's strong Greek system is also not conducive to a strong college house system. At Yale, Princeton and Harvard -- three schools that have colleges houses -- a Greek system either does not exist or is small and underground. The reason for this is clear: The Greek system offers the same close-knit, self-contained community that a college house system offers. But the Greek system is more appealing because it is more social and more intimate. Therefore, for a college house system to be successful, the Greek system must be destroyed or diluted to a small fraction of its current strength. College house systems also require more faculty involvement with students. Faculty and students are supposed to form closer relationships in this type of system so that both students and faculty can interact and tackle tough academic questions. But in a university that gives tenure and promotes professors solely based on research and the number of books or articles published, where is the incentive for professors to become more involved with the studies of undergraduates? It is not that faculty involvement with students doesn't currently exist, but based on the promotion policies, it would be difficult to get more faculty involvement. Those professors truly concerned about their students' education are already closely engaged with them. The goal of the college house system is a noble one. Attempting to institute more of an intellectual, academic atmosphere on campus is an excellent pursuit. But trying to achieve this goal by reforming the residential system is the wrong method. In order to spur intellectualism, the University must focus on improving undergraduate teaching. Professors must want to teach as much as they want to do research. The University should also provide more opportunities for undergraduates to do research of their own, or at least assist a professor in research. The University should try and plan smaller classes to foster debate and dialogue. Coffee houses also can help because they are places where students can meet and talk about issues or debate ideas. The University's professors must challenge students and hold them to the highest possible standards. Only through better teaching and more learning opportunities will students turn toward intellectualism on their own.