EDITORIAL: The wrong direction

The four "virtual college"The four "virtual college"pilot programs should notThe four "virtual college"pilot programs should notprovide a template for aThe four "virtual college"pilot programs should notprovide a template for afuture college house systemThe four "virtual college"pilot programs should notprovide a template for afuture college house systemat the University.The four "virtual college"pilot programs should notprovide a template for afuture college house systemat the University.__________________________ These four programs were intended to serve as prototypes for the eventual implementation of a college house system that would involve undergraduates throughout their four years here, similar to systems already in place at Yale University and the University of California at San Diego. Unfortunately, the pilot programs were rushed through the planning stages, addressed in hastily arranged focus groups and over a few dinner meetings by volunteer committees. The pilots emerged without a clear mandate or direction, and without input from several key constituencies who already coordinate related on-campus activities and groups. And the pilots were not effectively promoted to potential residents as new living options for the upcoming year, although administrators have repeatedly stated full commitment to their implementation next fall. Now, English Professor Robert Lucid, one of the faculty members most instrumental in designing the pilots, has announced that he will retire. Kim Morrisson, former vice provost for University Life and vice provost in the Provost's Office, has already been maneuvered into the tangential position of consultant to the Project on the 21st Century Experience. The loss of these two individuals offers administrators an important choice: either sweep the pilots out of sight and out of mind when students leave campus this summer, or forge ahead with a more diverse, knowledgeable group of faculty and administrators providing a lasting sense of purpose for this project upon which the future University experience truly depends. To succeed here, however, a college house system needs more than intellectual and theoretical support from faculty. Students need to be intimately involved in the next set of plans for the college houses, determining themes, locations and what their overriding effect on campus life could and should be. Parents, alumni and other donors need to be informed about the progress of these plans, so that capital can be raised to purchase equipment for the houses, like darkrooms or desktop publishing stations, and possibly to build new structures for their use. Finally, the college house system needs time to mature from its current status as a pipe dream cherished by the president and the provost to the kind of idea with which the campus community is comfortable. As they now stand, the pilots offer a fine example of how not to plan, organize or promote future college houses at the University.