As I settled into my college house back in August, I was ecstatic to make new friends as a freshman. I heard Penn had a College House system, much like that of Hogwarts from “Harry Potter,” that I was looking forward to. However, after a few, low-attended events, that idealism was quickly and woefully extinguished.
Alan Kors, the professor of history who helped establish the first college house at Penn, warned in a Pennsylvania Gazette article from 1999 that Penn’s residential college system only existed in “name” rather than in “spirit.” Kors’s warnings were never heeded, but he was indeed right: the residential college experience at Penn is deeply flawed.
The quintessential “Penn Freshman Experience” remains unchanged from the era before residential colleges. Incoming freshmen vie for the Quad for its social scene, only to end up desiring to leave it behind. And now that I’ve experienced it myself, I can say that the feelings are not unfounded. While the Quad is known for its “social life,” college house events usually go unattended. There isn’t much that brings people together beyond pregames and the weekend frat parties.
Simply put, Penn’s residential colleges are only a place to stay, not to live.
With college houses failing to build the sense of community that many desire, students turn to Greek life. An estimated 25% of Penn students are involved in Greek life, far greater than the 10 to 15% national average. I’m not saying Penn should abolish Greek life, I’m saying Penn should provide an alternative sense of community that meets the same needs currently fulfilled by Greek life to everyone.
Despite efforts by the University to foster community through the college house system — including a faculty-in-residence model, heraldry and mottos to create a sense of tradition, and house-specific events — the experience just isn’t as intimate as it should be.
So, what should we aspire to? Look no further than the golden children of residential colleges: Yale University, Rice University, and Northwestern University — whose experiences we’ve only half emulated. Yale’s first-years are randomly selected into one of fourteen residential colleges. First-years mostly reside on Old Campus, Yale’s version of the freshman Quad, in sections designated to their respective colleges before moving into their college houses sophomore year. Rice’s residential colleges each have a form of elected student government overseen by a faculty “magister” that plans out a college’s social events. Many of Northwestern’s students live in residential colleges that host formals, philanthropy events, and inter-college competitive events. How do they make it work?
A study on residential halls found that by fostering interaction, identity, and solidarity — the three pillars of community — students will become more socially integrated and committed to their institution. If Penn wants to create a truly functioning residential college system that benefits their students, it must rethink the entire College House system to take into account these factors.
First, the Penn Residential Services must consider the possibility of limiting first-year residents to first-year dormitories and randomizing the college house selection process. Rather than selecting dorms based on social status or convenience, students would be forced to interact with their communities. This means applying with a roommate will not be allowed for first-year students; however, second-year students will have the option to do so and may also transfer to another college house.
While some argue that students should continue to be free to choose their dorm and who they stay with, research on Duke University’s random roommate policy suggests that students who are randomly assigned a roommate are more likely to form unexpected friendships and build more diverse social networks through cross-racial interactions. Furthermore, students with cross-race roommates exhibited more positive behaviors in subsequent interracial interactions, suggesting lasting benefits beyond the dorm room. That means a random roommate policy might have the added benefit of breaking down the self-segregating social norms that have been entrenched in Penn’s campus culture.
Second, first-year-only college houses should be completely abolished in favor of selecting students into four-year college houses. First-year dormitories that currently make up Fisher-Hassenfeld, Riepe, Ware, or the Hill College House would instead consist of sections belonging to four-year college houses. For example, students belonging to Harnwell College House might live in Warwick, Ward, McIlhenny, Cleemann, Ashhurst, and Magee; and students belonging to Gutmann College House might live in N.Y. Alumni, Carruth, Lippincott, and Provost Smith. After freshman year, students will move into their designated college house, and after sophomore year, they could choose whether to remain in on-campus housing with their college house community or move off-campus while maintaining their house affiliation. This would ensure that students develop an early connection to their assigned college house, creating a sense of identity.
Third, each college house should have its own student government like Rice, overseen by the faculty director-in-residence, coordinating its social events and philanthropic initiatives. Each college house would engage in a monthly inter-college competition (yes, like “Harry Potter”), promoting a sense of solidarity among students as they represent their house in everything from trivia nights to athletic challenges and creative competitions.
Penn’s residential colleges are flawed, but by taking these steps to emphasize interaction, identity, and solidarity, college houses can be made a place to live, not just to stay.
DAVID TRAN is a first year studying urban studies from Fort Worth, Texas. His email is ddtran@sas.upenn.edu.
