By Editorial Board
As of this year, the Office of Residence Life mandates that freshmen live on campus. The move was done in the hopes that it would raise retention among first-year students. Residence Life is currently exploring the possibility of extending this requirement to sophomores, in the hopes that it would mean improved retention.
Director of Residence Life Mike Walsh personally noted that sophomore year is an important year for retention.
However, as the people at Residence Life go about doing their analysis, they would do well to heed their own data.
A campus-wide survey completed by the department's own 2006-2007 Task Force Committee found that while freshmen placed much greater importance on a sense of community and socializing, sophomores began to reflect the priorities of average off-campus residents.
Indeed, 74 percent of on-campus residents moving off campus listed privacy and independence as primary reasons. It's therefore no surprise that students cite independence consistently as a top criterion in their decision to move off campus or that students deciding to move off-campus reflected the priorities of current off-campus students.
Residence Life's own data is clear: The needs of sophomores are profoundly different from those of freshmen.
Copying and pasting the same strategy for second-year students will not make lightning strike twice. If Residence Life's goal is sophomore retention, the irony is that more sophomores may actually leave UP if forced to live on campus.
Residence Life must realize this fact, plain and simple.
Of course if sophomores are required to live on campus, it only follows that Residence Life should accommodate their needs as best they can by making living on campus seem as appealing as living off-campus.
Residence Life has noted the benefits of keeping sophomores and freshmen in residence halls. They cite statistics indicating that students who live on-campus have higher GPAs, are more satisfied with their experience at UP and are generally safer.
We do not take issue with these facts, but the reasons Residence Life gives for expanding the living requirement to sophomores are diametrically opposed to the main desires of sophomores.
The problem is that these reasons hinge on the premise of paternalism: the notion that restricting the freedom and responsibilities of subordinates is in the subordinates' supposed best interest.
Residence Life's aforementioned reasons for sophomores suggest paternalism and any actions that come from this view will not help to bridge the real problem: Sophomores and beyond feel confined. Residence Life may know best, but the "you'll thank me later" stance with regards to grades and safety doesn't cut it here.
Granted, this view has some legitimacy, to a degree. New students must in some ways be cared for in a much closer and direct manner than upperclassmen. Incoming freshmen, after all, are little more than high school seniors with a summer vacation; they do not yet have the experience of living in a university environment.
However, where do you draw the line? When are students old enough to make their own decisions and actions about where and how they will live? When do you let go? We, the Editorial Board, believe it begins during the sophomore year; now veterans of a year's worth of college. And we believe that Residence Life's own data shows that sophomores share this view.
It goes without saying that Residence life should and does try to meet the needs of its students. However, if they truly follow this principle, then they must come to the conclusion that requiring sophomores to live on campus is in fact not in line at all with their needs.
If Residence Life believes that they know best, then fine. It's their campus, their students, and they can make those rules. We all knew this when we came to UP.
But if so, then they must be honest with the sophomores.
Residence Life must let sophomores know that they believe their GPA is more important that their autonomy to choose where they wish to live and also that they do not believe they have yet developed the maturity to make all the right decisions for themselves.
These are not inherently wrong beliefs, but Residence Life owes it to sophomores to let such a view be made known.
The effort by Residence Life is unquestionably spurred by good intentions, but it is based on a philosophy that does not mesh with the desires of a noteworthy portion of sophomores. And some of the most ill-fated decisions have been done with the best of intentions.
We believe, as Residence Life does, that everyone should have the opportunity to live on campus. However, sophomores and up should also be able to choose what they think is best for them as opposed to being told where they have to live.
The question therefore seems to be this: Can Residence Life change its own policy and rules to make the mandated living on campus for sophomores as tempting (or close to) as it is for living off campus, without infringing on its mission to create morally-conscious students in the mindset of Catholic values?
We at The Beacon don't know the answer to that question. The question is an extremely difficult one that will require Residence Life to ask some tough questions about itself and its hopes for retention.
If Residence Life is going to make any changes or concessions, it needs to be on this attitude of paternalism. Otherwise, every action or change they make will be through this lens and so long as they don't change that, they won't be meeting students halfway.
If Residence Life refuses to make this fundamental shift, then they have no right to demand that sophomores be required to stay under their thumb, especially when that is the last thing that some of them want.
As Residence Life researches this issue, they must recognize not just the changes sophomores will experience, but also the changes that will be required of them if they wish to truly meet sophomores halfway.
