HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Last year, if I wanted to continue living on campus, I would have needed to get five friends together to live in a suite. I couldn't find five male friends who didn't already have housing commitments, so I had to find an off-campus apartment at significant expense. If I could've roomed with girls this would not have been an issue. And this wasn't even co-ed rooms; I just needed a co-ed suite. The rooms in the suites are singles.
I have a female room mate in my apartment and will have two in the house I'm moving in to. There's been no crazy sex so far and I intend for that to be the plan in the future.
I still have to understand out how the compulsory campus dorm/meal deal student housing solution came to be in america. Aren't you deathly afraid of everything 'socialized' and not dealt through a free market structure?
Here in the Netherlands there are very few campuses. Students just rent a room for themselves somewhere in the city and treat it as moving into their own home. Learning how to cook and clean for yourself is something everybody should learn someday, so I do not see the advantage of postponing that until after college. Average rent is 200 euros monthly all inclusive for a single room with a shared bathroom and kitchen.
Are co-ed bathrooms really an issue? I assumed it was the norm.
Also, being forced to live on campus sucks, jeez. I realized a lot of places encouraged it, but I didn't know they were that draconian. Jeez, I'd be paying almost triple what I do now.
Yeah, I think at my college it was the first two terms or something that you were more or less required to live in one of the 7 undergrad houses. I thought it was a great idea. Though I admit it's mostly because I'm lazy and living on-campus was really convenient. Roll out of bed 5 minutes before class and go to lecture in pajamas? Yes please. But I'm also an only-child, and I'd never lived with people of my own age before, so I was really looking forward to that. I'm a fairly easy-going person, so I was never really involved in any major dorm drama or anything, and Caltech is a fairly tame school, so nothing really awful happens much in the dorms.
So because you thought you might benefit from living in the dorm, and might find it more convenient, you think everybody should be required to?
Seriously, fuck off and die.
Also, the three US colleges I looked at all had shared sleeping space...basically two people sharing a single room barely large enough for one. You sometimes had the option of a single, but it cost a fuckload more money and rooms were limited...so sometimes you didn't. And at my school you are required to complete 24 credits "in residence," it's on your graduation application. To get it waived, you must meet a narrow set of criteria.
Yeah, I think at my college it was the first two terms or something that you were more or less required to live in one of the 7 undergrad houses. I thought it was a great idea. Though I admit it's mostly because I'm lazy and living on-campus was really convenient. Roll out of bed 5 minutes before class and go to lecture in pajamas? Yes please. But I'm also an only-child, and I'd never lived with people of my own age before, so I was really looking forward to that. I'm a fairly easy-going person, so I was never really involved in any major dorm drama or anything, and Caltech is a fairly tame school, so nothing really awful happens much in the dorms.
So because you thought you might benefit from living in the dorm, and might find it more convenient, you think everybody should be required to?
Seriously, fuck off and die.
Was that really needed? She saw a benefit and believes it can be applied to everyone. Chill.
I always figured the mandatory dorm rooms for freshmen were more a result of not being able to get a nice apartment by the time you've found out you were accepted. All the leases for the buildings in my college town were for may-may, and if you weren't signed up by January/February good luck getting in somewhere that was either liveable or not a 10-20 minute drive. I didn't know that I got accepted until, like, April. Maybe it was March, but still.
Yeah, I think at my college it was the first two terms or something that you were more or less required to live in one of the 7 undergrad houses. I thought it was a great idea. Though I admit it's mostly because I'm lazy and living on-campus was really convenient. Roll out of bed 5 minutes before class and go to lecture in pajamas? Yes please. But I'm also an only-child, and I'd never lived with people of my own age before, so I was really looking forward to that. I'm a fairly easy-going person, so I was never really involved in any major dorm drama or anything, and Caltech is a fairly tame school, so nothing really awful happens much in the dorms.
So because you thought you might benefit from living in the dorm, and might find it more convenient, you think everybody should be required to?
Seriously, fuck off and die.
Was that really needed? She saw a benefit and believes it can be applied to everyone. Chill.
Yes, it was absolutely needed. Look at the bolded. Her main reasoning for why she liked it and thinks every fucking person should be forced to do the same were "olol pajamas to class" and "I'm an only child."
You know, I really got a lot out of my church's youth group when I was in high school. I really think everybody should be required to be heavily involved in one. Hey, wow, didn't that sound absurd?
I always figured the mandatory dorm rooms for freshmen were more a result of not being able to get a nice apartment by the time you've found out you were accepted. All the leases for the buildings in my college town were for may-may, and if you weren't signed up by January/February good luck getting in somewhere that was either liveable or not a 10-20 minute drive. I didn't know that I got accepted until, like, April. Maybe it was March, but still.
Seems like an argument for making them available, not mandatory.
mcdermott on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Wow, seriously, chill the hell out. If you don't like schools that make their freshmen live in dorms, go to a different school.
Uh McDermott? I don't think she was advocating it for anyone other than herself.
Edit: I mean, she says she liked it and it was nice for her. Not that she thinks it should be mandatory for everyone.
Well, she says it was required followed by it being a great idea. Reading the two sentences in a row, sounds like she thinks it was a great idea to require it. Could have been wrong, I guess.
Wow, seriously, chill the hell out. If you don't like schools that make their freshmen live in dorms, go to a different school.
That's awesome, except that a vast majority of schools actually do so.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
You know what mcdermott? You know how you wake up and brush your teeth using Colgate? Now you think it is a great idea and it should be mandatory for everyone to brush their teeth using Colgate?
There are good arguments for the positive effects of requiring freshmen to live on campus. As such it is not unreasonable to mandate it. Universities enact policies which help students to succeed. That's the point of their being there, after all.
I'm not saying my personal experience applies to everyone, but I was a freshman once and living on campus was good at getting me into the college life. It focuses your life more around school because you are always on the campus. So I would say that I am an example of someone who benefited from this mandate, while otherwise I might have lived at home instead and commuted, being much less connected to school.
At my school, we had to live in the dorms for the first two years, unless you could come up with a good reason not to. I had a buddy who got out of the dorms sophomore year because he was the "equipment manager" for club lacrosse. Long story short, he ended up quitting lacrosse second semester, and when the university found out, he had to pay a whole fucking semester of room and board. God damn ridiculous.
I thought that was bad. Then, I found out from another friend that at her college, only a set amount of people were allowed to move off campus each year. And how do they determine who is blessed with this privilege? Random lottery. Thats right, if your number doesn't come up (and it only could when you were a senior), you were stuck living in the dorms all four years.
Now, I personally didn't have a problem with dorm life. We had some crazy times, and all of my best friends from school (and most of my current roommates) were from my dorm floor freshman year. However, forcing students to live in the dorms for a set number of years just seems unnecessary to me.
You know what mcdermott? You know how you wake up and brush your teeth using Colgate? Now you think it is a great idea and it should be mandatory for everyone to brush their teeth using Colgate?
Well you can go fuck off and die.
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. But the day I suggest everybody should use the same toothpaste I do, I will absolutely expect somebody to call me on my bullshit.
I'm not saying my personal experience applies to everyone...
This is probably right where you should have stopped, at least as soon as you're mandating the actions of others.
I'm not saying my personal experience applies to everyone...
This is probably right where you should have stopped, at least as soon as you're mandating the actions of others.
Dude, why does this touch such a nerve with you?
Calm the fuck down, universities are allowed to make rules about this stuff, and there are advantages to it. I'm from out of state at my current college, and requiring freshmen to stay on campus is good for me as it insures me a room and I get to meet people here.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone, and I'm not going to advocate everyone having to do it, but it's not a horrible thing that requires you to freak out on everyone.
Because it's a load of horseshit? It's a policy common to most universities that I think is a load of crap, especially when combined with the kind of dorm accommodations offered.
Calm the fuck down, universities are allowed to make rules about this stuff, and there are advantages to it. I'm from out of state at my current college, and requiring freshmen to stay on campus is good for me as it insures me a room and I get to meet people here.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone, and I'm not going to advocate everyone having to do it, but it's not a horrible thing that requires you to freak out on everyone.
Oh, I'm only freaking out on the idiots who think that requiring everybody to live on campus so that they can have an easier time finding friends is peachy. You say you aren't advocating everyone having to do it, yet the paragraph before sounds an awful lot like you doing just that.
I'm seriously wondering if Pants Man is mcdermott. Something is rubbing me wrong about both of them in the exact same way.
Go hit the abortion thread. You'll find we're quite different. I'm sorry if I'm not perfectly civil in calling people on their bullshit. Deal.
You're not "calling people on their bullshit". You're being way, way too aggressive when you don't agree with someone and instead of presenting a clear counterpoint to their claim, you just resort to name calling and ad hom attacks.
I'm seriously wondering if Pants Man is mcdermott. Something is rubbing me wrong about both of them in the exact same way.
Go hit the abortion thread. You'll find we're quite different. I'm sorry if I'm not perfectly civil in calling people on their bullshit. Deal.
Uh, you went quite overboard up there. And this is coming from me. Drez. All Irene said was that she thought dorms were a great idea. And yes, she blatantly stated that this was for a selfish reason, because she liked the social atmosphere it provided, one that could only exist if people were forced into the situation. And considering this isn't a life-or-death issue - mostly it is economic - "fuck off and die" seems a rather inappropriate response.
I'm seriously wondering if Pants Man is mcdermott. Something is rubbing me wrong about both of them in the exact same way.
Go hit the abortion thread. You'll find we're quite different. I'm sorry if I'm not perfectly civil in calling people on their bullshit. Deal.
You're not "calling people on their bullshit". You're being way, way too aggressive when you don't agree with someone and instead of presenting a clear counterpoint to their claim, you just resort to name calling and ad hom attacks.
Well maybe I'm just in a particularly bad mood at the moment. Who knows. But seriously, suggesting that everybody should have to do something because you dug it? I shouldn't have to explain why that's bullshit.
Assuming, of course, that's what she was originally suggesting.
I'm seriously wondering if Pants Man is mcdermott. Something is rubbing me wrong about both of them in the exact same way.
Go hit the abortion thread. You'll find we're quite different. I'm sorry if I'm not perfectly civil in calling people on their bullshit. Deal.
You're not "calling people on their bullshit". You're being way, way too aggressive when you don't agree with someone and instead of presenting a clear counterpoint to their claim, you just resort to name calling and ad hom attacks.
Well maybe I'm just in a particularly bad mood at the moment. Who knows. But seriously, suggesting that everybody should have to do something because you dug it? I shouldn't have to explain why that's bullshit.
Assuming, of course, that's what she was originally suggesting.
I dig when people wash their hands after using the bathroom. I dig that so much, I think it should be mandatory. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the US government passed legislation allowing police officers to chop the hands off of people that don't.
I dig when people wash their hands after using the bathroom. I dig that so much, I think it should be mandatory. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the US government passed legislation allowing police officers to chop the hands off of people that don't.
I guess I should go fuck off and die now.
Depends on your reasoning. Generally I'd not say that "I don't want people to spread disease" isn't particularly analogous to "olol it helps me make friends" when it comes to reasons for wanting others to be forced to do things.
If, on the other hand, it was just because you like the smell of soap or something stupid like that? Yeah, go die in a fire.
I dig when people wash their hands after using the bathroom. I dig that so much, I think it should be mandatory. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the US government passed legislation allowing police officers to chop the hands off of people that don't.
I guess I should go fuck off and die now.
Depends on your reasoning. Generally I'd not say that "I don't want people to spread disease" isn't particularly analogous to "olol it helps me make friends" when it comes to reasons for wanting others to be forced to do things.
If, on the other hand, it was just because you like the smell of soap or something stupid like that? Yeah, go die in a fire.
WTF. "olol it helps me makes friends"? I offered an example of why it's beneficial, especially for a bunch of 18 year olds first time out of home. All of my friends decided to spend a year in a dorm to better get to know people, even when it wasn't required.
Also, everyone I've met here said it was good that they lived a year on campus. Why don't you fuck off and die.
Depends on your reasoning. Generally I'd not say that "I don't want people to spread disease" isn't particularly analogous to "olol it helps me make friends" when it comes to reasons for wanting others to be forced to do things.
If, on the other hand, it was just because you like the smell of soap or something stupid like that? Yeah, go die in a fire.
WTF. "olol it helps me makes friends"? I offered an example of why it's beneficial, especially for a bunch of 18 year olds first time out of home. All of my friends decided to spend a year in a dorm to better get to know people, even when it wasn't required.
Also, everyone I've met here said it was good that they lived a year on campus. Why don't you fuck off and die.
Yet I've met more than a few who thought it was expensive, unpleasant, and wish they'd never been made to do it. And who moved off-campus as soon as they were allowed to.
Whose anecdote wins?
EDIT: Also, note that nowhere have I suggest that you (or your friends) shouldn't have had the choice to do this.
"Women ages 16 to 24 experience rape at rates four times higher than the assault rate of all women," making the college (and high school) years the most vulnerable for women. College women are more at risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault than women the same age but not in college. It is estimated that almost 25 percent of college women have been victims of rape or attempted rape since the age of 14.
For instance, private colleges and major universities have higher than national average rates, while religiously affiliated institutions have lower than average rates (Sanday 1996). Also, students at two-year institutions (15.6%) were significantly more likely than those at four-year institutions (11.1%) to report they had been forced during their lifetime to have sexual intercourse (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1995).
The most recent large-scale study, including students at both two- and four-year colleges, found 35 rapes per 1,000 female students over seven months8 (rape was defined as "unwanted completed penetration by force or threat of force"). Based on this study, a college with 10,000 women students could experience 350 rapes a year. This conflicts with official college data. In 1999, reported forcible and nonforcible sexual offenses totaled 2,469 incidents for all U.S. college campuses combined, underscoring the low levels of rape reporting.
Stranger rape of college students is less common than acquaintance rape. Ninety percent of college women who are victims of rape or attempted rape know their assailant. The attacker is usually a classmate, friend, boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, or other acquaintance (in that order). Most acquaintance rapes do not occur on dates; rather they occur when two people are otherwise in the same place (e.g., at a party, studying together in a dorm room). Thus, "date rape" (rape that occurs during or at the end of a date) is not the appropriate term to describe the majority of acquaintance rapes of college women, as date rapes account for only 13 percent of college rapes (although they make up 35 percent of attempted rapes). Gang rape of college women (multiple men taking turns raping a woman) is also a problem, although to a lesser extent than even date rape.
[...]
FBI data does not capture most acquaintance rapes of women since the FBI only requires reporting of rapes that involve force or fear.
Most of the facts are cited, though of course I've taken those out of the summary.
Anyways, given the scope of the problem as it already stands, I'm not sure coed dorm rooms are a good idea.
Most of the facts are cited, though of course I've taken those out of the summary.
Anyways, given the scope of the problem as it already stands, I'm not sure coed dorm rooms are a good idea.
I don't think multi-occupancy dorm rooms are the greatest idea, really. Like I said, male-on-male sexual assaults aren't exactly unheard of in dorms, either.
While I don't think it's a good idea to have the housing be mandatory, I do think it has its benefits. As much as I disliked being forced to stay in the barracks, the reason why they had the blanket rule for new people was kind of obvious: Most young people just out of the house are dumb. Very dumb. I think barracks/dorms act as a good halfway point for when they're living on their own.
But the mandatory rule, I agree, is dumb as it stands right now. If, however, the housing were improved to the point that it was worth the amount of money they were giving up I'd have less issue with it.
College women are raped at significantly higher rates than college men.† College men are more likely to report experiencing unwanted kissing or fondling than intercourse.5 College men who are raped are usually raped by other men. However, since so few men report, information is limited about the extent of the problem.6 Even current national data collection systems fail to capture information about rape of men; the FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) does not provide data on male rape victims.†† Researchers have begun to fill this information gap with survey data, which suggest that up to 10 percent of acquaintance rape victims on campus are men.7 Since so little information is available about acquaintance rape of college men, this guide focuses on college women.
anyways
basically mcdermott yes you're right but that's no reason to not be concerned about the potential ramifications of the new ideas
Jinnigan on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
There is a pretty big problem with rape and what's being done to prevent it at colleges. My girlfriend's school (one of the ones trying out this coed-room thing) tried to claim that there have been no sexual assaults at the college in five years, when in reality there were quite a few that hadn't been reported. The ones that were reported were swept under the carpet.
At my school, a reported rape case brought to light a previous incident, in which a student was raped by an RA, who afterward was allowed to keep his job (even though an RA selling marijuana would have been terminated w/ no questions asked). There was a student uproar and eventually the zero-tolerance rule was changed to include rapists, but the fact that the judiciary policy considered selling marijuana a more serious offense than rape is just indicative of how sick a lot of systems are.
I'm not sure what (if any) correlation there would be between co-ed rooms and sexual assault. It does seem likely that people would immediately try to establish a correlation if the sexual assault rates went up at all, and hold the school responsible.
Posts
I think the sticking point is that the suite rooms all share one bathroom. Still weak sauce.
See this is why they shouldn't let them homos into college, because it'll just be a smorgasrapeborg for them.
Attempting to rape a Borg is a VERY bad idea.
Really? Fuck, I've been wasting all my time learning!
And getting raped.
Tutors don't work for free.
Here in the Netherlands there are very few campuses. Students just rent a room for themselves somewhere in the city and treat it as moving into their own home. Learning how to cook and clean for yourself is something everybody should learn someday, so I do not see the advantage of postponing that until after college. Average rent is 200 euros monthly all inclusive for a single room with a shared bathroom and kitchen.
Also, being forced to live on campus sucks, jeez. I realized a lot of places encouraged it, but I didn't know they were that draconian. Jeez, I'd be paying almost triple what I do now.
They almost do, considering how much you're worth ;-)
So because you thought you might benefit from living in the dorm, and might find it more convenient, you think everybody should be required to?
Seriously, fuck off and die.
Also, the three US colleges I looked at all had shared sleeping space...basically two people sharing a single room barely large enough for one. You sometimes had the option of a single, but it cost a fuckload more money and rooms were limited...so sometimes you didn't. And at my school you are required to complete 24 credits "in residence," it's on your graduation application. To get it waived, you must meet a narrow set of criteria.
Was that really needed? She saw a benefit and believes it can be applied to everyone. Chill.
Yes, it was absolutely needed. Look at the bolded. Her main reasoning for why she liked it and thinks every fucking person should be forced to do the same were "olol pajamas to class" and "I'm an only child."
You know, I really got a lot out of my church's youth group when I was in high school. I really think everybody should be required to be heavily involved in one. Hey, wow, didn't that sound absurd?
Seems like an argument for making them available, not mandatory.
Edit: I mean, she says she liked it and it was nice for her. Not that she thinks it should be mandatory for everyone.
Well, she says it was required followed by it being a great idea. Reading the two sentences in a row, sounds like she thinks it was a great idea to require it. Could have been wrong, I guess.
That's awesome, except that a vast majority of schools actually do so.
Well you can go fuck off and die.
I'm not saying my personal experience applies to everyone, but I was a freshman once and living on campus was good at getting me into the college life. It focuses your life more around school because you are always on the campus. So I would say that I am an example of someone who benefited from this mandate, while otherwise I might have lived at home instead and commuted, being much less connected to school.
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
I thought that was bad. Then, I found out from another friend that at her college, only a set amount of people were allowed to move off campus each year. And how do they determine who is blessed with this privilege? Random lottery. Thats right, if your number doesn't come up (and it only could when you were a senior), you were stuck living in the dorms all four years.
Now, I personally didn't have a problem with dorm life. We had some crazy times, and all of my best friends from school (and most of my current roommates) were from my dorm floor freshman year. However, forcing students to live in the dorms for a set number of years just seems unnecessary to me.
I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. But the day I suggest everybody should use the same toothpaste I do, I will absolutely expect somebody to call me on my bullshit.
This is probably right where you should have stopped, at least as soon as you're mandating the actions of others.
Dude, why does this touch such a nerve with you?
Calm the fuck down, universities are allowed to make rules about this stuff, and there are advantages to it. I'm from out of state at my current college, and requiring freshmen to stay on campus is good for me as it insures me a room and I get to meet people here.
I'm not saying it's right for everyone, and I'm not going to advocate everyone having to do it, but it's not a horrible thing that requires you to freak out on everyone.
Go hit the abortion thread. You'll find we're quite different. I'm sorry if I'm not perfectly civil in calling people on their bullshit. Deal.
Because it's a load of horseshit? It's a policy common to most universities that I think is a load of crap, especially when combined with the kind of dorm accommodations offered.
Oh, I'm only freaking out on the idiots who think that requiring everybody to live on campus so that they can have an easier time finding friends is peachy. You say you aren't advocating everyone having to do it, yet the paragraph before sounds an awful lot like you doing just that.
You're not "calling people on their bullshit". You're being way, way too aggressive when you don't agree with someone and instead of presenting a clear counterpoint to their claim, you just resort to name calling and ad hom attacks.
Uh, you went quite overboard up there. And this is coming from me. Drez. All Irene said was that she thought dorms were a great idea. And yes, she blatantly stated that this was for a selfish reason, because she liked the social atmosphere it provided, one that could only exist if people were forced into the situation. And considering this isn't a life-or-death issue - mostly it is economic - "fuck off and die" seems a rather inappropriate response.
Well maybe I'm just in a particularly bad mood at the moment. Who knows. But seriously, suggesting that everybody should have to do something because you dug it? I shouldn't have to explain why that's bullshit.
Assuming, of course, that's what she was originally suggesting.
I dig when people wash their hands after using the bathroom. I dig that so much, I think it should be mandatory. In fact, I wouldn't mind if the US government passed legislation allowing police officers to chop the hands off of people that don't.
I guess I should go fuck off and die now.
Depends on your reasoning. Generally I'd not say that "I don't want people to spread disease" isn't particularly analogous to "olol it helps me make friends" when it comes to reasons for wanting others to be forced to do things.
If, on the other hand, it was just because you like the smell of soap or something stupid like that? Yeah, go die in a fire.
WTF. "olol it helps me makes friends"? I offered an example of why it's beneficial, especially for a bunch of 18 year olds first time out of home. All of my friends decided to spend a year in a dorm to better get to know people, even when it wasn't required.
Also, everyone I've met here said it was good that they lived a year on campus. Why don't you fuck off and die.
Yet I've met more than a few who thought it was expensive, unpleasant, and wish they'd never been made to do it. And who moved off-campus as soon as they were allowed to.
Whose anecdote wins?
EDIT: Also, note that nowhere have I suggest that you (or your friends) shouldn't have had the choice to do this.
i'm hoping you guys are acknowledging the severity of the problem
there is a wealth of information available but here are some good summaries from one study explaing the scope of the problem:
Most of the facts are cited, though of course I've taken those out of the summary.
Anyways, given the scope of the problem as it already stands, I'm not sure coed dorm rooms are a good idea.
I don't think multi-occupancy dorm rooms are the greatest idea, really. Like I said, male-on-male sexual assaults aren't exactly unheard of in dorms, either.
But the mandatory rule, I agree, is dumb as it stands right now. If, however, the housing were improved to the point that it was worth the amount of money they were giving up I'd have less issue with it.
anyways
basically mcdermott yes you're right but that's no reason to not be concerned about the potential ramifications of the new ideas
At my school, a reported rape case brought to light a previous incident, in which a student was raped by an RA, who afterward was allowed to keep his job (even though an RA selling marijuana would have been terminated w/ no questions asked). There was a student uproar and eventually the zero-tolerance rule was changed to include rapists, but the fact that the judiciary policy considered selling marijuana a more serious offense than rape is just indicative of how sick a lot of systems are.
I'm not sure what (if any) correlation there would be between co-ed rooms and sexual assault. It does seem likely that people would immediately try to establish a correlation if the sexual assault rates went up at all, and hold the school responsible.