If we let friends who happen to not be identically gendered room together in dorms then the womyn will get domestic abused! Also Raped! And it's all because of alcohol!
Does that summarize the thread accurately? I think the thread started off on a bad foot because the OPer read the OP's article as saying people were mandated into rooming with someone of the opposite sex, something that is distasteful to many. However it appears that that is not the case, some schools are just allowing people to make a choice to have an opposite gendered roomate.
One interesting thought, while gay men/women may find this living arrangement better I can't imagine that it wouldn't make a trans* person's life enormously better. (If you're a dude but a female having a dude roomate would make things easier, ehh?)
Is mandatory "you must stay in our dorms" even legal in the USA? I don't know, I suppose as an outsider I have this conception of American's being big on the whole personal liberties thing, and this seems like a huge infringement on those liberties.
It's legal for private institutions - fuck, they can pretty much do whatever they please.
Not sure what the situation is for state schools. I'd guess that they'd be more flexible.
Most state schools require it as well. In fact, in the US pretty much all schools require it, which is why I'm giving the finger to the "go somewhere else olol" crowd. Because odds are for a given student of the four or five schools that accepted them, four or five will require a year in residence. Also, for the average student who can only afford to go a public university within their state (for in-state tuition), the odds that any of their options won't require residence are even lower.
EDIT: And it's legal because getting a bachelor's degree isn't compulsory. I mean, if you don't want to room with some jackass for a year, you can always just flip burgers for the rest of your life m i rite?
Is mandatory "you must stay in our dorms" even legal in the USA? I don't know, I suppose as an outsider I have this conception of American's being big on the whole personal liberties thing, and this seems like a huge infringement on those liberties.
It's legal for private institutions - fuck, they can pretty much do whatever they please.
Not sure what the situation is for state schools. I'd guess that they'd be more flexible.
Most state schools require it as well. In fact, in the US pretty much all schools require it, which is why I'm giving the finger to the "go somewhere else olol" crowd. Because odds are for a given student of the four or five schools that accepted them, four or five will require a year in residence. Also, for the average student who can only afford to go a public university within their state (for in-state tuition), the odds that any of their options won't require residence are even lower.
EDIT: And it's legal because getting a bachelor's degree isn't compulsory. I mean, if you don't want to room with some jackass for a year, you can always just flip burgers for the rest of your life m i rite?
My school is planning to start require students to live on-campus all the way through their junior-year. Not for whatever happy bunny reasons people were throwing around, either, it's because the dorms here are a source of revenue.
My school is planning to start require students to live on-campus all the way through their junior-year. Not for whatever happy bunny reasons people were throwing around, either, it's because the dorms here are a source of revenue.
Oh yeah, the schools almost definitely do it for money. That and the additional ability to control their students.
They are able to continue doing it at least partly because of the fuckwads that are all "I had sooooo much fun and made super duper friends in the dorm so everybody should just have to live there 'cause it's so awesome!"
mcdermott on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Don't you think there are actual academic reasons for keeping people in the dorms?
If the university requires freshmen to live on campus they will probably attend more classes and get better grades thus making the university look better. It would also provide a community for doing homework together and helping each other out. I guess that this would give the universities a decent reason to mandate it. It may also be about money, but I can at least foresee other reasons other than that and "lawlz friends".
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
My junior and senior years at university I spent living with three girls in a house. It was fine. I ended up learning quite a few things about the female perspective on things that helped me mature quite a bit. It was funny at the end though because they began to interrogate the girls I dated like no tomorrow.
Don't you think there are actual academic reasons for keeping people in the dorms?
If the university requires freshmen to live on campus they will probably attend more classes and get better grades thus making the university look better. It would also provide a community for doing homework together and helping each other out. I guess that this would give the universities a decent reason to mandate it. It may also be about money, but I can at least foresee other reasons other than that and "lawlz friends".
There are not actual academic reasons for keeping juniors in the dorms, no.
Don't you think there are actual academic reasons for keeping people in the dorms?
If the university requires freshmen to live on campus they will probably attend more classes and get better grades thus making the university look better. It would also provide a community for doing homework together and helping each other out. I guess that this would give the universities a decent reason to mandate it. It may also be about money, but I can at least foresee other reasons other than that and "lawlz friends".
There are not actual academic reasons for keeping juniors in the dorms, no.
No but I'm talking about freshmen.
Edit: Maybe I missed something where this started applying to juniors as well. I know its done at some colleges but no where near the majority.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
They are able to continue doing it at least partly because of the fuckwads that are all "I had sooooo much fun and made super duper friends in the dorm so everybody should just have to live there 'cause it's so awesome!"
Wow, you don't carry a chip on your shoulder at all :P
You're making some sweeping generalizations that don't apply to every school everywhere. Maybe you've had direct experience with the worst possible scenario, but not all schools are like that, and so the freshman housing requirement is not a bad idea per se, but it certainly can be implemented poorly and to the students' detriment. In my case, the on-campus housing+meal plan was a slightly worse value than living off-campus, but the school was in Pasadena, where property values are fairly ridiculous, and you'd have to find a bunch of other people to share rent with you to make it worthwhile, as well as having the hassle of getting to campus (convenience is a commodity, too). Also, to reiterate, we were never forced to live with anyone we did not like, and we only had to live with randomly-assigned roommates for two weeks while we chose our houses. Because my school was so small (a little over 1000 undergrads), we had a lot more flexibility. The requirement only lasted two quarters, at which point we were free to do whatever we wanted, and the vast majority of people choose to stay on campus. And I think another aspect unique to Caltech is that we were all science nerds, and the school being so small, it was easy to find people with whom you get along well. Of course, I'm not saying everyone at the school enjoyed being in the houses, since people do voluntarily choose to move off, but I don't think two quarters is a lot of time to ask someone to give this style of living a chance, especially when you get to choose who you spend those two quarters with. And again, I think the social atmosphere is a great plus. Besides, it would be a lot harder to find people to room with you off-campus if you didn't live in the dorms at least a little bit and got to know some people and got a feel for who you might want to live with.
Of course, I realize that not all schools are like this, and people who so strongly disagree with me probably had experiences with bad situations. The super-evil profiteering school that you envision probably exists, but that does not make this idea inherently bad. Maybe I'm just naive and think that not all school are out to milk people dry, but I didn't feel that my school did, and the way the requirement was implemented, you had far more to gain than lose by going along with it. Also, I'm actually a little surprised at the schools requiring you to live on campus for more than a year. In most schools I know about, university-owned housing isn't even guaranteed beyond the first year, and, with priority often given to upperclassmen, sophomore and a lot of juniors are kicked off-campus. Caltech is the only school I've known to guarantee university-owned housing for all four years, and even then people are often kicked off into satellite apartment buildings because most people want to stay in the houses.
Edit: And I guess more ololanecdotal evidence -- the university-owned housing at UC Davis and UC San Diego are, in general, much cheaper than the surrounding private apartments. Some of the apartment complexes here have half the rent of private apartments just across the street. This is why the waiting list for grad student housing can get up to 3-years long.
The dorm I was required to share was certainly not a house. It was smaller than the bedroom in my current apartment. By a bit more than half. And two people and all our stuff lived in it, and there were no closets so the dressers get to eat up their share of space pretty much permanently.
They are able to continue doing it at least partly because of the fuckwads that are all "I had sooooo much fun and made super duper friends in the dorm so everybody should just have to live there 'cause it's so awesome!"
Wow, you don't carry a chip on your shoulder at all :P
Keep in mind that I was never forced by my school to live on-campus...I'm not arguing from personal experience here. I have been living on-campus for the last two years, though, and even without a roommate I know that if I had been forced into this living situation I'd have been righteously pissed. And I live in one of the most requested dorms on my campus.
This despite the fact that I've made a couple friends in the dorm and already had a couple friend living here, and have had more than a few good times there. Still doesn't change the fact that the dorms in general kinda suck and I should have the choice. That, or they should make them not suck.
Also, to reiterate, we were never forced to live with anyone we did not like, and we only had to live with randomly-assigned roommates for two weeks while we chose our houses. Because my school was so small (a little over 1000 undergrads), we had a lot more flexibility.
Well, at my school and at a couple others I've had friends at freshmen are largely just assigned rooms. If you're lucky you might get your choice of roommate (assuming you have a friend going there). And in my experience (more fun with anecdotes) very few people I know at my school (even those who choose to continue living in the dorms) remain friends with their freshman roommates. Many speak of their freshman roommates with scorn and derision. Seems to me that more than a few people weren't particularly thrilled about sharing their sleep space with whatever douchebag the school paired them up with.
But again, I didn't personally experience this. Though I had more than my fair share of experiences with shitty roommates in the Army barracks.
Of course, I realize that not all schools are like this, and people who so strongly disagree with me probably had experiences with bad situations. The super-evil profiteering school that you envision probably exists, but that does not make this idea inherently bad.
I would agree that forcing students to live in dorms is not in and of itself inherently bad. Forcing them to live in the kind of dorms actually present at most schools, on the other hand, is. But you have to keep in mind that when I judge your position on residency requirements are a good idea, I will be judging it on the kind of living accommodations you're actually talking about forcing people into in schools that are not yours.
Don't you think there are actual academic reasons for keeping people in the dorms?
If the university requires freshmen to live on campus they will probably attend more classes and get better grades thus making the university look better. It would also provide a community for doing homework together and helping each other out. I guess that this would give the universities a decent reason to mandate it. It may also be about money, but I can at least foresee other reasons other than that and "lawlz friends".
Maybe kids that can't find their way to class without living down the sidewalk shouldn't have been accepted into college to begin with. I didn't live on-campus as a freshman, yet I managed to make it to school (and hold a near-4.0 for my first few semesters).
Perhaps I'd have an easier time accepting these benefits of a residency requirement if the accommodations they were forcing kids to live in were reasonable. At my school, and at at least two other schools where I've seen what kind of dorms are offered, they were not. But that's where the money comes in...it's cheaper to run their nice little academically-themed prison cells.
The dorm I was required to share was certainly not a house. It was smaller than the bedroom in my current apartment. By a bit more than half. And two people and all our stuff lived in it, and there were no closets so the dressers get to eat up their share of space pretty much permanently.
Ah, oops, I guess I should clarify a bit. The undergrad housing at Caltech was dorm-ish, but not like the big concrete boxes I see around bigger schools. They were like apartment buildings, except with rooms instead of suites. And they were really small, too. There were 7 "houses" (as we called them), the larger ones housing about 250 students, and the smaller ones housing about... 175? Also, fun fact, the architect who designed some of the houses was later institutionalized for insanity.
The dorm I was required to share was certainly not a house. It was smaller than the bedroom in my current apartment. By a bit more than half. And two people and all our stuff lived in it, and there were no closets so the dressers get to eat up their share of space pretty much permanently.
Yeah, the double-occupancy rooms at my school are generally smaller than a reasonably sized bedroom. Certainly smaller than the bedroom my wife and I share when I come home from the weekend. They're also only marginally larger than the single-occupancy room I have to myself.
They do at least have closets, though. But those closets come out of your usable floor space. And there's really only room for one desk. Which is why lofting beds is so popular, because there simply is not enough room for two people to live in these rooms if the beds are all at floor level. Basically, the rooms on my campus are about a step up from prison cells. In fact, I'd not be surprised if there exist prisons where cellmates actually have more space than our freshmen.
The dorm I was required to share was certainly not a house. It was smaller than the bedroom in my current apartment. By a bit more than half. And two people and all our stuff lived in it, and there were no closets so the dressers get to eat up their share of space pretty much permanently.
Ah, oops, I guess I should clarify a bit. The undergrad housing at Caltech was dorm-ish, but not like the big concrete boxes I see around bigger schools. They were like apartment buildings, except with rooms instead of suites. And they were really small, too. There were 7 "houses" (as we called them), the larger ones housing about 250 students, and the smaller ones housing about... 175? Also, fun fact, the architect who designed some of the houses was later institutionalized for insanity.
These were somewhere between an ultra-low-budget apartment (like worth maybe $200 a month in rent, total not each) and a prison. And then they charged about the same price I paid to live in an actual house with four people who all had their own rooms. And there was a kitchen, even. And no one was allowed to randomly go through my shit looking for things I hadn't even experimented with yet at that point. And the fridge could hold a whole pizza.
Man, what the fuck are you guys complaining about? Living on campus for one year isn't that bad.
17 weeks of basic training with the US Army "wasn't that bad" either. Maybe every 18-year-old should go through it, it might do them some good. I know I could some up with some benefits of it.
Personally "isn't that bad" isn't my cutoff for when people should or should not be forced into things.
Ok, here is the floor plan for the second-story of the housing complex I lived in. Linked for the huge. The rooms varied in size. The singles were like 6'x10' ish, just big enough for a bed, a desk, a dresser, and a built-in closet. The doubles went from 12'x12' to 12'x15' ish. Maybe I just don't have a lot of junk, but I never felt cramped or anything. And we were allowed to have pets. The house I lived in was older, and not quite as nice, but I was fine with it. And they recently renovated them, so they're probably nicer now. The only problem I had with them before was security. When I lived there, the only barrier between you and a total stranger off the street was your room door, which had a combo-lock. Now that they've renovated them, you have to have a student ID card you swipe to get in.
Man, what the fuck are you guys complaining about? Living on campus for one year isn't that bad.
17 weeks of basic training with the US Army "wasn't that bad" either. Maybe every 18-year-old should go through it, it might do them some good. I know I could some up with some benefits of it.
Personally "isn't that bad" isn't my cutoff for when people should or should not be forced into things.
Yeah, I could probably use some basic training. I'm so weak
Maybe it's just the Asian in me, but I agree with the "good medicine tastes bitter" philosophy.
Ok, here is the floor plan for the second-story of the housing complex I lived in. Linked for the huge. The rooms varied in size. The singles were like 6'x10' ish, just big enough for a bed, a desk, a dresser, and a built-in closet. The doubles went from 12'x12' to 12'x15' ish. Maybe I just don't have a lot of junk, but I never felt cramped or anything. And we were allowed to have pets. The house I lived in was older, and not quite as nice, but I was fine with it. And they recently renovated them, so they're probably nicer now. The only problem I had with them before was security. When I lived there, the only barrier between you and a total stranger off the street was your room door, which had a combo-lock. Now that they've renovated them, you have to have a student ID card you swipe to get in.
Yeah, I always forget about the pet thing. I see no reason that incoming freshmen with pets should be barred by their school's policies from bringing them to school with them. There is not a single residence hall on my campus that allows pets. It's profoundly fucked up.
Also, the average double-occupancy room on my campus is about 10'x16', but that's including closet space. Oddly, my single occupancy room is about 12'x16'. Though that's including my closet space and an in-room sink (nearly every dorm here does shared floor bathrooms).
EDIT: Also, for what kids pay for those 10x16 rooms that they share with another, they could generally afford to share a two-bedroom apartment (or even a one-bedroom apartment, which would be a fuckload more space). For what I pay, you could get your own one-bedroom apartment...only reason I don't do this and instead live on campus is because I only need it 9 months out of the year (obviously I live with the wife over the summer).
Man, what the fuck are you guys complaining about? Living on campus for one year isn't that bad.
I'm pretty sure it was exactly as bad as I described (well, worse actually, but I'm leaving out the people-problems) and I'm not sure how you think you'd be in a position to judge otherwise.
Oh yeah, all our rooms had in-room sinks with a mirror. In the house I lived in, showers and toilets were separate, with two booths each, and shared by about 5 rooms, so around 10 people. I don't think I could have done communal showers, though. It was a really good thing that our school was small enough that there was hardly ever more than one person in a bathroom. I had almost as much privacy back then as I do now, living with a roommate in a twp-bedroom apartment.
I think the crux of the issue is that you are acting like someone from the Victorian era.
either that, or you guys are placing most of your argument in the hands of 18 and 19 year olds, most of whom are living on their own for the first time.
which is hilarious.
Well, since 18 and 19 year olds are the ones you are saying aren't mature enough, I don't see why my opinion and observations of college as a 19 year old are invalid.
Shit that's tiny. My double right now is 227SF and our lotto # was decent, somewhere around the middle... Freshman year I got a single that was 113SF.
Which, given the cost of living in Manhattan, ain't that terrible for what we're paying.
Aside from cost, and possibly health concerns, dorm living isn't that bad. It's not neccesarily a great fun time either, but in the scheme of life, it is a pretty petty thing to worry about.
As long as there is space to sleep and to store your belongings, and there are facilities to stay hygenic, you really don't have to spend any other time there.
I have a feeling that it would have been difficult to live with my (then)2 year old in a random dorm room when I went to college.
my poor theoretical roommate
MulysaSempronius on
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
HA! I could never do dorm life. I snore too loudly and when I fart a biohazard team is deployed.
I have a feeling that it would have been difficult to live with my (then)2 year old in a random dorm room when I went to college.
my poor theoretical roommate
Pretty much any college is going to have an exception for anybody with dependent children. But yeah, it's funny to think about.
EDIT: Though really it's the exceptions for students who still live with their parents (which most colleges have) that undermine pretty much every argument I've seen here for the requirement. Yeah, kids need to be more involved in school and we need to encourage social growth and all that bullshit...unless they already live in their parents' basement?
HA! I could never do dorm life. I snore too loudly and when I fart a biohazard team is deployed.
Yeah, I'd have made a horrible roommate in those respects as well. Though at least I wouldn't have stolen or listened to the same Ginuwine song 32 times in a row, which were the kinds of fucked-up roommates I wound up saddled with back in the barracks.
The biggest issue I see arrising from co-ed dorm rooms (not an argument against them, per se, just a thing.) is the number of guys who might room with a girl expecting that if he lives with her they will eventually sleep together.
Yes, I'm calling teenagers stupid and naive. Especially teenage boys, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex.
The biggest issue I see arrising from co-ed dorm rooms (not an argument against them, per se, just a thing.) is the number of guys who might room with a girl expecting that if he lives with her they will eventually sleep together.
Yes, I'm calling teenagers stupid and naive. Especially teenage boys, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex.
God forbid young men have a learning experience in college.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Gay people were already rooming with people they could be potentially sexually attracted to. This simply allows straight people to do the same, while also giving gay students the opportunity to live in a situation with less sexual tension.
The biggest issue I see arrising from co-ed dorm rooms (not an argument against them, per se, just a thing.) is the number of guys who might room with a girl expecting that if he lives with her they will eventually sleep together.
Yes, I'm calling teenagers stupid and naive. Especially teenage boys, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex.
God forbid young men have a learning experience in college.
Well, when that learning experience comes at somebody else's expense, that should be taken into consideration. I can't imagine it's particularly fun dealing with a roommate who is consistently trying to get into either your pants or those of any friends who come near your living space.
Also, it seems to me like there's a higher risk (though still not high, in the grand scheme of things) of such a dude going into full-blown stalker mode in such a circumstance (close living arrangement with the target of his obsession). I know that's what happened with my wife's ex-roommate (back when she was just my girlfriend). And they weren't even sharing a bedroom.
And yes, you've already got situations where gays are living with people they're sexually attracted to. However, I don't see that as an argument in favor of expanding the problem onto more people. That, along with given them a living arrangement with less sexual tension, is more of an argument for revamping the dorm arrangements at most schools so that people aren't sharing sleeping space if they don't want to...or, like, at all (since most who ended up with roommates would probably be forced into it financially).
mcdermott on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
What about race difference? What if someone is too black for the other guy and the black guy is pimping out his room mate?
What if one room mate is too redneck compare to his other roommate?
What if one room mate is much bigger then other other room mate and now the smaller guy is intimidated and unable to work!
Shit what if one roommate is balding, while the other one have a full head of hair! That isnt fair! The bald guy might go into full stalker mode and stroke the other guys hair and totally hair rape the dude!
The biggest issue I see arrising from co-ed dorm rooms (not an argument against them, per se, just a thing.) is the number of guys who might room with a girl expecting that if he lives with her they will eventually sleep together.
Yes, I'm calling teenagers stupid and naive. Especially teenage boys, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex.
God forbid young men have a learning experience in college.
Well, when that learning experience comes at somebody else's expense, that should be taken into consideration. I can't imagine it's particularly fun dealing with a roommate who is consistently trying to get into either your pants or those of any friends who come near your living space.
Also, it seems to me like there's a higher risk (though still not high, in the grand scheme of things) of such a dude going into full-blown stalker mode in such a circumstance (close living arrangement with the target of his obsession). I know that's what happened with my wife's ex-roommate (back when she was just my girlfriend). And they weren't even sharing a bedroom.
And yes, you've already got situations where gays are living with people they're sexually attracted to. However, I don't see that as an argument in favor of expanding the problem onto more people. That, along with given them a living arrangement with less sexual tension, is more of an argument for revamping the dorm arrangements at most schools so that people aren't sharing sleeping space if they don't want to...or, like, at all (since most who ended up with roommates would probably be forced into it financially).
Why not? Spread this so-called "problem" to everyone. Get it out there, get it fixed, that's that.
Of course, there's really no problem. There's no problem even with living in the same bedroom as someone you have a pants full of lust for. Problems only arise if you're [strike]an asshole[/strike] a criminal. And as other people have suggested, and I agree, there is negligible difference between living in the same room as someone, living in the same apartment, or living on the same dorm floor. Living in the same room as someone isn't going to turn a non-rapist into a rapist. I mean, is that what you believe? I also don't buy this whole "expectation" angle that's floating around. No, guys aren't either entitled to expect sex from someone they are sharing a room with nor do I believe most guys actually think that way. I think that's a bit silly to even suggest.
What about race difference? What if someone is too black for the other guy and the black guy is pimping out his room mate?
What if one room mate is too redneck compare to his other roommate?
What if one room mate is much bigger then other other room mate and now the smaller guy is intimidated and unable to work!
Shit what if one roommate is balding, while the other one have a full head of hair! That isnt fair! The bald guy might go into full stalker mode and stroke the other guys hair and totally hair rape the dude!
Man, wut?
Seriously, if you don't have anything coherent to say, shut the fuck up.
Also, speaking of rednecks, having had to share a room with somebody who thought that clear bottles full of tobacco spit were valid room decorations, I think there do arise situations where "cultural" differences can making sharing a sleeping space untenable. Just another reason I think forcing people who have not been convicted of a crime to share a 10'x16' cell just isn't right.
Why not? Spread this so-called "problem" to everyone. Get it out there, get it fixed, that's that.
Of course, there's really no problem. There's no problem even with living in the same bedroom as someone you have a pants full of lust for. Problems only arise if you're [strike]an asshole[/strike] a criminal. And as other people have suggested, and I agree, there is negligible difference between living in the same room as someone, living in the same apartment, or living on the same dorm floor. Living in the same room as someone isn't going to turn a non-rapist into a rapist. I mean, is that what you believe? I also don't buy this whole "expectation" angle that's floating around. No, guys aren't either entitled to expect sex from someone they are sharing a room with nor do I believe most guys actually think that way. I think that's a bit silly to even suggest.
Actually, there is a significant difference between same room/same apartment and same dorm floor. At least in mine. I have a sturdy, exterior-grade door with a serviceable lock on it between me and my belongings and every other person on the floor. Which you will not have in a shared room and are unlikely to have in a shared apartment.
And my wife is the psychologist (well, she has a bachelor's in it), not me, but she seemed to think that the constant proximity as well as easy access to her belongings might have played some role in reinforcing his fixation on her. Or, in other words, she suggested that access to her underwear drawer (which we found out he took advantage of) might have made his stalkerness more stalkery. No, living in the same room won't suddenly turn a non-rapist into a rapist...but are you suggesting that there are no instances where somebody who is already a little "off" couldn't be made worse by such an arrangement?
Also, while I'd agree that most guys wouldn't "expect" sex from somebody they shared a room with, I'm willing to say that there are a significant portion who might sign up for such an arrangement in the hopes that it might increase their chances of getting laid somehow. With her, with her friends, however. I say this based on my wealth of experience with 18-year-old guys. Seriously, they're idiots. But this is part of the reason that I think such a living arrangement is best entered into with a specific person, rather than "whatever douchebag who checked 'hell yeah I want a chick roommate' the university pairs me up with."
mcdermott on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited May 2008
Assigning same-sex roommates to dormitories would increase liability at schools and parents wouldn't like it. How hard is that. The fact is that it is uncommon in any part of society for two people of different genders to share a room unless they are in a romantic arrangement or siblings. I don't know why anyone would think that running this kind of social experiment on 18 year-olds would be anything close to a good idea.
Gay people were already rooming with people they could be potentially sexually attracted to. This simply allows straight people to do the same, while also giving gay students the opportunity to live in a situation with less sexual tension.
There wasn't a whole lot of sexual tension with my gay sophmore roommate. Then again, I doubt I was his type. And he sure as hell wouldn't have been mine.
The best possible solution for this and all problems is to have dormitories follow a multi-bedroom approach rather than putting multiple people into studio apartments.
Posts
Does that summarize the thread accurately? I think the thread started off on a bad foot because the OPer read the OP's article as saying people were mandated into rooming with someone of the opposite sex, something that is distasteful to many. However it appears that that is not the case, some schools are just allowing people to make a choice to have an opposite gendered roomate.
One interesting thought, while gay men/women may find this living arrangement better I can't imagine that it wouldn't make a trans* person's life enormously better. (If you're a dude but a female having a dude roomate would make things easier, ehh?)
Most state schools require it as well. In fact, in the US pretty much all schools require it, which is why I'm giving the finger to the "go somewhere else olol" crowd. Because odds are for a given student of the four or five schools that accepted them, four or five will require a year in residence. Also, for the average student who can only afford to go a public university within their state (for in-state tuition), the odds that any of their options won't require residence are even lower.
EDIT: And it's legal because getting a bachelor's degree isn't compulsory. I mean, if you don't want to room with some jackass for a year, you can always just flip burgers for the rest of your life m i rite?
My school is planning to start require students to live on-campus all the way through their junior-year. Not for whatever happy bunny reasons people were throwing around, either, it's because the dorms here are a source of revenue.
Oh yeah, the schools almost definitely do it for money. That and the additional ability to control their students.
They are able to continue doing it at least partly because of the fuckwads that are all "I had sooooo much fun and made super duper friends in the dorm so everybody should just have to live there 'cause it's so awesome!"
If the university requires freshmen to live on campus they will probably attend more classes and get better grades thus making the university look better. It would also provide a community for doing homework together and helping each other out. I guess that this would give the universities a decent reason to mandate it. It may also be about money, but I can at least foresee other reasons other than that and "lawlz friends".
There are not actual academic reasons for keeping juniors in the dorms, no.
No but I'm talking about freshmen.
Edit: Maybe I missed something where this started applying to juniors as well. I know its done at some colleges but no where near the majority.
Wow, you don't carry a chip on your shoulder at all :P
You're making some sweeping generalizations that don't apply to every school everywhere. Maybe you've had direct experience with the worst possible scenario, but not all schools are like that, and so the freshman housing requirement is not a bad idea per se, but it certainly can be implemented poorly and to the students' detriment. In my case, the on-campus housing+meal plan was a slightly worse value than living off-campus, but the school was in Pasadena, where property values are fairly ridiculous, and you'd have to find a bunch of other people to share rent with you to make it worthwhile, as well as having the hassle of getting to campus (convenience is a commodity, too). Also, to reiterate, we were never forced to live with anyone we did not like, and we only had to live with randomly-assigned roommates for two weeks while we chose our houses. Because my school was so small (a little over 1000 undergrads), we had a lot more flexibility. The requirement only lasted two quarters, at which point we were free to do whatever we wanted, and the vast majority of people choose to stay on campus. And I think another aspect unique to Caltech is that we were all science nerds, and the school being so small, it was easy to find people with whom you get along well. Of course, I'm not saying everyone at the school enjoyed being in the houses, since people do voluntarily choose to move off, but I don't think two quarters is a lot of time to ask someone to give this style of living a chance, especially when you get to choose who you spend those two quarters with. And again, I think the social atmosphere is a great plus. Besides, it would be a lot harder to find people to room with you off-campus if you didn't live in the dorms at least a little bit and got to know some people and got a feel for who you might want to live with.
Of course, I realize that not all schools are like this, and people who so strongly disagree with me probably had experiences with bad situations. The super-evil profiteering school that you envision probably exists, but that does not make this idea inherently bad. Maybe I'm just naive and think that not all school are out to milk people dry, but I didn't feel that my school did, and the way the requirement was implemented, you had far more to gain than lose by going along with it. Also, I'm actually a little surprised at the schools requiring you to live on campus for more than a year. In most schools I know about, university-owned housing isn't even guaranteed beyond the first year, and, with priority often given to upperclassmen, sophomore and a lot of juniors are kicked off-campus. Caltech is the only school I've known to guarantee university-owned housing for all four years, and even then people are often kicked off into satellite apartment buildings because most people want to stay in the houses.
Edit: And I guess more ololanecdotal evidence -- the university-owned housing at UC Davis and UC San Diego are, in general, much cheaper than the surrounding private apartments. Some of the apartment complexes here have half the rent of private apartments just across the street. This is why the waiting list for grad student housing can get up to 3-years long.
Keep in mind that I was never forced by my school to live on-campus...I'm not arguing from personal experience here. I have been living on-campus for the last two years, though, and even without a roommate I know that if I had been forced into this living situation I'd have been righteously pissed. And I live in one of the most requested dorms on my campus.
This despite the fact that I've made a couple friends in the dorm and already had a couple friend living here, and have had more than a few good times there. Still doesn't change the fact that the dorms in general kinda suck and I should have the choice. That, or they should make them not suck.
Well, at my school and at a couple others I've had friends at freshmen are largely just assigned rooms. If you're lucky you might get your choice of roommate (assuming you have a friend going there). And in my experience (more fun with anecdotes) very few people I know at my school (even those who choose to continue living in the dorms) remain friends with their freshman roommates. Many speak of their freshman roommates with scorn and derision. Seems to me that more than a few people weren't particularly thrilled about sharing their sleep space with whatever douchebag the school paired them up with.
But again, I didn't personally experience this. Though I had more than my fair share of experiences with shitty roommates in the Army barracks.
I would agree that forcing students to live in dorms is not in and of itself inherently bad. Forcing them to live in the kind of dorms actually present at most schools, on the other hand, is. But you have to keep in mind that when I judge your position on residency requirements are a good idea, I will be judging it on the kind of living accommodations you're actually talking about forcing people into in schools that are not yours.
This is, in fact, the only reason I could possibly feel the way I do.
Maybe kids that can't find their way to class without living down the sidewalk shouldn't have been accepted into college to begin with. I didn't live on-campus as a freshman, yet I managed to make it to school (and hold a near-4.0 for my first few semesters).
Perhaps I'd have an easier time accepting these benefits of a residency requirement if the accommodations they were forcing kids to live in were reasonable. At my school, and at at least two other schools where I've seen what kind of dorms are offered, they were not. But that's where the money comes in...it's cheaper to run their nice little academically-themed prison cells.
Ah, oops, I guess I should clarify a bit. The undergrad housing at Caltech was dorm-ish, but not like the big concrete boxes I see around bigger schools. They were like apartment buildings, except with rooms instead of suites. And they were really small, too. There were 7 "houses" (as we called them), the larger ones housing about 250 students, and the smaller ones housing about... 175? Also, fun fact, the architect who designed some of the houses was later institutionalized for insanity.
Yeah, the double-occupancy rooms at my school are generally smaller than a reasonably sized bedroom. Certainly smaller than the bedroom my wife and I share when I come home from the weekend. They're also only marginally larger than the single-occupancy room I have to myself.
They do at least have closets, though. But those closets come out of your usable floor space. And there's really only room for one desk. Which is why lofting beds is so popular, because there simply is not enough room for two people to live in these rooms if the beds are all at floor level. Basically, the rooms on my campus are about a step up from prison cells. In fact, I'd not be surprised if there exist prisons where cellmates actually have more space than our freshmen.
These were somewhere between an ultra-low-budget apartment (like worth maybe $200 a month in rent, total not each) and a prison. And then they charged about the same price I paid to live in an actual house with four people who all had their own rooms. And there was a kitchen, even. And no one was allowed to randomly go through my shit looking for things I hadn't even experimented with yet at that point. And the fridge could hold a whole pizza.
17 weeks of basic training with the US Army "wasn't that bad" either. Maybe every 18-year-old should go through it, it might do them some good. I know I could some up with some benefits of it.
Personally "isn't that bad" isn't my cutoff for when people should or should not be forced into things.
Yeah, I could probably use some basic training. I'm so weak
Maybe it's just the Asian in me, but I agree with the "good medicine tastes bitter" philosophy.
Yeah, I always forget about the pet thing. I see no reason that incoming freshmen with pets should be barred by their school's policies from bringing them to school with them. There is not a single residence hall on my campus that allows pets. It's profoundly fucked up.
Also, the average double-occupancy room on my campus is about 10'x16', but that's including closet space. Oddly, my single occupancy room is about 12'x16'. Though that's including my closet space and an in-room sink (nearly every dorm here does shared floor bathrooms).
EDIT: Also, for what kids pay for those 10x16 rooms that they share with another, they could generally afford to share a two-bedroom apartment (or even a one-bedroom apartment, which would be a fuckload more space). For what I pay, you could get your own one-bedroom apartment...only reason I don't do this and instead live on campus is because I only need it 9 months out of the year (obviously I live with the wife over the summer).
I'm pretty sure it was exactly as bad as I described (well, worse actually, but I'm leaving out the people-problems) and I'm not sure how you think you'd be in a position to judge otherwise.
Lack of objectivity.
Which, given the cost of living in Manhattan, ain't that terrible for what we're paying.
As long as there is space to sleep and to store your belongings, and there are facilities to stay hygenic, you really don't have to spend any other time there.
my poor theoretical roommate
Pretty much any college is going to have an exception for anybody with dependent children. But yeah, it's funny to think about.
EDIT: Though really it's the exceptions for students who still live with their parents (which most colleges have) that undermine pretty much every argument I've seen here for the requirement. Yeah, kids need to be more involved in school and we need to encourage social growth and all that bullshit...unless they already live in their parents' basement?
Yeah, I'd have made a horrible roommate in those respects as well. Though at least I wouldn't have stolen or listened to the same Ginuwine song 32 times in a row, which were the kinds of fucked-up roommates I wound up saddled with back in the barracks.
Let's not go there.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
Yes, I'm calling teenagers stupid and naive. Especially teenage boys, and ESPECIALLY when it comes to sex.
God forbid young men have a learning experience in college.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, when that learning experience comes at somebody else's expense, that should be taken into consideration. I can't imagine it's particularly fun dealing with a roommate who is consistently trying to get into either your pants or those of any friends who come near your living space.
Also, it seems to me like there's a higher risk (though still not high, in the grand scheme of things) of such a dude going into full-blown stalker mode in such a circumstance (close living arrangement with the target of his obsession). I know that's what happened with my wife's ex-roommate (back when she was just my girlfriend). And they weren't even sharing a bedroom.
And yes, you've already got situations where gays are living with people they're sexually attracted to. However, I don't see that as an argument in favor of expanding the problem onto more people. That, along with given them a living arrangement with less sexual tension, is more of an argument for revamping the dorm arrangements at most schools so that people aren't sharing sleeping space if they don't want to...or, like, at all (since most who ended up with roommates would probably be forced into it financially).
What if one room mate is too redneck compare to his other roommate?
What if one room mate is much bigger then other other room mate and now the smaller guy is intimidated and unable to work!
Shit what if one roommate is balding, while the other one have a full head of hair! That isnt fair! The bald guy might go into full stalker mode and stroke the other guys hair and totally hair rape the dude!
Why not? Spread this so-called "problem" to everyone. Get it out there, get it fixed, that's that.
Of course, there's really no problem. There's no problem even with living in the same bedroom as someone you have a pants full of lust for. Problems only arise if you're [strike]an asshole[/strike] a criminal. And as other people have suggested, and I agree, there is negligible difference between living in the same room as someone, living in the same apartment, or living on the same dorm floor. Living in the same room as someone isn't going to turn a non-rapist into a rapist. I mean, is that what you believe? I also don't buy this whole "expectation" angle that's floating around. No, guys aren't either entitled to expect sex from someone they are sharing a room with nor do I believe most guys actually think that way. I think that's a bit silly to even suggest.
Man, wut?
Seriously, if you don't have anything coherent to say, shut the fuck up.
Also, speaking of rednecks, having had to share a room with somebody who thought that clear bottles full of tobacco spit were valid room decorations, I think there do arise situations where "cultural" differences can making sharing a sleeping space untenable. Just another reason I think forcing people who have not been convicted of a crime to share a 10'x16' cell just isn't right.
Actually, there is a significant difference between same room/same apartment and same dorm floor. At least in mine. I have a sturdy, exterior-grade door with a serviceable lock on it between me and my belongings and every other person on the floor. Which you will not have in a shared room and are unlikely to have in a shared apartment.
And my wife is the psychologist (well, she has a bachelor's in it), not me, but she seemed to think that the constant proximity as well as easy access to her belongings might have played some role in reinforcing his fixation on her. Or, in other words, she suggested that access to her underwear drawer (which we found out he took advantage of) might have made his stalkerness more stalkery. No, living in the same room won't suddenly turn a non-rapist into a rapist...but are you suggesting that there are no instances where somebody who is already a little "off" couldn't be made worse by such an arrangement?
Also, while I'd agree that most guys wouldn't "expect" sex from somebody they shared a room with, I'm willing to say that there are a significant portion who might sign up for such an arrangement in the hopes that it might increase their chances of getting laid somehow. With her, with her friends, however. I say this based on my wealth of experience with 18-year-old guys. Seriously, they're idiots. But this is part of the reason that I think such a living arrangement is best entered into with a specific person, rather than "whatever douchebag who checked 'hell yeah I want a chick roommate' the university pairs me up with."
There wasn't a whole lot of sexual tension with my gay sophmore roommate. Then again, I doubt I was his type. And he sure as hell wouldn't have been mine.
The best possible solution for this and all problems is to have dormitories follow a multi-bedroom approach rather than putting multiple people into studio apartments.