Feeling More At Home?

A Look at Penn's College House System When the University transformed residential living into a comprehensive system of 12 college houses, added staff and social and academic programs and eliminated first-year houses, a primary goal was to allow each house to gradually mold itself into a unique community. Nearly a semester into the program, the $64,000 question remains: Are the changes leading the system toward that goal? A random survey of current college house residents conducted by The Daily Pennsylvanian from November 12 to 24 revealed mixed results. While the study showed that some students found that the college houses encourage a sense of community, in its first year the new system has not fostered the type of participation and interaction that University officials have said they ultimately want. A large minority of students have not met the faculty living in their house or interacted with the student members of the residential staff. Additionally, few students said they have attended more than a handful of residential activities. But at the same time, most students indicated that they intend to continue living on campus next year. When the new system was unveiled last year, its planners said they expected it to take several years for the program to counteract the impersonal nature of many houses under the old residential system. The DP survey asked 183 students living on campus in all 12 of the college houses about their degree of participation in college house activities and interaction with faculty in residence and house staff. Of the students, 90 are freshmen and 93 are upperclassmen. The survey, which used randomly selected students, has a margin of error of 7 percent. While a large majority of students said they were satisfied with their decision to live on campus, the statistics did not conclusively indicate whether the increased services and support of the college house is responsible for that satisfaction. On a scale of one to five, with five being most satisfied, 51 percent of upperclassmen rated their satisfaction a four, while 27 percent said it was a five. Another 19 percent gave a three rating. Among freshmen, though, an overwhelming 81 percent said they were most satisfied with their experience living in a college house. But when asked about the degree of interaction with their resident advisor or graduate associate, only 40 percent of all students gave a four or five rating, with answers fairly evenly distributed among the five choices. And when asked if they had met their faculty master, faculty fellow or house dean, 39 percent of the students said they had not. "The parity of answers is not terribly surprising," said David Brownlee, director of College Houses and Academic Services. He explained that the system is designed to provide services to those who "reach out and find them," and that some students don't take that opportunity. And College junior Emily Pollack, chairperson of the Residential Advisory Board, explained that the most important thing is to give students the opportunities to interact with faculty and students in the house and to allow them the choice of whether to take advantage of house programs. "I would be amazed if 10 years from now all 800 students in a high rise met their faculty master," she said. English Professor Al Filreis, former chairperson of the Residential Faculty Council, said the percentage of students who met their faculty in residence was "pleasantly surprising." Filreis emphasized that interaction with the RA or GA is more important than interaction with faculty. He said, however, that he does not believe the survey indicates that students are not interacting with RAs or GAs enough. "That's the statistic that will tell us how we're doing," he said, referring to the degree to which student staff actively try to make contact with residents. And just because a student does not meet his or her faculty master, Filreis said, "doesn't mean it's not a supportive environment." Still, officials pointed out possible ways to foster greater enthusiasm within the houses and increase the opportunities students have to take advantage of the programs and services offered. "There's room for improvement and it will come with time," Pollack said, adding that facilities upgrades -- which the University plans to conduct when it implements its $300 million renovation and construction plan over the next decade -- will greatly contribute to the college houses becoming better at reaching their goals. Without the physical improvements, she said, the dormitories are college houses in name only. Brownlee agreed that upgrading the facilities would create a better environment in the houses, with improvements in study spaces, common rooms, computer labs and both inner and outer structure. But he also emphasized increasing the use of communication systems within each house. "The houses all have Web pages and house councils," he said. "With the combination of human contact and electronic contact, the message of available activities can be transmitted more effectively." Officials also said they were pleased with other results of the survey. For example, when asked whether they would live on campus next year, 55 percent of the 165 non-seniors said yes, while just 21 percent said no. The other 24 percent said they were undecided. Brownlee said he was very encouraged by that statistic, particularly in terms of next year's sophomores and juniors -- among which a clear majority of students said they would stay on campus. "That a good portion of the students who have been on campus for two years want to stay for a third could provide a strong base for increased upperclass stability," Brownlee said. "Yikes," Filreis said, expressing a positive reaction to the numbers. "My guess is 55 percent is high," he said. "If anybody had questions whether the college house program would create vacancies if students don't like it, these numbers seem to answer them." Neither Brownlee nor Filreis could provide statistics to show how many students have chosen to remain in dorms in previous years. Pollack, who is also an RA in Spruce College House in the Quadrangle, said she was encouraged by the number of freshmen who want to remain in the house and be involved. "The more you get people excited early on, the more chance you have to really develop the college house system," she said. But what do students really want from their college house experience? The DP survey asked students to rank five aspects of on-campus living in order of importance. Thirty percent of those surveyed said simplicity and convenience were the most important factors in their decision to live on campus, while 22 percent valued location the most; 21 percent community; 20 percent safety; and 7 percent named activities and social events as most important. The last choice was also most frequently named as the least important aspect. Additionally, when asked how many college house activities they had been to, the vast majority of students -- 71 percent -- said one to five, while 15 percent answered zero. Just 14 percent said they went to 6 or more. But although students seemed to be saying activities weren't that important to the house experience, officials said they were not discouraged by the figure. "The objectives aren't futile," Pollack said, pointing out that students often take activities such as free pizza and study breaks for granted. "A lot of people don't even realize it's there until it's not there." Brownlee said he believes over time, the numbers will change. "I would expect that increasingly, students would become familiar with residential faculty and staff, and increasingly identify community as the most important thing about living on campus and living in the college houses," he said. Daily Pennsylvanian staff writers Brian D'Ottavio, Harrison Denman, Ambika Ganesti, Sabrina Gleizer, John Gutin, Faye Iosotaluno, Jeffrey Joseph, Tori Katz, Dana Klinek, Rod Kurtz, Danielle Lewin, Sharon Male, Emily Papir, Nina Smolyar, Aliya Sternstein, Ratha Tep and Cila Warncke contributed to this article.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.