Staff Editorial: A better system for Penn

Three and a half years ago, the University instituted its new college house system. In conjunction with the now-delayed and scaled-down dormitory and dining renewal plan, college houses were supposed to revolutionize on-campus living, foster community and draw students living off campus back into University residences.

Things have not gone exactly as originally planned.

The college house system is consciously modeled on the "living-learning" communities at Harvard and Yale. Unfortunately, in their rush to emulate our peers to the north, administrators failed to recognize that Penn is a very different school.

For starters, there is a culture of off-campus living at Penn that simply does not exist at Harvard or Yale. Over 85 percent of Yale undergraduates live on campus, as do over 95 percent of Harvard undergraduates. At Penn, just over 60 percent call one of the 12 college houses home.

This is comparable with other urban universities, such as Boston University (64 percent), the University of Chicago (66 percent) and New York University (48 percent). In the heart of the fifth largest city in the United States, and with an abundance of affordable off-campus housing, the draw of on-campus college houses is substantially weakened.

Another important part of the Penn experience is the University's relationship with the city of Philadelphia. With nearly 40 percent of students living off-campus, Penn students do not look to college house events for weekend entertainment. As as student body, we are more likely to utilize the wealth of offerings in Center City or off campus than attend a University-sponsored party.

And in a way, Penn has undermined the college house system with its efforts to bring retail dining options to University City. Dining, deemed so important by administrators in fostering community, struggles not only due to poor service, poor quality and inconvenience, but because it has been undercut by the wealth of new options to be found just a few steps off campus. It is ridiculous to expect students to eat 17 times a week at a dining hall and to regularly patronize local restaurants at the same time.

Finally, there is the issue of time and tradition. Harvard and Yale have been residential colleges for literally hundreds of years. The college house systems at those school have evolved over the past two centuries and their residential infrastructure are a function of those systems.

Until construction of the Quadrangle began in 1895, Penn was essentially a commuter school. And with the exception of the Quad and Kings Court (which was built as a private apartment building in 1915), every residence on campus was built between 1960 and 1972. These dormitories were designed not to foster community, but to house as many students as possible in the smallest area possible.

This is not something that can be turned around in a three year period, if at all. What's more, it is unclear that this should even be a goal.

The fundamental problem with Penn's emulation of Harvard and Yale is not so much that Penn is not Harvard or Yale, but that Penn students do not want it to be. Student life here is distinctive, and the college house system should seek not to entirely alter that, but to compliment it. The University must redefine "college house" to fit the needs of its students.

With the college house system, the University has manufactured a contrived sense of community. What the college house seeks to do on paper is not what college house residents want.

Furthermore, this community has been created at a detriment to the existing communities at Penn.

The college houses in place prior to 1998, such as Ware, DuBois and Hill, were successful at building community outside of the University-wide college house system. They were small and specialized to particular interests.

In turning all dormitories into college houses, the University has weakened and diluted these and other preexisting communities.

Administrators can rightly point to a number of success stories in terms of fostering community in smaller college houses, such as Stouffer and DuBois, and specialized programs, like STWing and Perspectives in Humanities. But it is easier to foster community among a smaller number of people or among those with similar interests.

The University needs to fundamentally rethink the college house system. Administrators must learn from what has and has not worked over the past three and a half years. Smaller communities should continue to be encouraged, and the wealth of amenities provided by the college houses should be continued. But Penn must recognize that its overall goals for residential life are simply not right for this University.

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