Our housing market problem
Issue date: 2/5/08 Section: Editorial
With the housing lottery not too far away, some students are starting to form their groups and begin the first bits of nervous wrangling and awkward diplomacy that characterize much of the process. We're not interested in using this space to claim that the lottery should be changed, though. Assigning several thousand people housing in two days is hectic, but a couple hours of chaos is a small price to pay for our system's emphasis on students' preferences and, more importantly, on equity.
No one is ever concerned that Brown's small army of celebrities' children will get better lottery numbers, or that those who are more active in dorm life will get preferential treatment, as at Northwestern University. Athlete, mathlete or video game aficionado, all enter the game with an equal opportunity at grabbing the best housing.
Unless you're short on cash, that is.
Most students are paying the $5,958 standard fee per year for housing, but those in suites or apartment-style housing are shelling out $7,066 - an $1,108 difference. The price to live on campus should be the same for all students. If the University doesn't allocate more money toward housing to accomodate this change, it would likely have to raise the rate for many students in the short term. In the long run, the University should funnel more money towards making housing available to all.
For sure, students living in Vartan Gregorian Quadrangle, Barbour and Young Orchard apartments and those nifty suites above Wriston houses enjoy swankier housing. But we're not convinced that's a good reason for the price difference. After all, some student groups have larger budgets than others - Brown Concert Agency, the College Hill Independent and the Brown Lecture Board operate on much larger budgets than Category I groups like the Brown Bridge Society and the Brown University Gun Club, which get no University funding. But students in a better-budgeted activity don't have to pay a premium to join, and those in the Bridge Society still pay the flat student activities fee even though they won't see a dime. That way, all students have an equal opportunity to participate in the school's extracurricular life in the way they choose.
The same should be true for the school's social and residential life. Under the two-tier system, students unwilling or unable to pay the extra costs can't live with friends in higher-priced suites, enjoy their own kitchens or lounge in their own common rooms. With two different rates, one could imagine that, come lottery time, there will be students separated from friends not because of issues with space but because they're on financial aid. Such an outcome should be unacceptable at Brown.
The Corporation, the University's highest governing body, meets in February to approve a budget and fees for next year. We encourage the University Resources Council, President Ruth Simmons and the Corporation members to set a flat housing rate.
No one is ever concerned that Brown's small army of celebrities' children will get better lottery numbers, or that those who are more active in dorm life will get preferential treatment, as at Northwestern University. Athlete, mathlete or video game aficionado, all enter the game with an equal opportunity at grabbing the best housing.
Unless you're short on cash, that is.
Most students are paying the $5,958 standard fee per year for housing, but those in suites or apartment-style housing are shelling out $7,066 - an $1,108 difference. The price to live on campus should be the same for all students. If the University doesn't allocate more money toward housing to accomodate this change, it would likely have to raise the rate for many students in the short term. In the long run, the University should funnel more money towards making housing available to all.
For sure, students living in Vartan Gregorian Quadrangle, Barbour and Young Orchard apartments and those nifty suites above Wriston houses enjoy swankier housing. But we're not convinced that's a good reason for the price difference. After all, some student groups have larger budgets than others - Brown Concert Agency, the College Hill Independent and the Brown Lecture Board operate on much larger budgets than Category I groups like the Brown Bridge Society and the Brown University Gun Club, which get no University funding. But students in a better-budgeted activity don't have to pay a premium to join, and those in the Bridge Society still pay the flat student activities fee even though they won't see a dime. That way, all students have an equal opportunity to participate in the school's extracurricular life in the way they choose.
The same should be true for the school's social and residential life. Under the two-tier system, students unwilling or unable to pay the extra costs can't live with friends in higher-priced suites, enjoy their own kitchens or lounge in their own common rooms. With two different rates, one could imagine that, come lottery time, there will be students separated from friends not because of issues with space but because they're on financial aid. Such an outcome should be unacceptable at Brown.
The Corporation, the University's highest governing body, meets in February to approve a budget and fees for next year. We encourage the University Resources Council, President Ruth Simmons and the Corporation members to set a flat housing rate.