Narrow options

Living-learning programs need improvement

As graduation approaches, many University students will remember their first-year experience as one of change and exploration. Living with a vast array of students provided an experience unlike any other. But the University's residence halls could soon become home to a number of new living-learning programs that cluster students according to academic interest. The proposal would nearly double the number of living-learning communities, and expand the programs to the majority of the University's traditional residence halls. But until the current problems are addressed, the living-learning programs should not be expanded further.

Most of the University's living-learning programs are academically and socially restrictive. Students who take part in the communities are required to live in a certain residence hall and take certain classes. Since they spend the majority of their time with the same people, living-learning communities result in predetermined social groups; increasing the number of these programs would only make this problem worse. In addition, students who wish to leave the community still must remain in the residence hall for the rest of the year, and spend their first year at the University living with students who are part of a specified and possibly narrow group. If more of the residence halls host living-learning communities, then even first-year students who choose to not participate in the program would be isolated among members of living-learning communities.

The requirements of the living-learning programs also prevent students from exploring the full range of academic options that the University offers. The core curriculum of most living-learning programs is too narrow to allow students to broaden their academic range. It is important that students have the ability to explore many different options while at the University; increasing the number of living-learning communities would close important options to many students who have not yet decided on a specific course of study.

In addition to the restrictiveness of the living-learning communities, many of the existing programs are having difficulty retaining students. Many, like the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program or the Women in Science and Engineering program have problems that need to be solved. The University should concentrate on fixing the existing living-learning system before expanding it. The communities need time to develop. For instance, the Residential College, which recently celebrated its 30th anniversary, is a successful living-learning community because it is well established and offers students a wide range of academic options. But the more recently established communities have many social and logistical flaws; increasing the number of programs would be helpful to no one.

Living-learning communities restrict students to a particular academic curriculum and a particular social group when taking advantage of diverse options should be a vital part of University life. Although some students may enjoy the living-learning environment, increasing the number of programs despite the fact that the system is flawed will only create more problems. More living-learning communities does not mean more options for students.

04-01-98