4 ms·

at least for room and board you aren't required to actually atay at the university, most people I knew lived off-campus

by tdb7893 10y ago

eganist 10y ago
That can easily change. Tons of universities require students to live n years on campus.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Are there any public universities that require this?
  - eu90h 10y ago
    I went to a public university that required students to live on campus until their junior year.
    - linkregister 10y ago
      Where?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - usea 10y ago
        Louisiana. http://www.uno.edu/housing/residency-requirement.aspx http://www.uno.edu/housing/residency-requirement.aspx Other schools in system have a similar policy.
  - eganist 10y ago
    https://www.virginia.edu/housing/faq.php https://www.virginia.edu/housing/faq.php > All First Year students are required to live in on-Grounds http://housing.vt.edu/contracts/apply/first_year_students.html http://housing.vt.edu/contracts/apply/first_year_students.ht... > All incoming first-year students are guaranteed, and required to live in, on-campus housing for their first year; And that's just Virginia.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    Ohio State requires it for two years and it's about as big and public as you can get.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    UMass Amherst required it of freshmen and sophomores when I was there in 2007-2011.
- eon1 10y ago
  Weird. What practical purpose does this serve? Do we know what lead to this policy becoming commonplace?
  - vinay427 10y ago
    As an on-campus student I didn't know any off-campus students except one who went to my high school, and he didn't have many new friends from university that he kept in touch with. It is difficult to overestimate the social aspect of universities, which has led in part to other changes such as a common core curriculum for all undergraduates, for instance. I'm not claiming that students should live on campus, but there are clear advantages if they do so to both those students and other on-campus students.
  - abalashov 10y ago
    In theory, the argument is that it creates initialisation conditions of greater social and academic engagement that increases the likelihood of staying in college and completing a degree. The idea is that clueless freshmen who have never lived independently before and are unleashed for the first time will just get lost to the party if you set them loose off campus. This way they are given some structure and discipline during their first year or two in college, ideally creating a healthier template they more likely to adhere to in some measure even after they move off-campus. Practically, it's more likely just a revenue measure...
abalashov 10y ago
Yes, but living off-campus isn't free either. That may get one out of hiked room/board/meal plan fees, but not out of the basic obstacle of affordability that stops many low-income people from going to college. Total cost of attendance can be prohibitive with or without tuition. Yeah, there are more ways around it. One can work part-time. But my experience is that this is all a bit mythologised and represents a kind of superhuman best-case scenario. Admittedly, I'm biased as a native Russian (in US since early childhood). In our part of the world, making school and university-age children work is still often regarded as a kind of violation of their human rights. "They need to learn financial responsibility" doesn't resonate strongly in cultures without this national folklore of individual self-reliance. However, as far as I can tell, "working through college" isn't as easy as it's made out to be. In the real world, a good chunk of the kids that have to work enough alongside school to actually _support_ themselves (housing, food, necessities), rather than just earn some discretionary "spending money", don't end up doing well in school, for obvious reasons of nonlinear tradeoffs in human activities. After a 6-hour shift on my feet at the pizza joint, I'm probably going to want to come home and veg, not soar to the snow-capped summits of my survey of Western intellectual history until 2 AM ... Being in tech, I got so engrossed in my work I dropped out to pursue my (at the time) meteorically ascendant career! :-) But that's a different — and decidedly luxurious — problem.

at least for room and board you aren't required to actually atay at the university, most people I knew lived off-campus

by tdb7893 10y ago

at least for room and board you aren't required to actually atay at the university, most people I knew lived off-campus

eganist 10y ago

That can easily change. Tons of universities require students to live n years on campus.

linkregister 10y ago
Are there any public universities that require this?
- eu90h 10y ago
  I went to a public university that required students to live on campus until their junior year.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Where?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - usea 10y ago
      Louisiana. http://www.uno.edu/housing/residency-requirement.aspx http://www.uno.edu/housing/residency-requirement.aspx Other schools in system have a similar policy.
- eganist 10y ago
  https://www.virginia.edu/housing/faq.php https://www.virginia.edu/housing/faq.php > All First Year students are required to live in on-Grounds http://housing.vt.edu/contracts/apply/first_year_students.html http://housing.vt.edu/contracts/apply/first_year_students.ht... > All incoming first-year students are guaranteed, and required to live in, on-campus housing for their first year; And that's just Virginia.
- Spivak 10y ago
  Ohio State requires it for two years and it's about as big and public as you can get.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  UMass Amherst required it of freshmen and sophomores when I was there in 2007-2011.
eon1 10y ago
Weird. What practical purpose does this serve? Do we know what lead to this policy becoming commonplace?
- vinay427 10y ago
  As an on-campus student I didn't know any off-campus students except one who went to my high school, and he didn't have many new friends from university that he kept in touch with. It is difficult to overestimate the social aspect of universities, which has led in part to other changes such as a common core curriculum for all undergraduates, for instance. I'm not claiming that students should live on campus, but there are clear advantages if they do so to both those students and other on-campus students.
- abalashov 10y ago
  In theory, the argument is that it creates initialisation conditions of greater social and academic engagement that increases the likelihood of staying in college and completing a degree. The idea is that clueless freshmen who have never lived independently before and are unleashed for the first time will just get lost to the party if you set them loose off campus. This way they are given some structure and discipline during their first year or two in college, ideally creating a healthier template they more likely to adhere to in some measure even after they move off-campus. Practically, it's more likely just a revenue measure...

abalashov 10y ago

Yes, but living off-campus isn't free either. That may get one out of hiked room/board/meal plan fees, but not out of the basic obstacle of affordability that stops many low-income people from going to college. Total cost of attendance can be prohibitive with or without tuition. Yeah, there are more ways around it. One can work part-time. But my experience is that this is all a bit mythologised and represents a kind of superhuman best-case scenario. Admittedly, I'm biased as a native Russian (in US since early childhood). In our part of the world, making school and university-age children work is still often regarded as a kind of violation of their human rights. "They need to learn financial responsibility" doesn't resonate strongly in cultures without this national folklore of individual self-reliance. However, as far as I can tell, "working through college" isn't as easy as it's made out to be. In the real world, a good chunk of the kids that have to work enough alongside school to actually _support_ themselves (housing, food, necessities), rather than just earn some discretionary "spending money", don't end up doing well in school, for obvious reasons of nonlinear tradeoffs in human activities. After a 6-hour shift on my feet at the pizza joint, I'm probably going to want to come home and veg, not soar to the snow-capped summits of my survey of Western intellectual history until 2 AM ... Being in tech, I got so engrossed in my work I dropped out to pursue my (at the time) meteorically ascendant career! :-) But that's a different — and decidedly luxurious — problem.