4 ms·

Hijacking the thread a bit, but I'm not sure people understand how predatory student housing is in aggregate. At many colleges you don't even have a choice to

Hijacking the thread a bit, but I'm not sure people understand how predatory student housing is in aggregate. At many colleges you don't even have a choice to live in the dorms or not as an undergrad, living on campus for 1-2 years is tied to enrollment. On top of this lots of financing for college housing is wonky, because some colleges do not pay property tax. (So you can have the college hold the land and some third party company finance/build the building students are forced to live in.) This is a significant part of ACC's business model.[0] Student loan money is used to pay rent on these buildings, so it's indirectly funded by taxpayers. The power colleges have over students lives is concerning regardless of if this dorm design is good or bad. If UCSB put in one of these requirements students could be forced to take part in a social experiment designed by a billionaire. UCSB, or another campus w/ a Munger dorm, doesn't have this requirement today but could have it tomorrow. 0: https://www.americancampus.com/ https://www.americancampus.com/

chrisseaton 5y ago
> If UCSB put in one of these requirements students could be forced to take part in a social experiment Well nobody needs to go to UCSB. The US is fortunate that it's got such a huge and massively diverse range of options for university. I guess if the results are bad they'll suffer for recruitment and the problem will hopefully correct itself.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  The grad programs at UCSB are not to be sneezed at.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    I'd sneeze at them if they tried to make me live in a window-less room.
slownews45 5y ago
To be crystal clear, at least in California on-campus housing is generally where students want to live. With berkeley on campus housing can rely on FA awards, much more flexible in terms of reasons to cancel (ie, you withdraw from school), big issue with group leases off campus when one person flakes. What's interesting is that there is a view that we can't try out things like this in the US. There are so many critics, and so few doers. Be worth seeing what students think of the housing. I realize that may not align with some of the NIMBYs and critics, but ultimately they should have voice as stakeholders. And why not try something out? For those not familiar, there is a big shortage of on campus housing, many schools are waiving requirements to live on campus in year 1
- PebblesRox 5y ago
  If you're going to try something out, better to do it on a small scale first. Build weird housing for a couple hundred students before scaling up to 4k+.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > why not try something out? Because there is no other choice, so if it is a bad one everyone will be stuck with it. But most importantly, because the ones that are pushing for it do not get to suffer the consequences of its choices. If Munger was the first in line saying "I believe that this design is so good that I want to live there myself", I would at least say that he has the right to try. I'd more than willing to hear about Munger's investments, where he has Skin in the Game. This project though is just plain bullshit.
gwright 5y ago
> building students are forced to live in. This is a a bit overwrought. Students are voluntarily applying and accepting an offer to attend. They aren't being "forced" to do anything. It may be that many people think this is a bad deal (financially, socially, etc) but it is a deal that is entered into voluntarily.
some_random 5y ago
It's hard to go to a university these days and not feel like you're getting scammed every single step of the way.
boredguy8 5y ago
That's a big fast 'citation needed' for the initial claim. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but it's wholly false, at least at the myriad of colleges I've worked with, and generally true in urban settings [0]. Housing is often a loss for the university (hence the explosion of PPP to try and recoup those losses). Instead, especially at places like UCSB, it's landlords in the area that are a large financial burden for students. At my last university, rental occupancy within a 5 mile radius was at 98%, which exerts a huge upwards pressure on rent. Students were BEGGING for more housing, because campus housing was on-par or lower than the area, and comes with many other benefits related to travel and campus resources. Furthermore, college housing often provides a 9 or 10 month lease option, which can save a lot of money over an annual lease. Additionally, there is regular evidence [1][2] that living on campus helps with retention rates, which is critical to avoiding the 'spending money, never getting the credential' problem plaguing higher ed. In this light, even if campus housing were somewhat more expensive, the benefit in completion could easily outweigh those costs. Munger looks terrible, but there's a HIGH demand and LOW supply for housing at UCSB, and at urban colleges in general. It's not a cash cow for many, if any, campuses. Certainly not public ones. 0: "'When you look at the metros that have exceptionally high cost of living expenses like New York, Boston and San Francisco, there has been research done that those areas can be significantly cheaper for a student to live on campus,' says Amy Glynn, vice president of financial aid and community initiatives at CampusLogic, a firm that advises higher education institutions." https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2018-01-19/when-living-on-campus-could-save-you-money https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-co... 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236730093_The_Causal_Effect_of_Campus_Residency_on_College_Student_Retention https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236730093_The_Causa... 2: https://www.ucf.edu/news/students-living-on-campus-experience-higher-retention-graduation-rates/ https://www.ucf.edu/news/students-living-on-campus-experienc...
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Definitely is the case at Northwestern. Forced to live in dorms the first 2 years which cost the same as a full year of a 1 bedroom near by and is much, much lower quality. And the force you on to the dining plan which comes out to being as expensive eating every meal at a legitimate restaurant.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> If UCSB put in one of these requirements students could be forced to take part in a social experiment Well nobody needs to go to UCSB. The US is fortunate that it's got such a huge and massively diverse range of options for university. I guess if the results are bad they'll suffer for recruitment and the problem will hopefully correct itself.

selimthegrim 5y ago
The grad programs at UCSB are not to be sneezed at.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  I'd sneeze at them if they tried to make me live in a window-less room.

slownews45 5y ago

To be crystal clear, at least in California on-campus housing is generally where students want to live. With berkeley on campus housing can rely on FA awards, much more flexible in terms of reasons to cancel (ie, you withdraw from school), big issue with group leases off campus when one person flakes. What's interesting is that there is a view that we can't try out things like this in the US. There are so many critics, and so few doers. Be worth seeing what students think of the housing. I realize that may not align with some of the NIMBYs and critics, but ultimately they should have voice as stakeholders. And why not try something out? For those not familiar, there is a big shortage of on campus housing, many schools are waiving requirements to live on campus in year 1

PebblesRox 5y ago
If you're going to try something out, better to do it on a small scale first. Build weird housing for a couple hundred students before scaling up to 4k+.
rglullis 5y ago
> why not try something out? Because there is no other choice, so if it is a bad one everyone will be stuck with it. But most importantly, because the ones that are pushing for it do not get to suffer the consequences of its choices. If Munger was the first in line saying "I believe that this design is so good that I want to live there myself", I would at least say that he has the right to try. I'd more than willing to hear about Munger's investments, where he has Skin in the Game. This project though is just plain bullshit.

gwright 5y ago

> building students are forced to live in. This is a a bit overwrought. Students are voluntarily applying and accepting an offer to attend. They aren't being "forced" to do anything. It may be that many people think this is a bad deal (financially, socially, etc) but it is a deal that is entered into voluntarily.

some_random 5y ago

It's hard to go to a university these days and not feel like you're getting scammed every single step of the way.

boredguy8 5y ago

That's a big fast 'citation needed' for the initial claim. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but it's wholly false, at least at the myriad of colleges I've worked with, and generally true in urban settings [0]. Housing is often a loss for the university (hence the explosion of PPP to try and recoup those losses). Instead, especially at places like UCSB, it's landlords in the area that are a large financial burden for students. At my last university, rental occupancy within a 5 mile radius was at 98%, which exerts a huge upwards pressure on rent. Students were BEGGING for more housing, because campus housing was on-par or lower than the area, and comes with many other benefits related to travel and campus resources. Furthermore, college housing often provides a 9 or 10 month lease option, which can save a lot of money over an annual lease. Additionally, there is regular evidence [1][2] that living on campus helps with retention rates, which is critical to avoiding the 'spending money, never getting the credential' problem plaguing higher ed. In this light, even if campus housing were somewhat more expensive, the benefit in completion could easily outweigh those costs. Munger looks terrible, but there's a HIGH demand and LOW supply for housing at UCSB, and at urban colleges in general. It's not a cash cow for many, if any, campuses. Certainly not public ones. 0: "'When you look at the metros that have exceptionally high cost of living expenses like New York, Boston and San Francisco, there has been research done that those areas can be significantly cheaper for a student to live on campus,' says Amy Glynn, vice president of financial aid and community initiatives at CampusLogic, a firm that advises higher education institutions." https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2018-01-19/when-living-on-campus-could-save-you-money https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-co... 1: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236730093_The_Causal_Effect_of_Campus_Residency_on_College_Student_Retention https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236730093_The_Causa... 2: https://www.ucf.edu/news/students-living-on-campus-experience-higher-retention-graduation-rates/ https://www.ucf.edu/news/students-living-on-campus-experienc...

colinmhayes 5y ago
Definitely is the case at Northwestern. Forced to live in dorms the first 2 years which cost the same as a full year of a 1 bedroom near by and is much, much lower quality. And the force you on to the dining plan which comes out to being as expensive eating every meal at a legitimate restaurant.