Recommendation 1 - Create a Greatly Enhanced System of Residential Clusters at Dartmouth
The primary focus of the committee's proposal to change the social and residential life at Dartmouth is to move as quickly as possible to a greatly enhanced residential system featuring improved residential clusters. Such a system would far exceed anything that is currently in place at the institution, and would serve as the bedrock of social and residential life on campus. As noted above, Dartmouth nominally already has 11 residential clusters, but these clusters have not realized their full potential.
Creating a comprehensive cluster system is an idea that has circulated at Dartmouth for a number of years. This was the chief proposal put forward by the Ad Hoc Committee on Residential Life, a committee appointed by the Board of Trustees in the late 1980s. The 1987 report of this group had this to say about clusters:
The central element in the residential life system is the cluster. We believe that the current system reflects tremendous progress over the last several years in terms of improved physical facilities and in the development of the cluster concept. The next phase must be for the clusters to provide a greater sense of continuity and stability for students.
It is not an accident that fraternities and sororities have come to play such a dominant role in the social life of students. These organizations provide, better than most places on campus, a sense of continuity and stability, a sense of belonging to a fixed and predictable and supportive place. Only when providing these things are explicit objectives of the cluster system and only when these objectives are largely being met will fraternities and sororities return to their proper place in the residential system.
More than a decade later, the Committee on the Student Life Initiative came to the same conclusion. We think that advancing clusters to the next phase of their development will create a very attractive new environment and at the same time deal with a number of weaknesses in the current social and residential life of the College that were identified in Part II of this report. The committee strongly believes that a comprehensive cluster system can increase the sense of community at Dartmouth, and, in particular, afford considerable new opportunities to weave multicultural learning experiences into residential life. A cluster-based system that would allow students to live in the same cluster for two or three years would provide them a far greater sense of stability and continuity than they currently have. And by increasing the vitality of social life in the residences, clusters could help to diminish the role on campus of the current CFS organizations.
Bringing about a true cluster system at Dartmouth would require substantial investments in both "hardware"—the building of new facilities—and "software"—additions to programming and staffing, as well as new systems of governance. We begin by describing the "hardware" components.
(1) Cluster hardware: What we need to build. Based on its analysis of current and future needs, the committee concluded that the Board of Trustees should adopt a long-term goal of having approximately 3,000 high-quality beds in its residential system. This number would allow approximately 90 percent of students enrolled in the heavily attended fall term to live on campus. At present, the comparable figure of high-quality beds is at best 2,650. However, this number includes beds in the River Cluster and Choates, which as currently configured may not merit the "high quality" designation.
- New clusters. A target of 3,000 high-quality beds implies a net increase of 350 beds from the current level. In reality, actual construction would have to be greater than this number, since the committee also assumes that a number of beds will be eliminated from the current system as rooms are "decompressed" or eliminated in the process of renovation. The precise number of beds so eliminated must be carefully re-examined in light of all of the recommendations of this report. An approximate goal for the next five to seven years is to build the equivalent of two new 350-bed clusters as soon as practicable. Moreover, to achieve a reasonably uniform quality system, the River Cluster may need to be replaced, and the Choates as well, unless conversion of the latter complex to become predominantly singles can be demonstrated to make it attractive to students. If the Board were to vote to eliminate student residency in CFS houses, another cluster of 250 or so beds would also be needed.
- Improvements to existing clusters. In addition to building new bed capacity or cluster complexes, the committee recommends making substantial improvements to the existing residential clusters. Almost all of these involve adding new spaces within or adjacent to the clusters that could be used for social activities and dining. Note that such spaces added within the residences will increase the bed construction requirements, but those that are added on to the residences will not. The spaces the committee recommends are set forth below.
- Cluster-based "common houses." For the cluster concept to work, the committee deems it essential that one new "common house" or large common space be built in or near each cluster. These should be of sufficient size to allow all students living in the cluster, as well as some students living in other clusters, to attend cluster-sponsored social events. These spaces or houses would be used for lectures, parties, periodic dining and other gatherings. If a common house were created, its "upstairs" could also include spaces set aside for lounging or studying. The house might also have a very limited number of residence rooms (five at most) intended for the Cluster Coordinator (see below) or cluster student leaders. A rough analogy is the faculty associate's house located at the East Wheelock complex. However, rather than having faculty advisors live in this complex, it would be used primarily for social gatherings.
- Smaller social spaces. A number of smaller social spaces should be created and distributed throughout the clusters, to be used for lounging and studying. These spaces would be student controlled and maintained with continual student input. A particularly noteworthy idea is to build new computer facilities within the residence halls, a need identified in Dartmouth's recent Institutional Self-Study Report for reaccreditation.
- Cluster storage. New student storage space should be created within clusters so that students can leave their possessions behind between terms and during off terms.
- Food service in the clusters. Snack bars and kitchen facilities should be created at each cluster, preferably within or near the common houses or smaller social spaces. Although dining would remain generally centralized at Thayer Hall, students would be able to eat light meals in their clusters, as at the East Wheelock snack bar. As kitchen facilities are built around campus, large all-cluster events could be catered within the common spaces.
- Housing for Cluster Coordinator. Living spaces, as described below, should be created in each cluster to house a Cluster Coordinator.
- Senior housing. New "townhouses" or other living spaces should be constructed solely for use by seniors. The precise construction requirements for these facilities should be determined after the cluster system begins operating and needs can be better identified.
(2) Cluster software: How the clusters would function. For the clusters to function as the primary basis of social and residential life on campus requires the College to do more than simply build new residence halls and add new spaces. A programming infrastructure must also be created. The committee anticipates that this would require a new system of cluster governance and programming. In order for this infrastructure to function effectively, the College must provide students with continuity in residential living.
The committee's recommendations regarding governance and programming for the new cluster system include the following:
- Cluster Councils. It is critical that students living within the cluster be empowered to plan programming as much as possible. To this end, the committee proposes the creation of a Cluster Council within each cluster. The Council would be composed of students elected by others within their cluster. In addition, an Inter-Cluster Council would be created to link the clusters together in devising events and programming of interest to the broad College community.
- Cluster Coordinators. Each individual cluster would have a Cluster Coordinator who is an employee of the Office of Residential Life. This person would work with the students on the Cluster Council to enable them to plan and supervise social and academic programming within the cluster. Various students told the committee that they frequently lack sufficient time or skill to plan events themselves, so the committee concluded that considerable support in the form of a Cluster Coordinator is very much needed.
- Cluster Advisory Board. Each cluster would also have a dedicated group of non-student advisors, composed largely of faculty and administrators. The committee deems it critical that the clusters have close linkages to faculty, and that new programs or systems need to be created to encourage and motivate the considerable involvement of faculty members. These could take the form of reduced teaching loads or newly created and revolving "chairs" that would allow faculty to focus for a time mainly on student affairs. The committee recommends that the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Dean of the College coordinate efforts to devise such incentives.
- Funds for programming. Clusters will need substantial funding for programming if they are to succeed in supplanting a large share of the social activities that currently go on elsewhere on campus. The administration and Board of Trustees can best decide how to fund this effort—for example, whether through a sizable increase in the Student Activities Fee or through the general College budget. However, the committee's work has made clear that this area of College life requires significantly increased spending.
- Undergraduate Assistants. The committee recommends reorganizing the current system of Undergraduate Advisors (UGAs). Under the new system, the UGAs would have a broader set of responsibilities than current UGAs. One or more UGAs would be assigned to each dormitory or living unit within the cluster. Areas housing more first-year students would have more UGAs. UGAs would also be compensated for their services at higher levels than today, either through significant stipends or reductions in room and board.
The committee's recommendations on improving continuity in residential living include the following:
- Continuity. As new clusters are built and beds are added to the current system, it will become possible to afford Dartmouth students something they have not had for years—the ability to live in the same cluster for the bulk of their Dartmouth careers. The committee sees a student's residential career evolving along the following lines. Ideally, each incoming first-year student would initially be assigned to a cluster, to the extent possible by his or her choice. The student would then live in this cluster through the junior year. In the senior year, the student could remain in the cluster; move on to live in a new group of townhouses or smaller units built specifically for residency by seniors; move to an off-campus house or apartment; or move into the house of a selective social organization.
- First-year housing. The committee discussed at length both the pluses and minuses of moving to a system in which all first-year students would be housed together. Although the committee reached no conclusion, there are enough arguments in favor of first-year housing that such a system should be given careful consideration. In fact, because the River Cluster and the Choates house substantial numbers of first-year students already, the College has an opportunity to conduct an objective evaluation of this practice over the next several years while the expansion of bed capacity is underway.
- Accordingly, the committee proposes that both the River Cluster and the Choates be used for the next several years exclusively as first-year housing for approximately one-half of each first-year class. This would allow the College to provide concentrated programs in both of these clusters that would be devoted to the needs of first-year students. The committee recommends that sophisticated research and analysis be carried out to monitor the effectiveness both of housing first-year students separately and of targeting special programs to them. The conclusions of this analysis could be made part of the Board's review in 2005 of the implementation of the Student Life Initiative.
- The committee also recommends that first-year students who elect to live in the River Cluster and Choates be given two advantages. First, each would be given priority to move as a group into a designated high-quality cluster in the sophomore year. To this end, several high-quality clusters would house few, if any, first-year students and would therefore have a large number of rooms available for incoming sophomores. Second, first-year students living in the River Cluster and Choates would not only have the benefit of the special first-year programming but would also be able to affiliate immediately upon matriculation with their future clusters and to attend all cluster-related events.
- Mixed-class housing. Under the committee's proposal, the remaining half of the first-year class would be assigned to available mixed-class clusters. We recommend that many of these first-year students be housed in a particular building, in dedicated wings or on specified floors of clusters, and that they receive concentrated support and programming similar to those provided to first-year students housed in the River Cluster and Choates. Other first-year students could be spread throughout the clusters alongside upper-class students. Here again, a program of research and analysis would be carried out to evaluate the different experiences of these sets of first-year students.
- Once in a cluster, students would be given top priority to remain in that cluster through the end of the junior year. Students could also exercise a one-time "opt-out" option to switch to another cluster anytime during these three years. As above, these arrangements would be carefully evaluated after several years and the conclusions made part of the Board's review in 2005. As a result, when progress has been made on the building of new residential beds and facilities, a rational basis will have been created for selecting the plan that best advances the goal of residential continuity.
- Reduce fall-term enrollment. The committee recommends a further change that may minimize the extent of the building program required to achieve continuity and the amount of time needed to carry it out. This would involve the College developing programs to attract more enrollment to winter and summer terms, and shift some enrollment away from fall term. These might include breaks on room rent or other financial incentives, or academic programs designed to make these other terms more desirable. Another such program would be moving CFS rush to winter term as recommended below. Additionally, the committee recommends that admission of the first-year class should adhere to the target number of 1,075 students.
- CFS houses non-residential during the summer. The committee proposes one change involving the summer term. To enable CFS houses to undertake necessary refurbishment and regular maintenance, no residency would be allowed in these facilities during the summer.
- Options for seniors. The committee proposes that seniors be given the choice of staying in the clusters that they had been in since their first or sophomore year or of moving to housing that might be better suited to their needs as older students. Such housing could include the Maxwell/Channing Cox residences or additional facilities similar to this that could be built in the future. Another option that should be considered is to renovate the Choate complex and convert it predominantly to singles for use by seniors. A number of students who appeared before the committee described a vision of townhouses where seniors could live in groups. The committee recommends that such facilities be provided depending on evolving needs as the pattern of operation of the cluster system becomes more clear over time.
|
