6 Cachinnations

1. Douglas Said,

   Maybe I'm just a curmudgeonly capitalist, but $100/month doesn't seem to me like it's going to automatically stratify the campus along class lines. Compared to the combined tuition and room/board expenses over 4 years, it seems like a trifle to squabble over. Depending on the extra amenities offered, it might actually be a good deal. My suspicion is that such housing will be in such demand that there will be a waiting list for it and many people will get in who don't fit the upper-crust stereotype while others who do fit that stereotype live elsewhere. At least, that's what happened at my alma mater when they did the same thing. Personally, I went to undergrad in my hometown and lived at home to avoid all room/board costs (it was the only college "assistance" I ever received from my folks). However, if I had gone to college out of town, I certainly would have considered a nicer apartment, given that many dorm rooms were more like a closet with a bed. Universities all over the country are building new dorms that are much roomier and nicer than dorms of yesteryear in an effort to keep kids on-campus. They are also finding that people are willing to pay a little more to live in these accommodations. Given the relatively small increase in price in this case, what's the big deal? Is this going to stratify the campus any more than it already is? I would think that bring kids into dorms would do much more to bring the campus community together as opposed to having students living in off-campus apartments that vary much more in quality and price. My suspicion is that bearmeat has a much bigger problem with the rules that on-campus life brings than the actual cost differential between the new and old dorms.
   
   Is it really outrageous for a first class research institution to have a $2 billion endowment? Considering that a first class research institution is supposed to bring in $100 million plus in grants each year, that doesn't seem like such an outrageous number. Considering that they can't go to the taxpayers for expansion funds, large endowments are much more critical for private universities to maintain the same level of quality services that public universities can maintain.
   
   My own alma mater proceeded on a similar path about the time that I graduated and many of these same objections were raised. In fact, I raised many of them myself. Now that I'm ~10 years removed from that experience and have more exposure to university life and industry around the country, I am much less inclined to judge my alma mater's administration so harshly.
   
   Anyway, I have no ties to Baylor and likely never will, so I really don't care how this turns out either way. It just seems that the Baylor administration's case isn't being presented fairly by bearmeat.
   
   MB

   Posted on 8/01/2007

    
2. Anonymous Said,

   I don't have anything against nice dorms at all. I don't think BearMeat does either. They used the campus life examples for good humor's sake.
   
   I do have a problem with a Christian University that purports to have faith integrated into every aspect of school and campus life allowing some students a better experience on its campus for a price. Off campus housing is what it is. We're not talking about what people do apart from their schooling. The purpose of this Oxbridge-style college is that students' out-of-the-classroom experience is now being integrated into part of the university's overall education process. And if it's going to be part of the university that holds full Christian integration of faith and learning as part of its mission, it is entirely inconsistent to offer nicer amenities, study environments, and communal learning opportunities to those who can or will pay more for it to the exclusion of others.
   
   I think that's BearMeat's perspective, and it's mine too.

   Posted on 8/02/2007

    
3. Senior Editor Red Andrews Said,

   Well-said, Cach. Thanks again for the shoutout and for bringing our message to the great unwashed.
   
   Our Blog Alliance has never been stronger!
   
   Red

   Posted on 8/02/2007

    
4. Douglas Said,

   Cach,
   
   I'm a bit confused. I think this is what I hear you saying. Let me know if I am wrong.
   
   1) On campus housing integrates food and shelter into the overall education experience.
   2) Baylor's goal is to integrate faith and learning. (I'm unsure whether you think this is good.)
   3) Offering different levels of service at different prices is inconsistent with principles of Christian education (Christian principles?).
   4) Therefore, offering different levels of University housing at different prices is inconsistent with Christian principles.
   
   Lastly, do you lump housing and food in with core services of the university (e.g., teaching) or secondary services (e.g., providing options for health insurance)? Do you think that the idea of core/secondary services is a valid concept.
   
   I'm not trying to argue either way. I'm just trying to see where you are coming from.
   
   MB

   Posted on 8/02/2007

    
5. Anonymous Said,

   That's the thing, MB, I don't lump those things in with core university services, Baylor is trying to do just that though.
   
   See, I went to Baylor and lived in Marten dorm. Everybody knew Marten was second-class to Penland. But that was how the chips fell. Everyone had to stay in a dorm their freshman year, no dorm was great, and it just had to be done.
   
   Now, however, Baylor is trying to say that the dorm/campus living aspect of college is not just a simple housing arrangement to be gotten through. Instead, now it is a vital part of the education/life process into which Baylor is injecting itself. Now the out-of-classroom living part of college is part of the fully-integrated Christian educational experience. But for some students, their fully-integrated Christian educational experience will be better because they paid more money and got to stay in a nicer dorm with nicer amenities and nicer environments designed to provide an enhanced studying experience. And getting treated better because you have more money is decidedly anti-Christian in principle.
   
   I didn't say whether or not I thought Baylor's decision to make faith and learning so tightly integrated was a good decision. That's because that statement means very different things to very different people. Do I think that students should be encouraged not to compartmentalize their faith? Absolutely. But do I want a physics professor teaching theology? No way. So I'm not commenting on that explicitly. Instead I'm saying that if Baylor is serious about carrying the teaching of Christian principles and worldview into the arena of student housing then it is anathema for them to stratify that housing arrangement.

   Posted on 8/02/2007

    
6. Douglas Said,

   So, Baylor is lumping housing in with core university services. That's a bit odd, but I suppose it could be considered an extension of the freshman year policy in some ways. However, the freshman year policy seems to be more of a way to give students their freedom somewhat incrementally so that the graduation rate can be kept up and rental rates throughout the area don't get jacked through the roof. It offers some level of comfort/confidence to a landlord to know that the students renting have at least made it through one year of post-secondary education and have some sense of obligation toward their studies.
   
   Reading more about brooks college/flats, I was intrigued. It sounds fairly unique. I wonder what a university would do if they wanted to implement something like this university wide. It would probably be considered prudent to try it out on a smaller scale to start with in order to work out the inevitable problems and then slowly expand the idea campus wide, refining it along the way. It would be prohibitively expensive to try to implement an idea like this campus wide to start with and without the kinks being worked out would likely result in disaster.
   
   I can sympathize with your concerns that the university not give a better education to students based on their net worth. While poor students are much more heavily subsidized than rich students of the same academic ability, this would seem to be one way of bring wealth back into the equation where it probably shouldn't be.
   
   Have you considered writing to the university or sitting down with one of their representatives to discuss this? I'd be very curious to know whether they A) Think that Brook's College will provide students with a better education and B) Think that the added cost will separate the rich from the poor and if so, if they are doing anything about that. I think you could probably find a university representative willing to sit down and discuss this with you. Hopefully, you will find someone sensitive to your concerns and willing to discuss what they are doing to address them.
   
   From my own experience, I have always been surprised at the willingness with which faculty, staff and even the administration have been willing to address alumni concerns. I once had the opportunity to unknowingly meet the boss of the president of my alma mater. When he asked what I thought about certain aspects of my university and the specifically people who taught there in the theology dept, I told him what I really though and didn't mince words. While surprised at the vehemence of my criticisms, he actually acknowledged that I was right in areas and that there were things that they definitely needed to work on. Later, when I found out from others who I had been talking to, I was a bit ashamed with myself for how I had phrased things and grateful for the humble and gracious response with which it had been received.
   
   MB

   Posted on 8/04/2007