We hope that everyone had a chance to read staff writer Max Hammond’s front-page article last week detailing the new student housing projects that SLU has in store for the near future (early 2015). The piece detailed the administration’s master plans to construct new buildings and renovate existing ones, and the Editorial Board is pleased with the University’s housing initiative. Housing practices at SLU are in serious need of examination, and in putting forth this master housing plan, the University has taken the first crucial step towards such examination and remediation.
We acknowledge that collegiate housing is a competitive business; SLU has to vie with a myriad of student-housing developers in the area (like those building The Standard and West Pine Lofts), and this fact no doubt points to why SLU’s housing policies often seem unreasonable; the University has to stay afloat in the housing market. But we still question some of the University’s housing practices—namely the requirement that students live on campus for two years, the housing selection process, and on-campus housing rates—and we hope that the current housing master plan fixes these problems.
In Hammond’s article last week, Melinda Carlson, the Director for Housing and Residence Life for Student Development, was quoted as saying, “Students would rather have us be their landlords than the off-campus apartments.” We recognize that many off-campus experiences can be frustrating.
Trapped in the “SLU Bubble,” students often have to deal with unreasonable landlords who know that they will always have business because of their proximity to the University—every year new students can be trapped by their ridiculous leases, so to them customer satisfaction is optional. But the claim that students would rather have SLU be their landlord is, in our opinion, not qualified—at least when considering where SLU’s housing situation currently stands.
There are a number of problems that we see with SLU’s housing practices. If sophomores are required to live on campus, for instance, then why do seniors get priority over them in a confusing lottery selection process? In addition, SLU’s housing rates are unreasonable, especially considering how much more space and amenities one can get from an off-campus lease for a lot less money. Obviously, freshmen should be required to live on campus; part of the undergraduate experience is the development of academic solidarity and social interaction with one’s peers—things best attained by living together on campus. This argument could be applicable to the second-year experience, but the way that SLU goes about assigning second year students’ housing—and the prices it makes them pay—causes us to call for an end to the two-year requirement of living on-campus.
Of course, on campus housing does have its benefits, and we recognize this fact. Many students, for instance, enjoy the convenience and comfort of living on campus. Students returning mid-year from study abroad experiences also appreciate the ability to automatically have a place to live when they return. However, there are still numerous ways in which SLU can improve its housing policies and facilities, and we are thus excited to see the University unveil its housing plan—even if none of us will be able to enjoy the completed projects.
