Don't expand residential colleges

The 2026 Campus Plan, released on September 19, calls for the construction of a seventh residential college to accommodate an expected 10 percent increase in the student body. Expanding the University has its pros and cons, but I’ll leave that for another column or another columnist — I’m here to discuss the absurd and infantilizing residential college system.

The University has decided that freshmen and sophomores are not capable of deciding where they want to live and what they want to eat. Instead, they are required to live in a college and purchase a meal plan. This is ridiculous. I’m not opposed to students wanting these things. I probably would have chosen them for my freshman year, but I am against the requirement to participate, especially for sophomores.

Last year, I had the opportunity to attend a dinner with former University President Shirley Tilghman. She spoke fondly of how maturing it was to go off to college, live in an apartment, and be responsible for her own dining needs. But President Tilghman’s college experience is forbidden for Princeton students. The University believes that we can’t be trusted to live on our own and prepare our own food until junior year.

Unfortunately, the residential college system is baked into the day to day operations of the University. Scholarships, student events, and advising are all tied into the current system. But this is not the only way. There could be the same six residential colleges and then a seventh option of underclass independents that would have its own director of student life and advising system. This would allow nonresidential college students to still take part in the “Princeton experience” that the administration so values.

The land allotted for the new residential college should be used to create the equivalent of upperclass housing, but for freshmen and sophomores. Students who do not wish to participate in the dining halls should be able to go independent as soon as they wish.

Further, they should be able to live off campus. More than 98 percent of Princeton undergraduates live on campus, an absurdly high proportion compared to other universities. The residential college system works to keep people from leaving.

Having virtually all students in dorms creates the problem where, if Princeton doesn’t offer an appropriate dorm for you, then you just lose. Spelman Hall, the dorm most similar to an apartment building, has space for only half of the students who request to live there. Yet the University feels that residential colleges are what need to be expanded.

A freshman or a sophomore has many reasons to avoid residential college life. First, it’s expensive. While Princeton has generous financial aid, there is a large segment of the student body that can pay but doesn’t necessarily want to. Cooking your own food is significantly cheaper. It’s also more flexible. I routinely want to eat dinner much later than 8 p.m., but late meal gets old fast. I’m not going to buy groceries and cook for myself since I already have to pay for the meal plan. Why should I pay twice? Students who prefer a particular diet have similar complaints.

Last year, the New Jersey legislature considered a bill that would have banned universities from requiring that students have a meal plan. The bill singled out just one college as an exception: Princeton. The bill ultimately failed in the state senate, but the desire for such a law shows that I am not alone in feeling that universities should not concern themselves with where students live and eat.

The University should be in the business of furthering knowledge through research and education. I fail to see how mandating where we live falls into the equation. We’re Princeton students, not children. Let us live how we want.

Beni Snow is a sophomore from Newton, Mass. He can be reached at bsnow@princeton.edu.