Community continues to discuss four-year college system

FEBRUARY 12, 1992

A majority of 272 Princeton undergraduates polled by the Daily Princetonian expressed satisfaction with the current residential college system, while a loarge portion of the sample expressed doubts about the effectvies of the proposed four-year colleges.

Approximately 53 percent of students said a shift toa universal four-year college system would be either "very detrimental" or "detrimental" to campus life, while only 36 percent said such a move would be either "helpful" or "very helpful." The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus six percent.

The poll, which was conducted over the last three days, asked randomly chosen students to gauge the impact of the report on undergradute academic and residential life by the Faculty Working Group. The recently released faculty report highlighted the failings of the University's current residential sturcture of two-year colleges and advocated a move to some form of four-year college system.

Poll participants also answered questions about the quality of the two-year colleges, academic advising at the colleges, and the impact of the current college system on their decision to attend Princeton.

Interviews with students this week revealed that while many concede that a four-year college system would enhance some aspects of University life, they are more worried abouyt negative effects of the move.

In particular, students expressed concern and uncertainty about the future of eating clubs in any system where all four classes would live and possibly eat together.

"What's going to happen to the clubs?" asked Margaret Crotty '94.

"There's a lot of confusion among us," said Antoine Colaco '94. "I didn't understand how meals would work," he added.

Some students said that while the concept of a shift in residential policy had some appeal, the prospect of change also filled them with unease.

Colaco said that "on principle it would be nice to have [a four-year college system]." He added, however, that he had a "general feeling against it."

This caution about an overarching four-year system was complemented by general support for the current residentail arrangement, with 78 percent saying they were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their experiences in the two year colleges. Individual interviews with students also followed this trend.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Alicia Lewis '92 spoke favorably of her experience in the current residential college system.

"Forbes in particular is a very family-like environment," she said.

Underclassmen for the most part agreed with this characterization. "It's important to be with your own class," said Crotty. "It gives you class spirit."

The report frequenly criticizes the current residential system for being deficient in its academic advising capacity, and students in the poll also showed little enthusiasm for the quality of academic advising in the colleges.

About 35 percent of those polled expressed ambivalence, while 41 percent expressed dissatisfaction. Only 19 percent of those surveyed were satisfied with the advising they had received. Five percent of responses said they were engineers — and therefore do not receive advising through the colleges.

Responding to questions about the quality of advising tin the colleges students' attitudes tended to be based on individual situations.

"My adviser just ditched me," said Michelle Neuman '95. "I think it is really inexcusable."

"I really lucked out said Lewis. "They managed to match me up perfectly," with an adviser in her field of interst.

One of the report's justifications for a revamped residential structure is that many students who choose not to attend Princeton do so because of the current system.

Students polled, however, indicated that the residential colleges had little influence on their decision to come to Princeton. A large majority — 70 percent — said the colleges had no effect on their decision.

Students who were interviewed said that the residentail character was not a consideration when making their decision to enroll. Instead, they had focused more on academics when deciding.

Despite the potential broad-ranging implication of the report, most students felt ill-informed about the issue.

Excerpts of the text of the 71-page report has been made widely available to the campus at large through the Princeton Weekly Bulletin, but few students said they had studied it.

In addition, many firstand second-year students reproted being unaware of the daily realities of upperclass life as a result of the geographical separation between underclassmen and upperclassmen imposed by the colleges.

"I don't really know what junior and senior years are like," Crotty said, describing upperclass life as "a blurry thing you sort of hear about."

With upperclass and underclass lines clearly drawn on the residential map, first-years and sophomores rely on extracurricular and social activities to meet upperclassmen.

"I think that a four-year system would make the social life more college-oriented," said Neuman.

However, not all students criticized this forced separation. Many students saw the division betweeen upperand underclass housing as a positive arrangement.

Lewis, a residential adviser in Forbes College, noted the difficulties of being a thesis-stressed senior in a relatively carefree underclass world.

"I find it very disruptive to my work," she said.