Strengthening the Student Body

Throughout the fall semester, I had the pleasure of serving on the Sixth Residential College Programming Committee with three other undergraduates, as well as several deans, administrators and faculty members. The committee's Interim Report has recently been released, and particular discussion has been devoted to the effect that the new college — and variations to the college system in general — will have on the eating clubs. If a four-year system is selected — and I believe it should be — it will have no adverse effect on the clubs; it will yield increased options to upperclass students and improved overall experiences for underclass students.

At the outset of our committee discussions, I made it clear that I didn't want the new college to be offensive or threatening to existing, positive Princeton institutions — in so many words, I didn't want it to be destructive to the 'Street.' The clubs currently provide many upperclass students with opportunities for leadership, with small-scale dining and study spaces, with ideal settings to engage faculty, alumni and other students, and with a relatively safe social outlet for the weekends. As Peter Kidd '02 wrote in the 'Prince' last week, people choose to pay for membership because the experiences that we enjoy at the 'Street' are truly valued. The clubs should and will be sustained because they are an integral part of Princeton for good reasons.

To that end, it is not the clubs that the new proposals seek to affect. Rather, they are intended to provide a resource for students who don't wish to participate and are thereby left with few dining options and social outlets. The three proposed plans for a four-year college system each, on average, allow space for a maximum of about 275 upperclass students. The first important point is that students would choose to live in these colleges — no one is forcing us to. Through the utilization of "swing dorms," appropriate space could be dedicated to or subtracted from a college's housing stock. Hence, the supply of four-year colleges will be dictated by demand, not by University administrators. If these colleges adversely affect the clubs — and I don't think they will — it will be because students think college residency is better than club membership, not because the University is compelling students to abandon the clubs.

Second, we need to think outside of the existing college rubric when considering the four-year college proposals. Although the colleges wouldn't be for everyone, particular students might find them attractive. Due to vast improvements, upperclass residents in these colleges would not be in the same situation that they are in our current system: Imagine membership to a college and a club, a post-graduate advising service in your four-year college, continuous academic advising based in the college or yearly fellows who would live and eat in your college. Substantial resources will be devoted to this plan if it is implemented, so I can imagine any number of services that the college could have and that students might find attractive. These services are not being proposed to lure students to the college; rather, they are programs that the committee thinks will enhance the lives of all students.

Third, it is mathematically clear that if there is to be an effect on the clubs, it can only be positive. There are about 300 upperclass students who are not members of clubs. These students eat in co-ops, at the CJL, in current colleges or are independents eating or cooking elsewhere. One can easily imagine 200 of our current independent population joining revamped four-year colleges. As a critical mass, they would enjoy improved food and have enjoyable common spaces. According to this reasoning, if the colleges were implemented right now at about two-thirds of the proposed capacity, they would have almost no effect on the club status quo. Moreover, I can imagine some of those 200 wanting, through a unique plan, to be joint members of a club and a college, further increasing the 'Street' population.

A four-year college with good dining options and nice common spaces may be an impetus for some members of clubs to drop out. Suppose that about ninety students (about five percent of the current club population) decided that they wanted to leave the clubs in favor of the colleges. That loss would be countered by the gain of about 175 club members that the Wythes enrollment additions will bring. This assumes, very conservatively, that club matriculation rates among the Wythes additions will be about 70 percent (though 90 percent of this year's sophomores joined clubs). Even with the drops in membership, the clubs receive a net gain of 85 upperclassmen. And remember, Cannon may be reopening to deal with any 'Street' overcrowding.

I encourage students who remain unconvinced to read the report and examine more deeply the committee's process and proposals. Since none of the programs are set in stone, every student should submit his or her thoughts to the discussion on this change, especially those students who think they might be interested in living in a four-year college. These new ideas are not Big Brother seeking to chain up students in an institutional University setting; rather, they are symbolic of a responsive administration providing options for a growing student body. Ryan Salvatore is a Wilson School major from Stamford, CT. He can be reached at salvatre@princeton.edu.