The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1 - 111

Living and Learning in College

cent stated they were “very satisfied with their
present accommodation taking all factors into
account”; whereas the figure for Avon was
only 18 per cent.19
This example is selected because when
the students in the “cohesive” hall, Kennett,
and those in the “open” hall, Avon, were interviewed over a period of time, “Kennett
students retained to a large extent the opinions and beliefs with which they entered the
hall, while the widespread tendency to change
among Avon students was closely parallel
to, but often stronger than, that found in the
general population of students. As one thirdyear Avon student put it: ‘Being in the hall
has made me far more broad-minded. A lot of
people seem to get more liberal-minded here.
It’s the variety of people and attitudes that
make for tolerance.’”20
The question then arises, shall we provide
settings which are “open,” and encourage
change in students, which seems to mean also
that they will go off campus fairly soon, or settings which are “closed” and encourage the
retention of values in students, with the concomitant result that more will stay on campus
in the residence hall? The answer to the question may be weighted even further when the
results of further questioning of these students
are considered. When asked whether universities are right to exercise some control over their
students, and whether students should observe
the conventions and standards of society, the
answers reveal that:
Although the members of the cohesive halls
did participate in the general move away
from acceptance of university control and
of the conventions of the wider society, they
participated to a distinctly lesser extent

than students in other halls and our student
sample as a whole. This is one of the more
interesting findings to emerge from the
present research. It indicates that cohesive
halls do have a distinctive impact on students’
interpretation of their role, and suggests that
membership of such halls serves to reconcile
the student to the status quo in the university
and in society, a point further borne out by
the lower level of support for student protest
shown by students in cohesive halls.21
Lest one leap to the conclusion that such
juxtaposition is an overseas phenomenon and
that the problem as posed does not exist in
the United States, one should consider that
Nevitt Sanford, from his studies of U.S. freshmen, observes that “membership in the peer
group is commonly constricting and . . . . in
order for a student to develop as an individual,
he often must free himself from his group
membership.”22 Chickering, too, considers
what might be called “bad cohesiveness,” and
reviews studies which show that fraternities
and sororities, for example, sometimes insulate students from the world and lead students
to stay with the system of values which emphasizes, in part, social status.23 He urges that residence hall settings be established which do not

Natural groupings are those of
students in a residence hall,
or when it is too large, wing
or floor groupings. Whatever
the size, the essence of a
group is cohesiveness.
V O L U M E 3 9 , NO. 2 • 2 0 1 3

111
The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1
