The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1 - 118

James Penven • Robert Stephens • Frank Shushok, Jr. • Caleb Keith

Almost 40 years later, it
is striking how many of
Gordon’s observations still
hold true, despite a higher
education landscape which
has changed dramatically—
as has the paradigm of
student affairs.

decade, the “boldest attempts” to tether living
and learning included “cluster, or experimental, or residential colleges” (1974, p. 235) and
were driven by the vision of individual academic faculty members. Indeed, the 1960s were an
incubator for novel ideas about how to structure the residential and intellectual lives of
students. It was “a time when fresh ideas and
novel practices swept the land” (Gaff, 1970, p.
4). Between 1958 and 1970, at least 24 higher
education institutions in the United States set
up at least 42 residential or experimental colleges, which numbered between 100 and 3,500
students each. The majority of these were set
up during an enormous growth spurt between
1965 and 1969. This buildup of subcolleges included the first five residential colleges at the
University of Santa Cruz, the residential college
at the University of Michigan, and the three
residential colleges at Michigan State, as well
as many others throughout the United States
(Gaff, 1970). To be sure, despite the explosion in
their number, residential colleges remained an
exception in the age of rapid dormitory expan-

118

sion; the main thrust of construction focused
not on new ideas about student development,
but rather on “maximizing the number of beds
constructed with funds available” (Schroeder,
Mable, & associates, 1994, p. 7).
Gordon’s model sought to highlight both
the advantages and pitfalls of these experiments. Almost 40 years later, it is striking how
many of Gordon’s observations still hold true,
despite a higher education landscape which has
changed dramatically—as has the paradigm of
student affairs. In his writings, Gordon distinguished between two sets of goals for residential colleges. In one model, residential colleges
were driven by intellectual goals that sought to
tie curriculum and intellectual life to specific
residential settings, whether in the traditionally
interdisciplinary way of the Oxbridge model or
in the way of newer models that focus on specific areas: for example, the focus on fine arts
at Risley Residential College at Cornell. He saw
these residential colleges as focused primarily
on their curricular role, as an extension of the
academic mission of the institution. The other
model, championed by progressive student
affairs practitioners, focused more on the affective gains and student development that result
from creating a sense of belonging and connectedness. Gordon believed that a “combination of
affective and cognitive learning is the ideal of
the new residential colleges” (1974, p. 237).
In Gordon’s view, the benefits of residential
colleges were two-fold. First, he saw residential colleges as a tool for student development.
Despite being of an earlier generation, he had
been influenced by the student development
paradigm that had emerged in the sixties, exemplified by the Tomorrow’s Higher Education Project in 1968 (Schroeder et al., 1994, p.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

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