The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 39, No. 2 & Volume 40, No. 1 - 123

The Past, Present, and Future of Residential Colleges

each student maintains her/his affiliation
throughout her/his tenure at the institution.
Other institutions (such as Virginia Tech and
Baylor University) provide an interdisciplinary
and multigenerational faculty-led residential
college experience for those who opt for the
experience. Newer residential colleges (such as
Vanderbilt University and Southern Methodist University) provide spaces for all first-year
students (J. Grim, personal communication,
November 30, 2012).
A commonality among these models is a
fundamental collaboration between academic
and student affairs. For example, although conversations among faculty and student affairs
educators were occurring separately on the Vanderbilt campus during the late 1990s and early
2000s, the aspirations for a robust first-year
experience for students became a combined
effort among equally committed educators,
upper-level administration, and members of
the university’s Board of Trustees. The result
is a $180 million investment that has dramatically changed how first-year students learn and
engage with faculty. Now, 11 faculty members
live among first-year students in the Martha
Rivers Ingram Commons (F. Wcislo, personal
communication, November 28, 2012).
The success at Vanderbilt has also impacted peer institutions. Southern Methodist University is in the process of implementing the
Residential Commons, a residential college
model similar to that at Vanderbilt (J. Grim,
personal communication, November 30,
2012). In a tangible display of collaboration,
the university provost and the assistant director for academic initiatives in the housing department co-chaired the steering committee
to establish the faculty-in-residence program.

Similar to Vanderbilt, there is a belief in collaboration and a recognition that the life of
the mind is an integral part of life in the residence halls.
As Gordon reminds us, these endeavors do
not come without tangible financial costs. Large
costs associated with the construction or renovation of residence halls and with salaries or
stipends for faculty, as well as the appropriate
course releases, make today’s colleges almost
as costly as those that Gordon explored in 1970.

CONCLUSION
College and university administrative planners
will continue to build and renovate residence
halls to meet the student demand for housing.
The question, however, is, “What shall we
build?” There has been a growing trend to
construct facilities that attract students and
keep them on campus, versus leaving them
to seek housing from private off-campus
vendors (Kennedy, 2005). Carpeting and airconditioning are common basic amenities,
and now conveniences such as email alerts
from the in-building laundry, Ethernet, and
private baths are increasingly part of construction projects (Agron, 2009). The true rub, as
Gordon hints, is a question of cost—whether
the residential college is a fiscally sustainable
model. We would propose that, in addition to
cost, the true rub is setting priorities. It is true
that faculty apartments, learning labs or classrooms, faculty offices, junior common rooms
(lounges), libraries, and other physical spaces
that are critically important to a residential
college are investments that do not generate
visible revenue for the institution. However,
other enhancements at many colleges and
universities (and private housing corporaV O L U M E 3 9 , NO. 2 • 2 0 1 3

123

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