The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2 - 84

Kevin R. McClure * James M. DeVita * Andrew J. Ryder

only limited control during the design and construction process. This experience, coupled
with negative stories from peers at other institutions, discouraged UFM from engaging with
a PPP for subsequent housing projects.
Emphasis on student learning and development. Despite the lack of interest in engaging with PPPs, the housing department at
UFM was not immune from pressure associated with private housing options for students.
They also recognized they could not compete
with the amenities offered by off-campus competition. Instead, the housing department at
UFM committed funds to marketing and the
rebranding of their identity as supporters of
student learning and development. This effort
did not require housing to adjust their services; they simply began to push the message
that living on campus benefitted students academically and socially, enhanced their engagement with campus services, and contributed
to their overall success as students. Comparing UFM to private competition, one senior
staff member commented, "Even if we have
the money, we were never going to [offer private-type amenities], not even if we could, we
would not. It was refocusing our attention on
... having an academic, safe, and fun environment for our students to live on campus and be
part of our campus, and if they want to remain
engaged and a part of what life is like here,
then they stay on campus." UFM committed
new full-time staff members to marketing
and living learning communities (LLCs). Additionally, new housing options integrated
classroom spaces, where LLCs could host class
meetings, and common and study spaces that
support students' working individually and in
small groups.
84

Somerset University
Institutional context. For more than 170
years, Somerset University (SU) fulfilled its
founding purpose of educating the local residents of a burgeoning, middle-American river
port. In the early 2000s, led by a new president, this institution of 20,000 mostly commuter students began vigorous pursuit of a
more expansive mission as a nationally recognized research university. Evidence of progress can be seen in the doubling of external
research funding; new and newly renovated
research, academic, and cultural facilities; and
even new membership in a highly competitive
athletic conference. Campus leaders have also
touted SU's success in recruiting and retaining a more geographically dispersed, academically competitive student body. SU deemed
this shift in the undergraduate profile critical
to its national aspirations, and college student
housing emerged as a key component of Somerset's repositioning efforts.
Fifteen years ago, SU housed fewer than
10% of its undergraduate students in 1600
on-campus beds. As efforts to shift the undergraduate profile commenced, the outgoing
senior business officer recalled, "The need for
housing was immediately apparent as we actively pursued more competitive students. ...
More students were wanting to live on campus
and in concentric rings around campus."
Building additional on-campus housing was
blocked by the state legislature, which voted in
the mid-1990s to sharply curtail use of bonds
for campus construction projects and signaled
its unwillingness to support new residence
halls. Consequently, SU turned to its university foundation for help addressing its emerging
housing needs. The result has been a variety

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 2