Troy Shinn has an excellent report in the Daily Emerald, here. Some snippets:
Freshman Jacob Armas was valedictorian of his Medford, Oregon, high school and received a Pathway Oregon scholarship to cover his tuition at the University of Oregon. The only catch: he was required to live on campus his first year — paying more than he would have for tuition.
“[My parents and I] were thankful for the program,” Armas said. “I would have gone to school either way, but it would have been a lot more expensive.”
But by fall of 2017, even freshmen who aren’t receiving a state scholarship will be required to live on campus. The UO’s reason is the same as for Pathway students: Enrollment and graduation data for 2006-2012 show that students who lived on campus were 80 percent more likely to graduate within six years. They also had a higher mean grade point average than off-campus students. But opponents of the policy in the UO community say these benefits don’t justify the forced cost.
… [UO Economics Professor Ralph Mastromonaco] also suggests that this is an example of correlation not necessarily meaning causation. “If you were to tell me that students who live on campus are more likely to graduate, I would question whether housing was the reason, or if the students who choose to live on campus are simply the kind of people who graduate sooner,” Mastromonaco said.
And more here on an ASUO resolution opposing the policy:
The drafted resolution accused UO Housing of operating on profits instead of students’ benefits. Burns said UO Housing is competing against luxury off-campus apartments like the Hub.
“Students who are just trying to scrape by do not need all these amenities that the UO is trying to provide. There will be many Oregonians who cannot afford to come to school anymore and it will price out students from [out of state],” Burns said.
With the university potentially raising tuition by 4.7 percent for in-state students and 4.46 percent for out-of-state students, Dunn said the live-in requirement needs to be reconsidered.
“The idea that ‘We care about our students’ is contradictory to [the requirement],” Dunn said. “We have such a large out-of-state community on campus, if they can’t afford to live on campus, then what are their options?”
There is some talk about financial aid for low income students hit by this policy – which I think is generally sensible – but I haven’t seen the details or amounts.
Yes, after all they are just cattle
they should be put in the same cattle yard.
Mandate, requirements, are you kidding me – what
happened to common sense. Oh, I forgot, you get a ticket
for common sense at the UO.
I’ve had plenty of students who have families. Do they get a special dispensation so they don’t have to live in the dorms? And, if they do, then why should people who don’t have families be penalized?
The UO owns married-student (family) housing.
Ooookay, so does this mean that the student housing shortage problem has been solved by market forces?
I had never thought about UO dorm costs until working on an education-related grant two years ago, which led me to look up what we charge our students. I found it shocking: on-campus room and board costs are about $11-20k per academic year (9 months)! Numbers are here: http://housing.uoregon.edu/rates .
It’s somewhat reassuring to see in the Emerald article that the university will try to “offer a wide range of options” for students who want cheaper housing, but I’d be more reassured if even the lowest end of what we offer weren’t so high — definitely higher than what one could easily find for room + board, with roommates, in Eugene/Springfield. I’d also be happier if I hadn’t read the quote that “By 2017, we hope to offer a price point that matches that of luxury apartment living off campus.” Our goal is to match luxury apartments? (And yes, I’m aware that luxury is what a lot of students want, but that’s a separate issue.)
Hopefully the powers-that-be have thought through this, and have a good rationale for believing that requiring living in the UO dorms will improve student outcomes without squeezing out lower-income students. (Though I have to say that even if this is so, it seems paternalistic, and unfair to good students who would prefer to live on their own, and for whom that’s an excellent choice.)
I’ve heard that out of state students can’t establish residency while living on campus. Can anyone confirm that? If so, seems like a way to prevent savvy out of staters from getting in state tuition.
Students cannot establish residency while enrolled in school, regardless of where they live,I think.
That’s one daffy duck, all right…Students can establish residency while enrolled in school, I know.
However, residency acquired after enrollment is usually not regarded as a determining factor when making the in-state/out-of-state decision on how to place the student in the billing program going forward. Do not confuse residency, a legal term, with in-state vs. out-of-state status of a student, a billing determination of the institution.
thanks, you may be right, but my reading of the establishing resident status on the UO website makes clear that little is clear on establishing residency for tuition purposes unless you lived in oregon for twelve months prior to first enrollment, in which case you are definitely a resident for tuition. If not, there is a longish form to fill out for someone to make a judgment about residency. Cheers and yes, still daffy
I think Ralph nailed it in this case. Living in the dorm being correlated with graduation just means living with the dorms is correlated with many other things predicting graduation. I’d love them to let me and Ralph just look at their data, and I’d venture to bet once we control for incoming GPA, SAT, and family income any apparent benefit of the dorms dwindles to insignificance. I personally know of some extremely bright students who CANNOT live much less thrive in the dorms, who currently are coming to the UO and would not be coming to the UO if mandatory dorms was enacted.
Does this apply to faculty families as well? We live no 10 minutes from campus, and had planned our kids could stay with us (as long as they want) to save costs. It’d be almost absurd to have them pay for a $600/month or so room?
From the Emerald article: “Not all first-year students will be required to live on campus. For example, native Eugenians can just live at home.”
I did undergrad at a school that required Freshmen to stay in the dorms. I rented an apartment over the previous summer and told them I was a townie. Problem solved. I saved $ thousands.
Seems like the mandatory UO campus living requirement would be a self-fullfilling prophecy. By excluding people who have financial or personal reasons for not living on campus you could in fact be excluding a higher percentage of people who do not graduate in 4 years. You are excluding people who are uncomfortable in group living situations, would benefit from living at home (locals) for financial or social reasons, etc.
The 4-years benchmark should be more flexible. Lots of people’s lives are bettered by higher education, even if it takes them longer than 4 years.
Does anyone who reads this forum, and I mean anyone, actually support this Cattle Herding proposition?
Mixed feelings here. I liked dorm life (in the Pleistocene Age), but a couple years ago dined with freshmen in the dorms and was appalled at how crowded the dining room was. There were easily twice as many people in that room as there should have been. There was no chance of conversation, and no desire to linger.
Has anyone studied who gets sicker, dorm residents or students in external housing?
As an undergrad I hated dorm life and could hardly wait to get out of it at the end of freshman year. I spent most of my days, and many nights, with friends who lived off-campus. It should be an individual choice.
Who would I send letters to in protest of this? Biggest bullshit I’ve heard. Right next to the 4.7% tution increase being forced upon students next year