ACUHO-I News Blog

In this charming photo essay, University of Missouri freshmen show the move-in item they cannot do without…beyond underwear (enough pairs to last until Thanksgiving!) or a hairdryer.

During move-in this year, or in previous years, what are some unusual items students brought with them, feeling they were essential to a happy life on campus? Were they right, or did some things turn out to be less important in college life than they were during high school?

Another Beloit Mindset List has been released. [Insert grumping about how old it makes me feel, which only serves to make me feel--and look--even older.]

The list is gradually aging, just like the rest of us. It turns 13 this year, and while it doesn’t have to endure the rigors of 7th grade, its founders are mindful of its future. The list that was started partly for fun, to entertain and  inform professors at Beloit College of the “common knowledge” that might not be so common among their students. The wider world took notice, and the list became an annual tradition. In six years, it will be older than the students it profiles.

Here’s a selection of Beloit Mindset list items, from various years of release:

Few in the class know how to write in cursive. (2010)

South Africa’s official policy of apartheid has not existed during their lifetime. (2002)

Smoking has never been permitted on U.S. airlines. (2006)

They have never feared a nuclear war. “The Day After” is a pill to them—not a movie. (1998)

There has always been Diet Coke. (2001)

This generation has never wanted to “be a Pepper too.” (2002)

When they were born, Madonna was still a radiant woman holding a beatific child. (2001)

Harry has always known Sally. (2003)

Fergie is a pop singer, not a princess. (2010)

Males do not carry a handkerchief in a back pocket. (2002)

Dilbert has always been ridiculing cubicle culture. (2007)

There have always been non-stop flights around the world without refueling. (2003)

Margaret Thatcher has always been a former prime minister. (2009)

They have never used a bottle of “White Out.”

Secondhand smoke has always been an official carcinogen. (2010)

They have never needed a prescription to buy ibuprofen. (1999)

Oprah has always been a national institution. (2001)

Woodstock is a bird or a reunion, not a cultural touchstone. (2000)

They may never have heard of an 8-track, and chances are they’ve never heard or seen one. (1998)

A “45″ is a gun, not a record with a large hole in the center. (2000)

Big Brother is merely a television show. (2002)

Gas stations have never fixed flats, but most serve cappuccino. (2008)

Their lifetime has always included AIDS. (1998)

John Lennon and John Belushi have always been dead. (1999)

The Soviet Union has never existed and therefore is about as scary as the student union. (2006)

They don’t know who Mork was, or where he was from. (1998)

Nobody has ever responded to “Help, I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.” (2009)

They never saw the shuttle Challenger fly. (2005)

They never “rolled down” a car window. (2007)

There have always been ATM machines. (2000)

They have no idea how big a breadbox is. (1999)

Electronic filing of tax returns has always been an option. (2008)

Wayne Gretzky never played for Edmonton. (2005)

Leasing has always allowed the folks to upgrade their tastes in cars. (2010)

Retin-A has always made America look less wrinkled. (2006)

For daily caffeine emergencies, Starbucks has always been around the corner. (2005)

Large fine-print ads for prescription drugs have always appeared in magazines. (2003)

Babies have always had a Social Security Number. (2009)

There are disadvantages to hand-selecting your own roommate, Maureen Dowd points out in a New York Times op-ed column. She was paired with roommates with whom she didn’t always get along, and they had to negotiate arrangements they could all agree to. Everyone who has had a roommate (whether in college or otherwise) has a similar story, though most didn’t result an all-corn diet as Dowd’s did. While she grew weary of corn at the time, Dowd feels the experience was worth it, for the personal growth it offered. She read a Wall Street Journal article on services that institutions and students can use to match themselves with roommates with skepticism. She thinks this limits student growth and links it to societal problems as well: “Choosing roommates who are mirror images may fit with our narcissistic and microtargeted society, but it retards creativity and social growth,” Dowd writes. “This reluctance to mix it up also has been reflected in the lack of full-throated political and cultural debates on campuses (as opposed to ersatz debates on cable TV), replaced by a quiet P.C. acceptance of differing views or an obnoxious stereotyping of anyone different.”

ACUHO-I members who allow students to self-select say that students are more likely to stick with matches they’ve made themselves, even when things get difficult. The students take more ownership of the relationship. Fewer complaints about roommate conflicts (particularly problems that can be solved with a little discussion) makes life easier for housing pros.

Personally, I’ve wondered if roommate selection software allows a false sense of control. I could pick someone like me–neither a night owl nor an early bird; a moderately tidy–but just because we both self-describe this way doesn’t mean we’ll agree with each other’s self-assessment. Or that there won’t be other issues that have nothing to do with sleep or messes. So perhaps there are still getting-to-know-you issues, even when roommates select each other.

What do you think? If you use self-selection, has it made your work easier? Do you think students lose out on an important life experience? If you don’t, does this have anything to do with it?

Education Trust released two reports Monday on the graduation rates of white, black and Latino students. The nationwide average percentage of minorities who graduate is significantly lower than that of Caucasian students; this fact is both unfortunate and well-known. However, the Education Trust’s reports note there are institutions that have beaten these odds, or at least improved them.  Inside HigherEd has an article that sums up these results. Some institutions have a historical advantage. Their histories of serving minority populations are longer and there are more minorities that go to those institutions, leading to more programs and greater student comfort with the academic and social scene of college. Other institutions have improved their minority graduation rates with concentrated focus on the problem. Wayne State University, for example, has raised its African-American retention rates considerably through need-based financial aid programs and learning communities. Demographics, the quality of the high schools from which the institution draws its students, and students’ feelings of belonging at the institution all play roles, but the institution can attempt to counteract negative issues.

What are the factors your institution has to its advantage and disadvantage when it comes to student success? How has housing participated in programs to emphasize or counteract these?

Well, not really. However, August and September are the months in which the student housing profession appears regularly in the news. It would be nice if housing pros could feel the warm glow of attention, but unfortunately, the press coverage coincides with one of the busiest times of year. So here’s a quick rundown of what’s been in the news lately. Read–or skim–as you have time.

“Variations on a Theme,” Joanna Nikas. New York Times, July 2010.
A photo essay on unusual theme houses at colleges and universities.

“Earned Housing,” New York Times, July 2010.
Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, assigns upperclass student housing based on students’ behavior the previous year. Students with the best behavior, campus involvement and GPAs choose first. This photo essay documents the process.

“Failure to Communicate,” Abigail Sullivan Moore, July 15, 2010.
Roommates have long been forced to work out conflicts of interests and schedules. But housing officials feel students are less willing, or able, to work out problems themselves. Students are more likely to text each other rather than talk; more likely to text other people than each other, or they lean on their parents or R.A. to resolve relatively simple conflicts. There’s an accompanying blog post at the Learning Network, the NYT education blog.

“Overbooked, University Struggles to Find Room,” Jacques Steinberg, August 3, 2010.
The University of Iowa is hardly alone with this problem. More students will be arriving on campus than they estimated, and so lounges, apartment buildings and other “extra” spaces are being utilized.

USA Today published this article earlier this week with the headline “Report: Colleges Don’t Do Enough to Stop Student Drinking.” To be fair to the researchers, the headline is not entirely true to the real story.  The research conducted by Toben Nelson at the University of Minnesota focuses on college communities, not necessarily institutions themselves. Nelson and his fellow researchers studied use of server training, liquor law compliance, or restricted number of venues – all arguably matters in which an institution would have little sway.  In fact, Nelson’s report states that 98% of surveyed institutions are providing education about consequences through a variety of media.

Perhaps more notable, though, is the overwhelming supportive response of the commenters on USA Today’s website. With a few exceptions, commenters placed the responsibility for making educated decisions on the students while demonstrating support for the university’s educational efforts.

Where do you land on this? Should institutions be doing more externally or focus efforts on educating students?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is 20 this year.

Ben Mattlin, asked to commentate on the anniversary, mentioned a college experience that must have been common for disabled students pre-ADA.

Still, the issue of reasonable accommodation is difficult. What a disability is can be hard to qualify, and since there are a great variety of disabilities and accommodations that can be made. Every situation can’t be anticipated and codified in policy; some decisions must be made relatively quickly. Lately, on the ACUHO-I listserv, there has been discussions on accommodations. One query concerned a student who needs a live-in attendant. The attendant must live in the room with the student, but is not a student himself. Were there any legal issues with allowing a non-student to live in the hall (normally against policy), and  how should the institution charge for the room? Our listserv members contributed their own experiences and suggestions regarding the tricky situation.

What would your suggestions be?

There are college students who find managing coursework easier than managing to bankroll food and shelter. National Public Radio did a report on a student who is in that situation. They talk to University of California-Los Angeles officials about the problem. It’s hard to identify and deal with, since students are reluctant to admit they’re in need of that kind of help, especially at places such as UCLA, where some people seem to have more money than they know what to do with. Students likely assume there isn’t anyone who can help anyway. So they quietly struggle, often dropping out. While not all students are homeless and hungry regularly, many have a hard time making their dollars last the whole term.

Have students at your institution had these issues, and what programs have been instituted to assist them? Have you found effective ways of identifying these students–or persuading them to identify themselves?

This all-too-brief photo essay in the New York Times visits several student theme houses, with focuses you may not have heard of…the Bro’chet Society, the  Civil War, and pop culture of various decades in the 20th century.

More and more, theme housing is what students make of it, not what the institution thinks they should do. What themes have your students selected and executed? Were you surprised by the success of some of them?

Conducting background checks on prospective students is an occasional topic of conversation on ACUHO-I’s forums and listserv. Most institutions don’t do it, usually for a variety of reasons–logistics, expense and doubts about efficacy–but a few do. And many are often curious about the process and usefulness of the results. So when I saw this story on Inside HigherEd on conducting background checks on potential students, I thought of y’all.

Inside HigherEd’s article is based on a panel discussion that took place at the National Association of College and University Attorneys annual meeting. In addition to the  complications mentioned above,the possibility of creating an unwelcome atmosphere for students–either those with criminal histories who intend to stay on the straight-and-narrow, or law-abiding students who simply feel uncomfortable with the privacy issues involved.

On the panel was Barmak Nassirian, associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Nassirian discussed an AACRAO survey on backgrounding: While 66% of respondents reported collecting some information on arrests, convictions and crimes, only about 6% of those conduct background checks. A representative of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington said that school only requests background checks from a minority of students whose applications “raise red flags.” The students pay the $20 fee.

Some on the panel wondered if future behavior can be determined by background checks. People change rapidly in their teens and twenties, and young adults are known for making stupid mistakes. Most will never repeat those mistakes again. Also, some information on criminal background is self-reported, which limits its reliability.

Does your institution conduct background checks? Has it been considered? What’s the reasoning for doing so–or not?

In 1980, only three of every four Xavier University freshmen would return for a second year. Fewer than that would eventually graduate. These days at Xavier, a university with 6,996 students in Cincinnati, nine of every ten students return for their second year, and eight of ten ultimately graduate in six years. What changed? Not the students–they’re essentially, academically and fiscally, the same. It was Xavier’s retention efforts.

Adrian A. Schiess, as director for student success and retention, devotes his days to ensuring students who want to persist at Xavier are able to do so. He’s held the directorship since 1990; he was a professor at Xavier before that. Students with issues that may prevent them from continuing their educations are referred to Schiess. He’s assisted with many financial concerns–the most common problem–as well as mental health, academic and interpersonal issues. Post-freshmen year “melt” is a big concern for Xavier and most other institutions; freshmen drift and don’t return as sophomores. Thanks to Schiess’s and his staff’s efforts, Xavier’s freshmen retention rate is 86% for the last three years. (It was a bit higher, but the economy tamped it down.) This is better than the national mean for similar institutions, at 81.4%. Many problems that would prevent students from returning can be resolved. Often students who need extra help, whether in the form of financial aid, counseling or tutoring, are simply unsure of where to find it, and unfamiliar with navigating offices and advocating for themselves. Schiess’s office helps them do that, making it more likely the student will graduate, and strengthening the student’s bond with Xavier, the school that stuck with them.

Is there someone–or someones–on your campus whose entire job is devoted to retention? How does the housing office work with that person? If there isn’t a “retention position,” what efforts fill the gap?

The New York Times has another story about what those wacky colleges and universities are up to. This one focuses on Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri, which has a residence hall for students and their pets. Not just fish, not just cats, but dogs too. Even dogs that weigh more than 40 lbs. A board of students and faculty members governs the students with pet privileges, and can revoke a student’s permission to have a pet on-campus if the student doesn’t take proper care of her animal.

Meredith Whipple, our editorial intern, wrote about a similar program at Stetson University.

Stephens College administrators say the program has gone smoothly, with only a few violations of policy. They say the students who bring pets to campus tend to be organized and hard-working. Skeptics, however, say the frantic pace of campus life and good animal care don’t mix. They worry animals will spend long periods of time alone in their owners’ rooms, and that pets will be abandoned after the academic year is over.  On a New York Times blog, Deb Duren, Vice President for Student Services at Stephens, is fielding questions on their pet-friendly policy. There are also a number of comments from readers; some are positive, others are very skeptical.

Are these and other factors ones your institution considered when allowing or disallowing pets in residence halls?

Are colleges’ and universities’ efforts to curb alcohol abuse hampered by the effects of our society’s own issues with alcohol? Edward P. Ehlinger, director and chief health officer of Boynton Health Service at the University of Minnesota, thinks that’s the case.

Do you feel students–and their parents–arrive with attitudes about drinking that are resilient to education? Are there perspectives within the institution that help or hinder education efforts?

Onondaga Community College in Syracuse, New York is trying to encourage its students to behave respectfully toward each other. In contrast, to Hinds Community College, which has rules prohibiting swearing and insubordination, Onodaga is hoping students will be considerate because it’s the right thing to do…and peer pressure.

Onondaga has recruited students to help them spread their message, branded as “Create Change.” They created a video about their expectations–don’t swear, don’t spit, don’t occupy more than one parking space–and posted it on YouTube. “Secret shopper” students distribute gift certificates to the campus coffee shop to their peers who are behaving considerately. The hope is  the campaign will become a student-centered initiative, with courtesy becoming, the norm. It’s common courtesy, one might say.

Has your campus or department attempted a similar program? How did it work? What were the challenges and what were the successes?

… that is, if swearing was ever the exclusive province of sailors, which seems unlikely.

While most institutions don’t look kindly upon students using four-letter words, particularly during class or directly in front of their professors, they don’t punish students for it, unless the swearing is disruptive or threatening. Hinds Community College is different, however; their code of conduct names “public profanity, cursing and vulgarity” and “flagrant disrespect” as specific violations. And now a student who cursed in front of a professor is finding himself in the center of a dust-up; between Hinds, which punished him and activists who say this is a free-speech issue.

What do you do when students say inappropriate things in front of you–swearing or otherwise? Do you ignore it unless the comment was directed at you, or do you say something? Does your institution have any rules about cursing or conduct that goes beyond actions that disrupt or threaten?