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?

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)

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?

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?

“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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?