As the University of Denver prepares to raise tuition for the second year in a row, I have to ask why DU still has a 2-year live-in requirement for its students? We pay just under $45,000 per year to attend here, which is enough money as it is. So I propose this change to the DU Board of Trustees: If the Board wishes to raise tuition, it should reduce or retire the 2-year live in requirement. The requirement forces students to live in rooms that are too small, uncomfortable to live in, and may hinder a student’s opportunity for academic success.
Think about it: we pay eleven thousand dollars total to live on dorm. Living on dorm requires that the student have a meal plan, which in itself is thousands of dollars for food that is not that good.
Interviewing off campus living DU students, they say they pay an average rent between $450 and $650 per month. So a nine-month lease can, in total, cost at least $4,050 and at most $5,850 plus around $500 for deposit, which will be returned if the student maintains the house properly. That’s saving money already. Then if you average in the cost of food and other house hold items, that comes to around $200 a month, and that’s usually split between house mates, so maybe a $100-$150 a month. That’s $1,350 for the whole nine-month lease. In total, that is $7,700 for everything including deposit, which will be returned. And that, when matched with DU housing and meal plan costs, saves over $2,000 a year.
An administrator may argue that it will loose too much money in shortening or abolishing the requirement, but that is not true. It costs the school money to have us live here. If people could move off of dorm, the school will save loads of money on utilities (such as water and electricity), cleaning essentials (toilet paper), food costs, and labor (cleaning and dining staff). Also, a student will have that extra money to pay for the tuition hike during the 2010-2011 academic school year. OR, as people move off of dorm, the University can accept more students to fill the rooms vacated by people who wish to get off of housing.
I went to Halls, Towers, Nagel, Nelson, and J-Mac and asked two questions: If given the chance, would you move off of housing? And would you continue to have a 2 year requirement or just 1 year, or no requirement at all. Of 56 people asked, an overwhelming 47 said they would move off of housing. A sophomore Nagel resident, Patrick, said simply, “while, yes, Nagel and Nelson are nicer dorms than freshman year, living on dorm sucks.” I, personally, couldn’t agree more. But answers to the second question were interesting. Out of the 56 people asked, only 13 said they would completely retire the requirement, I thought it would have been higher. 3 people said they would continue to have the 2-year requirement. Freshman Kristen said that she “believe[s] having the requirement forces studying and preaches good work ethic.” The rest, 41 people, said they would reduce the requirement to 1 year. Sophomore Kyle, who lives on Nelson, says that “1 year is enough, it is nice to have the experience and all, but 2 years? We don’t need that. I’ve signed my lease for next fall already.” The results from my mini-survey seem to dictate a general consensus that DU’s 2-year live-in requirement should be reduced.
Just recently, I received a pamphlet regarding the 2nd-Year Room Selection Process. It is a how to guide for choosing our rooms for next year. After a quick glance, I saw on the back page a section titled: “Two-Year Live-on & Meal Plan Requirement”.
The paragraph states this: “The University of Denver is proud of its two-year live-on requirement and realizes that students who live on-campus are more likely to stay enrolled, graduate on time, and feel connected to the campus community. In line with the live-on requirement, all current first-year students will need to sign up for both a room and a meal plan for their second year. The meal plan is a required portion of the live-on requirement regardless of the room configuration.”
Really? Stay enrolled? Graduate on time? Both of these, like housing, should be totally up to the student. I think living on my own will provide me with more responsibility, which will build my work ethic and encourage me to “stay enrolled” and “graduate on time”. A student can participate in the campus community to his or her heart’s content. Honestly, I don’t go to that many campus events anyway because they aren’t appealing. If the school wants us to go to campus events, then they should focus on their student relations but that is a different argument.
First off, I am a very sympathetic reader in regards to your argument. I do not think students at DU should be required to live on campus past their freshman year. I like the mini-survey you conducted and the way you had personal contact with students regarding the issue. I received that same letter and found that paragraph unreasonable as well. The two year live-on requirement is holding us back. We will not gain as great a sense of responsibility over the course of our college career. If the rule is in place to encourage school spirit, it is having a negative effect, I agree. They are forcing people to do something they don't want and that makes for hard feelings between the students and the school. I think your argument includes all of the predominant feelings we find here at DU about two year live-on while still giving credence to those who wish to stay on campus.
ReplyDeleteI thought this blog was written very well. The first thing that really appealed to me as a reader and made your argument very strong was the amount of extrinsic evidence you supplied in your blog. You interviewed students on their opinion of the housing requirement and ever put in the quotes that were against your argument. Although they were against your overall argument, it actually made your argument strong for me because although a student “believe[s] having the requirement forces studying and preaches good work ethic”, you also added many that didn’t think the requirement was necessary, forcing me to believe that your argument of reducing the requirement of housing would benefit everyone because they will have the choice to do what they prefer. You also provided the necessary evidence to the reader that explained how much they would save if they lived off-campus. Another thing you did very well was point out not just the advantages of the students for the housing contracts to change, but also for the University. You strengthened your argument by providing the solutions that would benefit both sides in different ways i.e. utilities, dining hall workers, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou did a very good job on providing the reader with a good ethos because as I read your blog, I felt that you understood a lot about the issue but I also saw that you understood both sides of the issue, which made your argument even stronger. One thing that I would say you could have done better in your blog was to create more pathos or try to evoke some feelings out of the reader. You provided a lot of hard, logical evidence but I think you could have made your argument even stronger by providing a strong pathos. Overall, I thought your blog was very persuasive and I enjoyed reading it!
I totally agree with your views on the 2 year live in requirement. I think that students should be able to choose his/her own option of how they want to pursue their living/studding environment. The surveys that you conducted were really helpful, and made your ethos stronger. By providing data comparing the cost of living on campus versus living off campus it showed that you’re not just another teenager that can’t be pleased. But a well acknowledge, responsible person who’s looking after his finance. I liked how you provided options of the administrative, that if people had the option to move out there would be more vacant spots, and the school could accept more students to live in the dorms hence more income available. As to the part about saving money on utility, I would think that the cost of the dorms includes utility. But you brought up an excellent point about the tuition hike, people can use the money they save on by moving out to pay for the new price of tuition. As students we don’t have any choice about the price of tuition going up so I think the least they could do is provide us with more choice about where we want to live. “The requirement forces students to live in rooms that are too small, uncomfortable to live in, and may hinder a student’s opportunity for academic success.” I think that’s one of the persuasive parts of your essay, so you should expand on that more. This shows that you’re living in the situation so you know what’s going on, so use this to your advantage, say something like that dorms are a distraction to your education because of the people there, parties.... Toward the end you also mentioned the idea of gaining more responsibility by living off campus. I think that’s another important reason. I think you need to explore/expand the other reasons, but other than that your blog was very persuasive.
ReplyDeleteI liked this project a lot. It allowed me to vent a little bit of frustration and also gave me a voice that I didn't think I had. When I started, I thought that this was just going to be a rant about the school and the stupid requirement, but the more research I did, I found myself more engaged in the topic and the information I gathered only furthered my drive to write a strong argument that attempted to persuade people rather than just my rant.
ReplyDeleteI tried to use logos and ethos. I did my homework and got my info. I tried to make my argument as simple but as logical as possible. I wasn't looking to bombard the reader with big words and fancy phrases. I was looking to engage the reader and have him or her take interest in my topic.
To revise this post, I'm going to first start off with Khanh's suggestion of expanding the "responsibility" aspect of my argument. Then, I will take into account Kathleen's suggestion of a stronger pathos. I'm not sure how to do that, but I'll explore different ways to get responses from the reader.
Thanks, Philippe, for a very thoughtful post on the two-year residence requirement. I would agree with your peers that you've established a credible ethos, and I especially appreciate your tone and your reasonable-ness. For me, this breaks down a bit near the end, when you reflect on the school's rationale for why they require you to stay on campus for the second year. I think you could more thoughtfully and fairly represent the other side of the argument here, really acknowledge that Student Affairs believes that it does enhance students' experience to live on campus. Then craft a more thoughtful response to why you disagree. I think this will help you conclude in a way that preserves the ethos you've set up so effectively in the first parts of your post.
ReplyDelete