Housing model raises student criticism

The face of Duke student housing shifted seismically last year, and students are still adjusting to the new lay of the land.

In 2012, the University instituted a new housing model on West and Central Campus that formalized independent sections and retained selective living groups. The new system, which was instituted to foster a better sense of community for both affiliated and unaffiliated students, gives independent students the “right of return” to their house each year. Independent student sections became houses in their own right, adopting names and building benches.

Not all students have wholeheartedly embraced the system, however. The new model has raised issues of differences in quality among University dorms, and some students have said they do not feel any additional sense of community. Others have been frustrated with the fact that right of return carries greater weight in housing assignments than does seniority, and some have expressed discomfort with the fact that they forfeit their right of return if they want a roommate from a different house. 

Some houses more equal than others

The quality of housing on campus is proving an obstacle to a successful house model, Steve Nowicki, dean and vice provost of undergraduate education, said.

“My biggest concern is that we need better housing stock,” Nowicki said. “[Keohane 4E] is fabulous. Central Campus students have been very pleased with renovations. The old, Main West stuff—Craven and Crowell [Quadrangles]—are historically Duke, but actually really run down.”

Junior Noel Vera noted that though living in Crowell is less costly than living in Few Quadrangle, because Crowell does not have air conditioning, this does not make up for the overall lower quality of the facilities there as compared to the newer dorms.

“We had two showers—one was broken all year. The bathroom radiator broke second semester,” Vera said. “We submitted a request—nothing happened.”

 “If you want to get there your sophomore year and stay in the same place until you graduate, you have to live in a nice place and you can’t be thinking, ‘These people who live in Kilgo have it way better than us,’” he said.

Dean for Residential Life Joe Gonzalez said that the quality of the house is a problem that has existed for some time and is not unique to the new house model. He noted that he does not know if or when larger scale renovations might be possible.

“We’re trying to pursue it on a micro level,” he said, noting gradual additions of kitchens and study rooms to houses every summer. 

Seniors get in line

Previously, housing selection gave preference to seniority when sorting students. The new model, which focuses more on a right to return, has irked upperclassmen who felt shortchanged.

Going into his last year, senior Ahmed Alshareef wanted to live in a newer dorm, having lived in Brown residence hall his first year and Craven A for two years after that—dorms he considers relatively “dilapidated.” Not realizing that seniority was valued less than right of return, his block of eight juniors expected to get a good pick in the lottery but were placed in Edens Quadrangle, their last choice.

“I don’t like that very much [right of return] was their priority in terms of housing,” Alshareef said. “Sophomores get a better pick than I do and I’m a senior who has lived on West for two years…. It’s just a dorm, but I’m still not happy about it.”

Student feedback on the prioritization of the right of return was mixed, depending on whether it worked in their favor, Gonzalez said.

Nowicki noted that going into the next year, logistics of how to assign rooms and how to assess the process will be re-evaluated.

For instance, one of the most common reasons students declined right of return was because their preferred roommate lived in another house, Gonzalez said. HDRL is considering allowing students with right of return to bring in other students. 

West Campus solitaire

Although the house model was implemented in order to create community among independents, whether such a community emerges is largely up to the students taking initiative themselves, said Nowicki.

Although there have been discussions of assigning faculty members or asking dorms to hold dinner programs, the administration has steered away from telling students what to do. Instead, efforts have been redirected towards providing resources like lists of faculty interested in working with students and more funding to aid student-led efforts.

“The natural settling point will arrange itself—there are always going to be some [independent] houses that are just a bunch of people, and there will always be houses that are selective and some that have stronger personalities,” Nowicki said. “This is the house where all the pink-haired people like to live, and this is the house where the political people live, and some will have musicians and some are just going to be mildly connective and the only thing students will get is the right of return.”

Thus far, independent houses have not satisfied the desires of all residents.

Junior Lisa Wanda chose to live in the substance-free community as a sophomore, hoping it would be quiet and clean but retain the sense of community that existed in the first-year wellness dorm that she lived in as a freshman. She said her residential experience did not end up being a significant part of her sophomore year. She and her roommate decided to move to Central Campus because there was little community tying them to their independent house.

“I hope there will be [community on Central], but I feel like it’s going to be worse,” Wanda said. “You have your own bathroom and kitchen space—there’s no reason to come outside.”

Nowicki noted that independent houses in the current model are intended to mimic residential neighborhoods outside college settings, where neighbors draw comfort from knowing each other. They may occasionally gather but are not particularly inclined to spend a lot of time together. 

Still, the familiarity provides a sense of community and well-being to residents, Nowicki said. Allowing students the right of return is intended to create a long-term sense of belonging and also to emulate the sense of community that often forms in first-year residential halls.

Whether or not communities that form organically in independent houses are formalized as SLGs in the future will be determined by students, Gonzalez said.

“We can help provide some structure, but it’s the students themselves who will make it a great place through their leadership,” he said.

Two tiers

The concept of a new house model began forming approximately four years ago, when administrators realized the residential system was “vastly underperforming,” said Nowicki, who spearheaded the process of creating and implementing the new house model. Independent students were dissatisfied with a two-tiered system in which only affiliated students had the privilege of returning to a section every year.

Senior Kristina Hallam for example, lived in Edens her sophomore year but decided to live in the section of her service fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega, because she did not enjoy her residential experience as an independent. 

“I really didn’t have any community—I didn’t know the people around me,” Hallam said.

Hallam who served as president of APO this past year, said that now she knows everyone who lives around her and feels much more at home. APO existed as a student organization prior to the house model but was granted status as a selective living group under the model and just completed its first year with a section.

The house model was created so that residential community was available to more than affiliated students.

“Everyone else was treated like hermits and nomads—nomads because they had to go into a lottery system every year and hermits because the tacit assumption is that independents, as you were called, were tucked away wherever there was space,” he said.