Board of Trustees chair Steve Mandel ’78 recently indicated that the College plans to implement a “house system” to build community and a “dorm-based sense of identity.” Many of Dartmouth’s peers already offer more comprehensive dormitory systems that, beyond providing students with convenient and consistent housing, give them a social network. Yet the proposed house system risks becoming a failed initiative.
Residential education director Mike Wooten confirmed that the existing separation of first-year students from upperclassmen would continue under the neighborhoods system. Although some view their freshman floor as a key feature of their Dartmouth social experience, floor bonding varies greatly due to the more or less random nature of room assignments. Simply tacking on a neighborhoods option to students’ remaining three years at the College will not guarantee the type of social community found in other residential college systems. According to Wooten, neighborhoods would allow students to recognize familiar faces after off-terms, yet fostering familiarity is not the same as building community. The proposed neighborhoods must differ from the current clusters.
The oft-referenced house system at Harvard also separates first-year students from upperclassmen, but its situation is not comparable to Dartmouth’s. Unlike Dartmouth, Harvard has an existing culture that treats housing as an important part of campus life. Upperclassmen and freshmen alike are actively involved in the housing process. At Dartmouth, it will take more than an administrative decree to break the cycle of student apathy toward upper-class housing. Currently, it is unlikely that residents of, say, Wheeler feel attachment to their building — let alone the “Fayerweathers, Ripley/Woodward/Smith, Wheeler and Richardson” cluster. I doubt any strong sense of identity will suddenly emerge under the new house system, even if students can return to the same cluster or neighborhood after off-terms.
To differentiate from clusters and promote greater interest in upper-class housing, neighborhoods should focus on student involvement and dorm-based social programming. The IM sports boards in older residential buildings show that competition among dorms once existed at the College and was even rewarded with public recognition. Competitive athletic or social activities between neighborhoods would allow students to see their fellow residents as teammates and provide them with shared experiences. Students would then be more inclined to see their neighborhood as a legitimate social network, rather than just the place where they sleep.
If the College believes that neighborhoods will create any kind of viable “competitor” to the Greek system, however, it is mistaken. The Greek system itself renders the Harvard-style house system an unusable model for the College to emulate, because it mutes, if not removes, the incentives to invest time or energy in any potential neighborhood programming. Many freshmen will continue to view the Greek system as the natural source of relationships with upperclassmen, making neighborhoods significantly less relevant. Most upperclassmen have already found meaningful communities through their Greek houses, so they have no pressing need to invest in dorm-based relationships and activities. Because a majority of students would view their dorm community as a secondary and ultimately unimportant piece of Dartmouth’s social fabric, a house system would always be overshadowed by the Greek system.
Rather than turning to neighborhoods as yet another Band-Aid in its series of residential life initiatives, the College should reassess the fundamental setup of our dorm system. A house system that lasts all four years would be more effective at building dorm-based identity than the proposed neighborhoods, even if to a limited extent. Neighborhoods can never fully compete with the social spaces of Greek houses, so they must instead appeal to students as an effective way to meet new people, especially from other class years. Although specific details of the proposed change remain unclear, the College should keep in mind that a house system without that social appeal ultimately cannot be a useful complement to the Greek system or a successful program overall.
Carson Hele '16 is a contributing columnist.
