Experimental windowless dormitory project at UCSB

[marshwiggle]

The weird thing about door rooms is that they are supposed to be sleeping, studying, and socializing spaces all in one room, often for two or even three people. That's a lot to ask of one room, and generally really bad for quality sleep. So to the extent that you can separate out those functions and provide nice spaces for studying and socializing-- with windows!-- and then small sleeping compartments for each student, I can see that being a lot better.

There's residences around here that are like that. 4 single bedrooms with a common kitchen, bathroom, and living room. There are 4 or 5 of these pods on each floor, in a building with 4 or 5 floors.

They're pretty popular.

[jimbogumbo]

The weird thing about door rooms is that they are supposed to be sleeping, studying, and socializing spaces all in one room, often for two or even three people. That's a lot to ask of one room, and generally really bad for quality sleep. So to the extent that you can separate out those functions and provide nice spaces for studying and socializing-- with windows!-- and then small sleeping compartments for each student, I can see that being a lot better.

There's residences around here that are like that. 4 single bedrooms with a common kitchen, bathroom, and living room. There are 4 or 5 of these pods on each floor, in a building with 4 or 5 floors.

They're pretty popular.

We have those also. But, they all have windows.

[jimbogumbo]

I would also point out the Michigan students are in fact grad students. Grad students (in my experience) typically had worse residence halls.

I'm going to guess the typical USCB undergrad of today will have MUCH higher expectations of what a residence hall should offer, let alone their helicopter parents.

[marshwiggle]

The weird thing about door rooms is that they are supposed to be sleeping, studying, and socializing spaces all in one room, often for two or even three people. That's a lot to ask of one room, and generally really bad for quality sleep. So to the extent that you can separate out those functions and provide nice spaces for studying and socializing-- with windows!-- and then small sleeping compartments for each student, I can see that being a lot better.

There's residences around here that are like that. 4 single bedrooms with a common kitchen, bathroom, and living room. There are 4 or 5 of these pods on each floor, in a building with 4 or 5 floors.

They're pretty popular.

We have those also. But, they all have windows.

Sure, but I'd be curious to see what they'd choose between:

• Each room and common space rooms with normal windows
• Windowless bedrooms, but common space with panoramic windows and/or balcony

In other words, (as the designs suggest), the common spaces are significantly more inviting than usual, with the idea that bedrooms will be only used for activities that are entirely private. (If the common spaces were really inviting, it's possible some people may even prefer to do some of their work in the common space.)

[Puget]

The weird thing about door rooms is that they are supposed to be sleeping, studying, and socializing spaces all in one room, often for two or even three people. That's a lot to ask of one room, and generally really bad for quality sleep. So to the extent that you can separate out those functions and provide nice spaces for studying and socializing-- with windows!-- and then small sleeping compartments for each student, I can see that being a lot better.

There's residences around here that are like that. 4 single bedrooms with a common kitchen, bathroom, and living room. There are 4 or 5 of these pods on each floor, in a building with 4 or 5 floors.

They're pretty popular.

We have those also. But, they all have windows.

Sure, but I'd be curious to see what they'd choose between:

• Each room and common space rooms with normal windows
• Windowless bedrooms, but common space with panoramic windows and/or balcony

In other words, (as the designs suggest), the common spaces are significantly more inviting than usual, with the idea that bedrooms will be only used for activities that are entirely private. (If the common spaces were really inviting, it's possible some people may even prefer to do some of their work in the common space.)

From the article about the grad dorm, it sounds like it was explicitly intended to encourage them to work in the common space rather than their rooms, to encourage collaboration. Not sure how well that works in practice, but in theory it's a good idea, to reduce isolation and lead to better sleep hygiene (it is really bad to work where you sleep) if not lead to actual collaboration (which seems less likely unless they are grouped by program, which could then get too insular. . .).

Our grad students would just be envious of any option for affordable campus housing-- we have no grad student housing, and housing cost in the area is really high, even for pretty low quality old housing stock.

[ergative]

Are there going to be separate common areas for socializing vs. working? You can't study effectively when everyone around you is playing beer pong.

[marshwiggle]

From the article about the grad dorm, it sounds like it was explicitly intended to encourage them to work in the common space rather than their rooms, to encourage collaboration. Not sure how well that works in practice, but in theory it's a good idea, to reduce isolation and lead to better sleep hygiene (it is really bad to work where you sleep) if not lead to actual collaboration (which seems less likely unless they are grouped by program, which could then get too insular. . .).

Was my experience in STEM unusual? We had a grad student office in our research group near our labs, and each of us had a desk there. I think I did virtually all my schoolwork there. I don't remember working in my apartment, so my bedroom really was just for sleep. I don't think it even had a desk.

[apl68]

From the article about the grad dorm, it sounds like it was explicitly intended to encourage them to work in the common space rather than their rooms, to encourage collaboration. Not sure how well that works in practice, but in theory it's a good idea, to reduce isolation and lead to better sleep hygiene (it is really bad to work where you sleep) if not lead to actual collaboration (which seems less likely unless they are grouped by program, which could then get too insular. . .).

Was my experience in STEM unusual? We had a grad student office in our research group near our labs, and each of us had a desk there. I think I did virtually all my schoolwork there. I don't remember working in my apartment, so my bedroom really was just for sleep. I don't think it even had a desk.

Well, when I was a grad teaching assistant in history we had four assistants sharing three Korean War-era surplus desks in one office (It was not big enough to hold a fourth desk).  There was also a common office/computer lab down the hall where the toner was never changed and the waste paper was never cleared out.  We also had open study carrels at the library, where we often found discarded cups and fast-food wrappers left by undergrads when we weren't there.  This is what humanities grads got to work with at an R1 university.

[ciao_yall]

Trying to imagine the carbon footprint of a building that uses electricity to create artificial daylight when there is perfectly good sunlight outside.

[Wahoo Redux]

From the article about the grad dorm, it sounds like it was explicitly intended to encourage them to work in the common space rather than their rooms, to encourage collaboration. Not sure how well that works in practice, but in theory it's a good idea, to reduce isolation and lead to better sleep hygiene (it is really bad to work where you sleep) if not lead to actual collaboration (which seems less likely unless they are grouped by program, which could then get too insular. . .).

Was my experience in STEM unusual? We had a grad student office in our research group near our labs, and each of us had a desk there. I think I did virtually all my schoolwork there. I don't remember working in my apartment, so my bedroom really was just for sleep. I don't think it even had a desk.

Well, when I was a grad teaching assistant in history we had four assistants sharing three Korean War-era surplus desks in one office (It was not big enough to hold a fourth desk).  There was also a common office/computer lab down the hall where the toner was never changed and the waste paper was never cleared out.  We also had open study carrels at the library, where we often found discarded cups and fast-food wrappers left by undergrads when we weren't there.  This is what humanities grads got to work with at an R1 university.

R1: We had "bullpens," essentially windowless closets with four or five desks around the perimeter.  I was lucky enough to get a smoked-glass cubicle with one other desk in it in an exterior waiting area to faculty offices.  I had just enough space to roll my chair back and stand before I hit the little bookshelf. 

[Hibush]

An LA Times editorial describing this dorm as a "monstrosity" that makes living in cars preferable. More importantly, the editorial describes the challenge of too much demand for the top-end UC education. They are being pressured to admit more students than they have housing or classroom space for. They can't hire enough instructors. That situation is not compatible with maintaining the quality of education, so the editorial urges a sensible solution.

At the same time, some CSU campuses are going undersubscribed. Again, the widening gap that we see elsewhere in academe. Could a CSU campus be transformed to a UC research campus? Or would it be better to do again what the regents did in 1988 and start a new campus á la UC Merced?

[mleok]

An LA Times editorial describing this dorm as a "monstrosity" that makes living in cars preferable. More importantly, the editorial describes the challenge of too much demand for the top-end UC education. They are being pressured to admit more students than they have housing or classroom space for. They can't hire enough instructors. That situation is not compatible with maintaining the quality of education, so the editorial urges a sensible solution.

At the same time, some CSU campuses are going undersubscribed. Again, the widening gap that we see elsewhere in academe. Could a CSU campus be transformed to a UC research campus? Or would it be better to do again what the regents did in 1988 and start a new campus á la UC Merced?

Perhaps a better question is why attending a research university is so appealing to students. In talking to colleagues who teach at one of the better CSUs, they have much better student-faculty ratios in their classes, and in view of that, I would say without hesitation that they offer a better learning experience for their undergraduate majors than what my UC can offer. Their faculty are still research active, even if they don't supervise PhD students, and very few undergraduates benefit from the research opportunities that a research university can offer anyway.

At the end of the day, it has to do with prestige, as opposed to the quality of education offered, but that's not something that's new.

[mleok]

At the same time, some CSU campuses are going undersubscribed. Again, the widening gap that we see elsewhere in academe. Could a CSU campus be transformed to a UC research campus? Or would it be better to do again what the regents did in 1988 and start a new campus á la UC Merced?

None of these address the core issue, which is that students want to attend an "elite" UC campus, and UC Merced isn't one of these. The increase in undergraduate enrollment in the last decade at the more desirable UC campus that I work at is more than double the total undergraduate enrollment at UC Merced. It is simply an example of the tragedy of the commons, students want to attend an elite university, even if it means that admitting them makes the university less selective (and elite) and able to offer a quality education.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

There is a follow-up article in CHE:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-a-california-campus-bursting-at-the-seams-indulged-an-eccentric-donor
- apparently UCSB is to be sued by the town of Goleta (apparently UCSB is not in actual Santa-Barbara) for failing to fulfill its promise to build enough dorms and for breaking through an enrollment ceiling it agreed to adhere to

[Hibush]

At the same time, some CSU campuses are going undersubscribed. Again, the widening gap that we see elsewhere in academe. Could a CSU campus be transformed to a UC research campus? Or would it be better to do again what the regents did in 1988 and start a new campus á la UC Merced?

None of these address the core issue, which is that students want to attend an "elite" UC campus, and UC Merced isn't one of these. The increase in undergraduate enrollment in the last decade at the more desirable UC campus that I work at is more than double the total undergraduate enrollment at UC Merced. It is simply an example of the tragedy of the commons, students want to attend an elite university, even if it means that admitting them makes the university less selective (and elite) and able to offer a quality education.

The same variation among the CSUs. San Diego is really tough to get into and has strong research. But there are a few undersubscribed campuses that have woes similar to state school elsewhere in less desirable parts of the state or with a weaker track record.