I went to a college that only required campus living 2 years (Tulane) and much preferred that. By junior year I was ready to be out of dorms, off a meal plan, etc. - independent living and all. But for the vast, vast majority of students, living "off-campus" meant living in an apartment or house a block or 2 away, so campus life was just as vibrant. It wasn't like hoards of people were getting housing miles away and only being on campus for classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which college-that should be taken into consideration. If it's a big public university then no. If it's a SLAC with limited off campus housing, then I understand the requirement.

It's a smaller SLAC in a suburb of a larger city.

I went to a small slack in a suburb of a city, and most students lived on-campus all four years (the only one I can think of who didn't got married while still in college). I liked it -- it definitely contributed to the closeness of the community. Although I suppose if you didn't want a close community, it would be a disadvantage.

My college had a 4 year residency requirement. It really made campus life more vibrant. Lots of kids on campus all weekend. Lots of activities and events. It was awesome overall, even if the dorms themselves weren't great.

I think it's a great idea. I went to a college that only guaranteed on-campus housing for freshman and sophomore years and the scramble to find affordable off-campus housing was a headache (as was splitting bills, collecting rent, walking further to classes, etc.).

Anonymous wrote:Which college-that should be taken into consideration. If it's a big public university then no. If it's a SLAC with limited off campus housing, then I understand the requirement.

It's a smaller SLAC in a suburb of a larger city.

I've had kids at the extremes. One lived on campus all 4 years. A very small # of seniors could get permission to live off campus. It was mostly about town relationships (and filling the dorms). The other goes to a university where most kids live in apartments starting sophomore year. Nice furnished apartments but with 12 month leases and utilities which is much more expensive than dorm life. You also have to arrange housing a full year in advance.

Do you mean it's a small school where students live in on campus housing all four years as opposed to off campus apartments? Not at all unusual for smaller schools. Our DD went to a school like this but upper class housing was aprtment style just like the off campus apartments her friends who went to large schools lived in. It was great for us because we didn't have to deal with leases and utilities and were able to pay the room and board fee all four years.

I went to a school with a 4-year residential requirement. I liked it for the following reasons:

1) There was no real housing scramble. Yes there was a lottery, and you had to be flexible about who you were living with, based on your lottery number, but if you didn't do the lottery, you still had housing somewhere on campus. It was one last thing to worry about.

2) No monthly rent or utilities. Again, one less thing to worry about.

3) Meal plan. One less thing to worry about. I ended up getting a long term illness my junior year, and not having to shop and cook was great. Plus, while not the best food ever, the dining halls were a great way to be social without spending extra money.

4) The social/support aspects. And the peer pressure aspects for the good habits (if my roommate was studying, chances are good I was also studying, as to not disturb her). It probably also saved me from making bad drunk decisions (because I wasn't going to bring a dude home to hook up when my roommate was sleeping in the other bed). Also, there was always something interesting to do, and someone to do it with because we were all on campus.

5) It prepared me for living in close quarters with another person--helpful when I got married.

6) When we got in trouble for things like being loud, or underage possession of alcohol, or public drunkenness, it was handled through the school, instead of the government. Which means unless you did something exceptionally bad, you graduated without any kind of permanent record.

But I grew up UMC, and parents/grandparents paid for my expensive rural SLAC education. DH grew up poor, and needed to do college as cheaply as possible. He went to a large urban public university that didn't have the same type of "community" that my school did. He could find cheaper housing than the dorms, and cheaper food than the meal plans, and he wasn't looking for the social elements of college because he was also working FT. Circumstances dictated a different college experience for him, but I don't think he is unhappy with his choices.

Which college-that should be taken into consideration. If it's a big public university then no. If it's a SLAC with limited off campus housing, then I understand the requirement.

Anonymous wrote:College?

What?

College?

Thoughts on this? DD is considering a college with it, not sure if pro or con.