Housing Lottery: Convenient or Convoluted?

Spring is finally in the air, this means two things: class registration and housing assignments. This semester, however, brought a big change to the housing process: online housing selection.

Starting this semester, all housing arrangements will be done online, on the MyHousing section of CamelWeb. The new process means less work for the Office of Residential Education and Living (REAL) staff, less paperwork and waste, and fewer chances for human error.

Many students were surprised to hear that the process would now be under a new, fancier, and more expensive system typically used for larger schools.

This caused some concern: there was widespread doubt about the internet connectivity, as the semester has seen several network issues, causing people to worry about the network’s ability to handle several hundred students logging on to register for housing around the same time.

Many students were not aware of the change until spring semester, and were concerned that the change was made without consulting the student body.

Marie Lalor, Assistant Director of REAL, says that publicizing the change was the responsibility of the SGA Residential Life Advisory Committee, headed by SGA Chair of Residential Affairs Katherine Nadelberg ’11. The committee, which is comprised of students, helped REAL make the decision to switch to the online system. According to Lalor, there have been talks about the transition to online for two years now.

Despite frustration over the sudden change, it is permanent, and the REAL staff is still working to counter any complications. Lalor said that in the event of a system crash or an event in which students can’t reach the Internet, such as a fire alarm in a dorm building, the entire online process would be rescheduled for another time. “We’re going to do whatever it takes to make sure the integrity of the process stays intact,” said Lalor.

Despite Lalor’s words of assurance, many students take issue with the REAL office. Sixty-seven students were polled, at random, on their opinion of the office: of these, twenty-four students had a negative opinion, thirty had a neutral opinion, twelve had a positive opinion, and one abstained.

The complaints are wide and varied. Some students are upset after being denied specialty housing for next semester. One rising senior was denied living in substance-free Blackstone and is frustrated that she is unable to live in the community in which she feels most comfortable.

The same student also expressed frustration over the way REAL has managed Blackstone in general. Last year, in an effort to try to integrate Blackstone with the rest of campus, many students felt that REAL assigned the dorm a Housefellow who hadn’t wanted to be placed there. At the beginning of the year, many students were put off by his lack of concern and shrugging off responsibilities. “Blackstone stopped being Blackstone,” said one student. “He was an awful Housefellow for us to begin with, and he shirked his responsibilities and placed them all on the floor governor. He didn’t come to several house council meetings, he didn’t mix with us. It was pathetic.”

REAL placed freshmen in Blackstone who had not applied to live in sub-free housing, which, according to this student, did not go over well. “There was animosity between the poor freshmen who didn’t want to be placed in Blackstone and the rest of the dorm. It was awkward, and a bit upsetting.”

Another junior had a difficult time communicating with REAL when figuring out their group housing situation for next year. “I received an email about my interview, saying that I did not properly sign up, when in fact I had. My four roommates confirmed with me that we had signed up together for the interview. We also had to email Res. Life because we never received an email stating where we were going to live next year.”

The frustration in this case toward REAL was clear. “I found them incredibly inefficient and aloof, with poor communication skills. They often leave students in the dark,” said the student. “All in all, I’ve found that if something makes sense, don’t count on Res. Life to do it.”

Dan Post ’12, who participated in the apartment application process, found the interview process unfair, because students were interviewing other students. “No matter if the interviewers were trying to be fair, there might still be some accidental bias in how they feel about applicants,” he said.

One junior currently studying abroad, Nora Swenson ’12, had problems even getting a lottery number. “I know for a fact that I applied online by the due date, selected the housing I desired and all in a timely manner, only to find out a week later, as my friends were receiving their numbers, that I didn’t,” she said in an email. “So I emailed Res Life only to be callously assumed to have failed to turn in my online form in time. The woman said she would try to help me, but I never heard from her again…”

Swenson was incredibly frustrated, citing an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude from REAL in reference to her situation. “The fact that they were honest to goodness going to just put me on the waiting list because their system fails really annoys me. At a school this small, they should at least be willing to work with me on a more personal basis.”

Some students do hold high opinions of the office. One junior explained that the REAL staff has one of the toughest jobs on campus, as they must work to provide housing for nearly 2,000 students. Although many find the staff unaccommodating, many of these students often only go to REAL when they have problems with their living situations, and the office can’t make everyone happy with where they live.

“My sophomore year I had an unpleasant housing situation,” said the student. “Though I had to wait until after fall semester to move, Res. Life was incredibly helpful throughout the whole process. Would I have wanted to move out immediately from that place? Absolutely. And I would be lying if I said I was completely patient and willing to wait till spring. But instant gratification is not possible when there are just under 2,000 other people with living needs.”

Freshman Class President Conor McCormick-Cavanagh ’14 and a group of friends also had a pleasant experience in dealing with REAL. The group applied to live in the Park apartment, but was waitlisted. When a spot opened up in River Ridge, they were next in line on the waitlist and quickly accepted the housing assignment. A group of rising sophomores being granted a Ridge appartment is a rare occurance. McCormick-Cavanagh thought the apartment application process was fair.

“The application process is pretty straightforward.You gather a group of friends, pick a location, think of ideas for your service projects, if applicable, and interview.

“I think it is unfortunate that some rising seniors were unable to get specialty group housing. I bet it is tough for them to see rising sophomores get it over them, and I’m sure I’ll feel the same way my senior year. This doesn’t mean the process is unfair, however. We pitched a very strong application and interviewed really well.”

With the lottery halfway over, the online system seems to have run as planned. In practice, many students did not find issue with the online system, but in the new policy towards group housing. In the past, those who wished to lived in the same building would have to average out their numbers and would pick their rooms based on their new number. This year it was decided that the group would simply use the lowest, or best, number in the group, causing students who didn’t go the group housing route to be shut out of dorms quickly.

“Group housing is basically how to cut the line,” said one junior. “Now lottery numbers mean nothing and are useless. You might have number 100, but it’s actually number 200 because the first 100 people brought in a friend.”

The rising junior and sophomore lotteries still remain. If the new system goes well, the REAL office may have more time on their hands to better help students. •