- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

Change to Anchor Housing Propsal

Joe Shoer ’06 is kind enough to provide this update on the change in the anchor housing proposal.

According to Prof Dudley,

“The two main changes between the first and second forums were:

1) Taking the co-ops out of the clusters. Co-op draw will remain separate, and all seniors will have an equal chance of getting co-op space, if that’s what they’re interested in.

2) Detaching the entries from the clusters. Instead of having a default cluster membership built into the entries, with an opt-out, we think it makes more sense for all students to form groups of friends in the spring, which are then distributed to clusters. Entries will have a social affiliation with a cluster, and students can choose to become members of the cluster with which they have had this social affiliation, or they can form a group with students from wherever and have the group randomly assigned cluster membership.”

Kudos to Joe for taking the time to inform the rest of us about the change and for correctly congratulating CUL on the first aspect of it. (Shouldn’t a member of the CUL be posting this information somewhere?) Kudos to the CUL for taking the feedback from students seriously and modifying their proposal accordingly.

I think that this plan is a better one than the first proposal. I also think that Joe is too harsh in his criticisms. But my main concern continues to be with the process. CUL should be making the evidence/data that it has public right now. Why don’t they?

Facebooktwitter
Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Change to Anchor Housing Propsal"

#1 Comment By (d)avid On February 10, 2005 @ 3:46 pm

David, some of the data may be less than flattering to the college. The administration would rather allow high school students see how happy students are at Williams than hear complaints about the lack of a social life. Transparency does have downsides.

#2 Comment By ravenastro On February 11, 2005 @ 1:24 am

Aren’t bubbles supposed to be transparent?

And, I’m surprised that they hadn’t excluded these two ideas originally from the proposal – they are the ones that immediately come to mind as being unreasonable and unmanageable.

#3 Comment By Noah Smith-Drelich ’07 On February 11, 2005 @ 8:08 am

Ravenastro–

I’m curious…what about the new (or even the old) part of this proposal do you think is “unreasonable and unmanageable?” What would you, instead, suggest?