Perhaps someone can provide an update on what happened at the anchor housing forum tonight? One of the downsides of the new WSO site design (beside my inability to login) is that there seems to be much less discussion than there was, say, last Winter Study. I miss the blogs quite a bit. (I realize that they are there, but no one seems to be writing to them.) Anyway, here are some thoughts.
0) I just love the way that Roseman sprung this idea on CUL, perhaps even on Dudley, with no warning whatsoever. Take a look at their meeting notes for early December. (Kudos to them for making the notes available.) They had no idea that this was coming!
1) It will be interesting to see if this meeting leads to a revival of Anchors Away. Surely, there are some engaged and upset First Years willing to lead the charge. If so, they should start reading here. Although Will Dudley likes to claim that we will not “revisit” the major decisions that have alreay been made, Roseman’s willingness to totally restructure First Year housing demonstrates that she, at least, is ready to reconsider most anything.
2) Independent of anchor housing, it seems like the concentration of First Year housing in the Freshmen Quad and Mission Park is an excellent idea. Although Lehman and Morgan have, traditionally, worked well, the first years in East and Fayerweather have always gotten the short end of the stick. Centralizing all the first years in two locations, and making Mission the default dining hall for all of them, can only lead to more interactions within the class, and, as the Davis Conjecture demonstrates, more interactions within a class leads to a better Williams.
3) Four clusters, eh? Recall that, at the start this fun-filled exercise, the CUL was looking at 6 clusters. Then it was five. Now it is four. In a sense, 4 is the least bad answer. But this is further evidence, as if any were needed, that Williams currently lacks the sort of housing stock that makes any sort of Yale-type housing plan sensible.