Members present: Genaro Padilla (Co-chair), Carolyn Porter (Co-chair), Robert Knapp, Cathy Koshland, Robert Brentano, Robert Middlekauff, Alex Pines and Mark Tanouye; Student representative: Yvette Flores, Amanda Canning and Arian White; Staff: Gail Kaufman, Alix Schwartz, Cynthia Schrager, Susan Wells

Presentations: Harry LeGrande, Assistant Vice Chancellor Residential and Student Services Programs; Jerlena Griffin, Director Residential and Family Living: and Jeff Kruetzen, Manager of Workstation and Network Services

Announcements and review of previous meeting (2/5/99)

Introductions were made and Carolyn Porter gave a brief review of the key issues that were discussed at the last meeting.

Presentations on Housing Issues

Assistant Vice Chancellor LeGrande indicated that well over 90% of incoming freshmen live in the residence hall. Twenty-four percent (24%) of transfer students live in the transfer hall. All freshmen that meet the Statement of Intent to Register deadline are provided with housing, and increasing numbers of continuing students wish to remain in the halls. This situation is similar on the other eight campuses. In all, about 20% of students live in the residence halls at Berkeley.

To accommodate the increased need for housing more beds have been added to some existing rooms, but discussions are also in progress with Mills, Holy Names, the Greek houses, and Co-Ops to refer student in need of housing. One difficulty in trying to use existing housing in Berkeley is that it must be seismically safe or we can not sign an agreement. Very little housing meets the University's standards in this regard.

New housing is being planned for 500 additional beds and we are also renovating Albany Village family housing. Trying to balance current need and expected need, along with the debt load, is tricky. We can not be financially overextended. The new housing will likely be apartment style so that it is more flexible in being used for undergraduates or students with families. Students have indicated that they would prefer this type of housing.

One important aspect of residence hall plans is to bring the learning environment into the living environment.

Director Griffin discussed several of the programs offered in the residence halls. These include academic support, developing community, transitional services, and general services to students. The academic centers provide tutors, computer services and a variety of classes to improve skills such as writing, time management, etc. The Faculty Fellows Program, the Last Lecture Series, and dinners with faculty are all ways in which Residential and Family Living tries to build community with faculty.

New programs are being developed to extend this relationship with faculty. One is to provide a stipend of some sort to non-live-in faculty to have a relationship with a residence hall. For example, Women in Science and Engineering has thirty-eight students living in one hall. A faculty member in the sciences who lives nearby has agreed to be a mentor/advisor to this group.

The campus produces a summer reading list and residential living will attempt to create a book club of sorts. By having faculty come and speak about one of these books, they will create an opportunity to integrate the intellectual life of the campus into the living environment.

Jeff Kruetzen spoke of the various computing and technological services provided to residents. There are computer connections for every person who lives in the halls. Each room is also wired for cable TV in hopes that we might eventually provide campus-based programs. Eighty four percent (84%) of residents use the computer connections and in some halls it is as high as 97%. This number is important to note as we discuss requiring students to have computers. There are also five computer centers with 165 higher end PC's spread across the various residence halls. There are also network drops for students with laptop computers.

General Discussion (with some attempt to organize the comments)

Tanouye asked how demand for housing was estimated and whether 500 additional beds would be sufficient. Koshland commented that older students are comfortable living further from campus, but that younger students are not. LeGrande responded that it is impossible to tell what kind of demand they will have each year. There are external impacts, such as changes in rent control. There has been some discussion of increasing the number of students and this will also have an impact. We must balance affordability, proximity to campus, and institutional debt against estimated student demand. At the beginning of the year we generally have about 2000 more students who would like to live in the residence hall than we can accommodate. Building apartment type units would allow us to accommodate older students who generally want to move to an apartment setting, but give us the flexibility to reduce the number of triple rooms if demand is low. In addition, it would not place an unmanageable burrden on dining services.

Canning asked if there could be some sort of "hotel" type system while students looked for permanent housing (using lounge or other non-dorm-room space). LeGrande indicated that they will be doing a number of activities to increase the number of listings with the Community Living office and will be working with the Greek houses and others to secure some additional space.

Porter asked if we should be aiming for more housing or finding other ways to deliver services that students want on campus. With limited resources we need to prioritize. Brentano added that we need to consider the "year round" programs and "satellite" campuses as well.

Porter brought up the discrepancy between services available in the residence halls and services for those students off campus. Griffin responded that the residence programs are trying to work collaboratively in areas were students live in large concentrations such as the Greek houses and the Co-ops. While some argue that the balance of services is unfair, others argue that the students in residence pay fees for the services. The Residential Living staff is interested in examining those services currently offered to residents that could be expanded to the non-resident community.

Amanda Canning suggested that the academic centers be opened to non-residents especially during non-peak times. Griffin said that there are wait-lists for using some of the services already but they are exploring methods to open some of the residence hall services to non-residents.

Padilla said that the Computing Commission has discussed a computer ownership requirement at length. If 85% use the in-room connections then they must have a computer. We don't know the income breakdown for the students that don't have computers, but there are new regulations that would allow us to include computer purchases in the financial aid package. Pines suggested that the connection/access fees also be part of the package for non-residence hall students.

Alex Pines noted that the dinner programs are wonderful but faculty members need more lead-time. He also expressed some concern about putting class information, especially material that is designed to be interactive, on line since many students seem to want to print this out. This can clog up the printers and can also prevent others from accessing the web site through dial-in systems. Kreutzen will discuss this issue further with Pines. There were other comments specifically related to access to computing services. Padilla mentioned that the Computing Commission examined these issues and there are attempts to provide additional access.

Brentano stated that the Divisional Council had not favorably received the report of the Computing Commission. There were reservations about the recommendation that each student be required to own a computer, for instance. Knapp added that the Computing Commission report did not take the pedagogical implications of the technology into consideration. Porter commented that there is some effort to put more faculty in control of the use of technology. She mentioned that the issue of whether pedagogical imperatives would drive the technology or vice versa was still a live one. There is also some ongoing discussion about where technology will be placed administratively.

Griffin asked if the CUE members had considered residency requirements for freshmen and perhaps even sophomores. If the campus had expected academic outcomes for the living experience this might be something to consider. There is enough space, with current numbers, to do this. But, we also like to have some older students in the halls to provide a balance. Still, we could create intentional, focused programming that is part of the academic agenda.

Padilla said that committee members could encourage efficient decision-making to move forward with the housing plans. He would also like committee members to discuss academic programming needed in the residence halls. For example, he would like to see the Freshman Seminars offered in the halls on a more systematic basis. Academic programs need to be so integrated into the halls that they become part of daily interaction for students. Koshland will attempt to find a report from Stanford that discusses this point.

Middlekauf suggested that the summer reading list might be collected in a different way. Perhaps faculty that are interested in talking in the residence halls about specific books could say which book they would like to discuss and the list could be based on the recommendations of the potential volunteers.

Griffin will pull together a listing of the existing academic programs to share with the committee.

Knapp inquired about evaluation methods and how housing staff know what students want. LeGrande said that they do a "quality of life" survey and focus groups each year. Most of the information is anecdotal, so they are trying to quantify more of the measures. There usually is a 45-60% response rate on the surveys. The problem most indicated noise. They have done some preliminary reviews of how the living experience contributes to matriculation. There seems to be a correlation to lack of academic centers in the halls and probationary status: no center = higher probation rate. In addition, the substance free hall has a very low number of students on probation.

Future Meetings

Topics for discussion at future meetings include:

1) First Year Experience report

2) Conclusion of Housing Discussion

3) Further discussion of the recommendations made by Knapp and Middlekauf

4) General Undergraduate Education

5) Discussion of the University of Michigan Conference and UCLA general education programs.

Last updated on 4/28/99 by CS.