As late November quickly approaches us, we have much to be thankful for. For most, we still have our health, wellness and the love of those close to us. The world and nation which we live and work in seem, for the most part, to strive for peace and justice. Also, the University that we are a part of is still a haven for intellectual exchange and human curiosity. In this tradition of thankfulness though, it is important to remember the progress that brought us to our place in time. The advancement of organization and of man in general has come from the contentious questioning and critique of its institutions. As a denizen of the world and Hopkins, it is our duty to reexamine and expound upon the flaws we realize even in our state of perpetual gratitude and respect.
In particular, I feel that one of the most specific problems that plagues Hopkins, and subsequently all universities, is the idea of scaled conditions. I will define this term as the notion that improvements made should affect the esteemed and experienced rather than the young and unproven. The most egregious example of this is the freshmen living experience. In this, I would like to note that I had a wonderful freshmen year that was socially and academically engaging; however, I think that experience thrived in spite of the physical conditions of my living. The whole ordeal starts with a "Housing Survey" by which the omnipotent "Office of Residential Life" gives you vestigial choices on your roommate and residence hall. For most, people's preferences are sorted like confetti and spit out to be processed to live in the cave like socialistic endeavors called, ironically, the "Alumni Memorial Residences," (quite a monument of gratitude).
Once September arrives, students become aware of the communal "feel" that awaits them. As a third party on move-in day, I have eyewitness stories of jaws dropping at the shock of no air conditioning on a 90-degree day and the Conservation of Matter problem of fitting their meager belongings in even more "quaintly sized" dorm rooms. Indeed, moving day and the entire freshmen living experience are testaments to the strength of human perseverance. At this point, people will probably say that "you're being too harsh" and that "it's really not that bad" and also "you've never lived it 'really hard.'" To all of these complaints, I refer you to the first paragraph; however, I must also mention again that I am grateful for my opportunities and comfort in life. Also to these complaints I will add that, just because a scenario or situation is "livable" does not mean there are no solutions to the ills it presents.
In reply to my intonations of a solution, I do have a suggestion. As always, I will acknowledge that my plan is probably flawed and that there are better angles to the greater end. However, that is the point of this article, to inspire a debate for better change. From a financial perspective, each of the first two years a student spends in the aforementioned Residence Halls will cost some entity to the student, personal or benevolent, approximately 20,000 dollars factoring in the 9,000 per annum paper cost and the associated costs of eating and student services. To give a scope of these figures, a five-bedroom row house can be rented, with respect to supply and demand, at 1,500 dollars a month, or 300 dollars per month per person summing to a liberal 6,000 dollars a year associating external costs. The economics seem all too easy to evaluate in favor of privatization. There seems to be a way in which the University could subsidize private real estate for students instead of trying to become a realtor itself. The costs saved for the students and University appear to be tremendous.
Johns Hopkins University is a force of change and independence in the academic world. The University entity is a virtual force in Baltimore and Maryland with the scope of its influence. I am merely trying to highlight a way that we as a student body and University should work and change with this sword of influence towards a greater sense of independence in the way we view our student life. As I highlighted a few weeks ago with my chastisement of the programming board, I believe that there are workable solutions that are simply not examined due to "tradition" and "good enough" prevailing thought. The ironies abound. A thankful polemic on undergraduate student policies by myself and an institution that strives for excellence but settles on "status quo" on such an issue domestic to its makeup. The options and will is here at Johns Hopkins, the only barriers left are the bulwarks of antiquated tradition.
