Dorm life. Whether you love it or hate it, avoid or envy it, you likely don’t imagine it being very different from what it already is. Los Angeles Times staff writer Conor Friedersdorf proposes an interesting transformation of college dormitories in this July 2017 column.
Read it here: Friedersdorf, "Ban elite college dorms”
- Friedersdorf admits to having enjoyed very much living in a dorm among his classmates and peers when he was a college student at an elite school, but now he is proposing replacing the system. What does he propose to replace it with? Why? Summarize his argument. Does his proposal have merit? Why or why not?
- In his conclusion, Friedersdorf uses an invented term, “E Pluribus Dorm,” and there is some humor in the term if you recognize the phrase that it plays off and what that phrase means. If you don’t already know, do a little investigating. What is the original phrase that “E Pluribus Dorm” plays with? Where can the original phrase be found? (Hint: you may have a copy or two in your pocket.) What does the original mean? What does Friedersdorf’s phrase mean?
- Instead of citing a specific source for his They Say, Friedersdorf simply provides his own explanation of how dorms at elite schools operate, and rather than argue that the dorm system is bad or wrong, he states that the “approach has some validity.” Read (or re-read) Chapter 4 of your text. Which of the templates in that chapter comes closest to Friedersdorf’s statement? Why do you think so? Explain your reasoning.
- You’re a college student—how attractive would Friedersdorf’s proposal be to you? Why? Write an essay in which you imagine that such a living arrangement were available to you at a reasonable price. Under what conditions would you consider moving in? What might you expect to gain or learn from the experience? Why?
They Say I Blog 
Friedersdorf said Students would learn more outside the classroom if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top-tier college. And the future leaders among them might better serve the public, or the private sector workers beneath them, if they spent more of their formative years with generational peers who, for whatever reason, did not want to or could not attend a fancy university — i.e., the vast majority of Americans. I believe he is making a great point that elite students may not know about middle and lower classes and their situations. It is hard to know what is going on if they have money and grew up with such things. Lower and middle class are limited and may not have the means to get around or pay for living arrangements.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf’s proposal is not at all attractive at all to me, nor is it practical in my opinion. I understand the want for everyone to interact with one another but it just makes no sense to me. Not to sound cynical, but don’t we all interact enough in class? This is how I see it; I chose to go to college to get a incredibly tough degree, not to be forced to make friends. Don’t get me wrong, I have made plenty of friends, which is one of the reasons why I don’t think that this proposal is necessary. Integrating dorms with people of different professions on purpose may be fun for a day or so, but it’ll eventually become very distracting. In addition, just because a lawyer and a plumber are friends does not change anything within their relationships, they do not become richer or poorer because of each other. There are truly no conditions as to what would make me want to live in integrated dorms. I think that what I would gain from it is new connections but that is all.
LikeLike
I think community college students to live in the same dorms as regular college students could be helpful. It can be good or bad it is going to take time to be familiar with the changes, some may take more time to adapt to the environment
LikeLike
I think created a E pluribus dorm would close the gap between lower, middle, and upper class and would bring America overall closer. Adding diversity to colleges is always a good idea but cause it only expands the job variety and gives students more trades to learn and hear about. Overall I would mind merging into this dorm. Having this experience for at least a year of my time at college seems like a good idea.
LikeLike
As a current dorming student at a university, I agree as well as disagree with Frendersdorfs dorming idea. The dorming situation may be a benefit to develop networking and learn about people from different cultures because most people may not have had that opportunity growing up in different communities. Yet, everyone still may hang on in cliques but his idea isn’t to seprate these cliques but to gather them and allow them to “achieve greater mastery”. The way Frendersdorfs is going about achieving this idea is by segregating by race and class because thats what statistics state how dorming is brought about. Segregation was banned years ago and someone has to enforce it instead of continuing it. Students should be allowed to choose their roommates based on given survey.
LikeLike
I agree and disagree with Friedersdorf’s claim. While I think it would be a good idea for people of different classes to unite, I think the proposal has its flaws. I feel that mixing different Universities brings up a safety problem, as people would be coming and going hectically and it would be difficult to keep track of people. I think this is also flawed because if this were to happen, people with similar classes and hobbies would stick together to work on homework and study for future exams. College students are so time constrained with class, homework, and extracurriculars leaving them minimal time to communicate with people living in the same buildings. While it is a good concept to bring together people of different classes or upbringings, this is an incorrect way to do so. I think this method of bringing people together raises more harm than good, and there has to be a better way of doing so.
LikeLike
While I do find diversity important, I find the problem a lot bigger than simply a segregation between economic classes. In the article, it speaks a lot about bringing together the future leaders with america with people pursuing careers in specific vocations. While the idea of creating dorms that are inclusive to vocational students and students attending elite institutions, this wouldn’t solve the problem and I believe would create more problems. Not everyone can afford mandatory campus housing and at times, campus housing seems like a stupid idea when you can commute say, 15 minutes everyday. People like to focus on saving money and unless free campus housing is being offered, the lower class would be better off commuting and saving as much money as possible. In addition to economic disparity, I find that the cultural differences often outweigh the economic differences when it comes to dorming with someone. I know personally, I would have rather dormed with someone of the same race as me because we have something similar that we can relate to. From the point of view of a person in the majority, this may seem stupid. I reality they have to pretend its themselves and they’re, for example, going to an HBCU. Would they rather dorm with someone that seems familiar of branch out in unknown territory. This relates to economic placement. I’d rather surround myself with people of my class rather than people a lot richer or poorer with me. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with desiring familiarity. Its normal and doesn’t necessarily need a solution.
LikeLike
Although I do believe that Friedersdorf’s idea has good intentions and that it is always good to promote diversity, I simply don’t think the “E Pluribus Dorm” is very practical. Many community college students commute to their campus because they either live close enough that it is less expensive to do so, or because they are also working while taking classes and have very busy schedules. I highly doubt that they will want to pay housing costs to live what is likely a further distance from where they will be taking classes. Also, with my personal experience living in a college dorm, I think it is certainly possible that even while living in the same building the university students and community college students still avoid each other. Many of the residents will continue to spend time with those who are similar to them. Introducing university students to those of different backgrounds that are pursuing different goals would certainly the opportunity for great learning experiences, but the all-inclusive dorm is not entirely logical due to the burden it creates for the non-university students as well as the lack of certainty regarding the students interaction.
LikeLike
Conor Friedersdorf’s “Ban Elite College Dorms,” presents an interesting view on how to benefit society more as people are in college. Although the idea present a great result, from a technical standpoint most ideals are flawed. The first issue is moving 50% of the student body off campus to create space for others. This would leave half of the university in an unknown location and a place which the students most likely do not want to be because they expect to live on campus dorms. The second visible issue is having students who do not attend the same college. Although I agree that putting kids from different schools together would benefit networking, I can not agree that most students would not like living with someone who does not attend the same school. By not attending he same school, conflicts would arise evidently causing a negative friendship between cohorts. My final issue with his argument is that splitting up people who have common goals/interests is not a beneficial move. The reason people are friends or work together is because they have similar goals and motives. Once you separate that with someone who has different ideals, it causes the friendship and mindset to weaken. Overall, Friedersdorf’s article was very interesting and addressed a view on how he feels on college society. I feel that it would be very interesting so how his approach would play out in an actual college setting compared to the typical one’s we see today.
LikeLike
Emma Leigh Stockton’s point is well taken. Like her, I agree that Friedersdorf’s point to integrate people from vocational schools and community colleges into a combined dorm with a university is wrong, but I cannot completely agree with her argument that people with the same interests and majors should be roomed together. Friedersdorf is looking to diversify universities which I do think is a good idea, especially to bring people together from different backgrounds to expand students’ perceptions; But his plan is at an extreme, unrealistic expectation. Boarding farther away from some of the students’ schools would make it much more difficult for them to navigate their own classes and activities, and as a college student myself who can barely get to class on time at my own university, I don’t think that this solution would be successful. However, I do believe that rooming students of the same university with different economic backgrounds, majors, and cultures is a smart idea. As long as the students are compatible in terms of cleanliness and schedules, this room set up would be beneficial for both students. College is a time of personal growth, so living in a building with students of the same majors, completing the same homework assignments and participating in similar activities all of the time is not going to expand one’s knowledge for the future. For students to truly embrace their individuality, submerging one’s life in a world of others’ lives will allow for true personal growth.
LikeLike
Conor Friedersdorf’s strategy to rectify the problem of self-segregation among today’s youth is creative and certainly devised with good intentions. With that being said I do not believe that it would be beneficial to a majority of students and nor should it be forced upon anyone. While diversity certainly is important, education is what students enroll in college for. Many students worked very hard for their admittance into prestigious universities and most of them understandably want to be surrounded by their peers who share their same classes, ambitions, and experiences at their school. Another problem with Friedersdorf’s strategy is that it may in fact hinder the student’s ability to learn. Many students rely on their roommates for guidance and help with difficult concepts and this especially applies when the roommates share a similar major or career path. By separating like-minded students this strategy would inhibit learning inside the dorm. That being said I would support this plan as a voluntary option for students who truly crave that diversity and would rather expand their personal connections and experiences. Perhaps even certain programs could be implemented that connect students with members of society who are very different from themselves, this would help foster diversity as well. In closing, though I support the concept of diversification, when it comes to university, students should have the ability to room with their peers and that if Friedersdorf’s plan is to work, it must be an option and not a requirement.
LikeLike
Conor Friedersdorf proposes a fascinating solution to the widespread segregation that America faces; however, he neglects several important factors in this system. I will not dispute the importance for one to have exposure to people that represent different fields and backgrounds. After all, you can’t learn much from people exactly like you. Yet, suggesting that people from a range of different schools share a housing and extra-curricular system is not practical. A significant part of college is not just the classes but the exclusive community to which one becomes admitted after a complex application process. To impose a community of mixed students, there will be tremendous reduction in school spirit and big-name schools would lose some degree of prestige. On another level, this suggestion is not practical because campuses are not necessarily immediately adjacent to other schools. In other words, it would be very difficult for students to commute to their respective classes if they live in a location that is central to several schools. Additionally, students would not feel obligated to interact with the people in their living quarters even though they are within a close proximity. It could be similar to a standard apartment building, of neighbors that are strictly on a “How are you?”, “Good” basis. There still exists a high possibility that the segregation will persist. It is very unlikely that Friedersdorf’s suggestion will receive much consideration from prestigious schools.
LikeLike
Although I agree with Connor Friedersdorf up to a point, I cannot accept his overall opinion that the solution to closing the idealogical gap between more and less educated adults is to house college students from different caliber schools together. In contemporary society there is a prominent difference between the way elites and the working class view the world, some opportunities of upper class members are non existent to the working class, creating a larger gap. Each group cannot see from the perspective of the other, and currently these two groups have limited interaction, especially in social groups. I believe that students should live with others who attend their school, but I think the interactions between schools can increase. The solution to closing the idealogical gap is to create more social crossovers between colleges. Anything from joint community service to holidays celebrations would contribute to students making new connections with people from outside their socioeconomic status.
LikeLike
Connor Friedersdorf’s proposition of “E. Pluribus Dorm” is unpractical. Combining students from prestigious universities with students from vocational schools, community colleges, etc. would create turmoil as it is forcing to unite students with different interests and ways of life. In this, the students from the different areas will be distracted and this will lead to a lack of contribution to their field. The main objective in attending these schools is to stay focused towards one’s academic and vocational goals, and pushing these more diverse dorms on students will only hinder each party’s ability to do so. The reason a student attends the institution that they do is to be surrounded with like- minded individuals who share the similar career goals. An E. Pluribus dorm strays away from this idea. Although I disagree with Friedersdorf’s idea of an “E. Pluribus Dorm”, I argue that prestigious universities should promote activities and programs that allow students to interact with those who fill the majority of jobs that require varying degrees of skill. This branch- out would allow the students of prestigious universities to become less- sheltered while still being able to focus on their studies when at school. These groups can connect without living with each other, and including these groups in the same dorm does not ensue a greater bond. There is a happy medium between an “E. Pluribus Dorm” and isolating the different groups from each other.
LikeLike
As a college student I believe that the dorms we live in, while not the most beautiful building, are wildly efficient. It is very expensive to provide housing for thousands of students, and if the buildings aren’t similar there will be an uproar from the students. The simple cookie cutter patterns in the dorms provide for minimal variability and. maximum efficiency. As far as the elitist universities go, I do not agree that they should change their styles. Most elite ivy school communities are extremely inclusive and diverse, leading to a plethora of backgrounds that can maximize learning potential.
LikeLike
Conor Friedersdorf writes “Op-Ed: Ban elite college dorms” in the LA Times introducing a new method to improve diversity in colleges from public to elite institutions. While he brings up a valid problem I find his idea to be unrealistic. In my opinion, the majority of colleges would not adopt the integration of students from separate colleges let alone be roommates. The different institutions would be forced into a relationship and things like their academic calendars are bound to be different. In addition, commuting may be easier and less expensive for some students.
I find it important for those of high economic status and education to form relationships with those different than them such as vocational students; however, it would be a large project to place into action. This integration would be great but I think it can be done outside of the dorm because roommate issues may arise. In nature, people tend to gravitate towards those who are similar to them whether it be economically or culturally. This method may not be as effective in fixing the diversity problem in colleges as Friedersdorf claims. Learning from people unlike you can have many positive effects and hopefully open one’s horizons but their differences can also cause real issues in this “E Pluribus Dorm”. It is amazing that Friedersdorf wants to integrate elite students and vocational students, however, there are underlying issues that could cause the method to be ineffective instead of beneficial.
LikeLike
Connor Friedersdorf wrote “Op-Ed: Ban elite college dorms” to inform the reader of a modern college dorm which integrates all different types of students. He believes that exposing elitist university students with those from trade and community schools will benefit everyone in the long run. He argues that the integrated dorms will expose students to different ideologies thus closing the ideological gap between the different levels of educated groups.
I agree with Friederdorf that exposing elitist college students to different types of students is very healthy for society, but I don’t believe it should be in college dorms. I think, rather, the students should socialize at mixers and other events. It would be too difficult to integrate the different college students together because they may have completely opposite schedules. On top of this, many students go to a community college to save money and will not want to live in an expensive college dorm. I believe, like Friedersdorf states, the mixed dorms would be faced with much opposition. I think the opposition would be too much to ever overcome.
LikeLike
While Connor Friedersdorf’s proposal of an “E Pluribus Dorm” appears enticing to those demanding to live in a diverse environment in college dorms, I cannot accept that it will close any existing stigmas involving social inequality. Limited interaction between the elite and lower classes start with the college admission process. Because the wealthy have a greater access to a quality education and opportunities such as SAT tutoring, they possess a greater chance to be admitted to selective Universities. This barrier is stacked higher against the middle class because governmental run financial aid services only cater towards the lower class. This allows the lower and upper classes to be able to afford the inflated costs to attend top tier universities while the middle struggle with the debilitating effects of student loans. The stigmas involved with social inequalities in universities is institutionalized, therefore, the concept of forced interactions between diverse students will not change the existing problem.
LikeLike
As Friedersdorf mentions in his article, traditional dorms, especially at elite colleges are not very inclusive. He proposes rather that a new dorm setting that include similarly aged students from both the nearby vocational schools, community colleges and technical training programs and from the college itself. He believes these new dorming systems could expose students to new kinds of people and experiences they are not used to as it would provide a variety of racial and socioeconomic status. While I agree that students should not be put in exclusives groups for four formative years in their life, I believe logistically it would be hard to coordinate this new kind of system. For example, living on campus and can be quite pricey, and often times students choose not to go to 4- year schools for the reason that they cannot afford it. So I think Friedersdorf overlooks the financially cost on living campus for low-income students.
LikeLike
Connor Friedersdorf argues that the current housing system for students of top tier schools is elitist, unintentionally creating divisions based on differences in academic background and economic class. He believes that a program which exposed students to people outside of their typical social circles would promote a more diverse and open mindset. I agree that such a program would be a great benefit to elite students, who may grow up to become future leaders and innovators. Everyone would agree that a government official who is more in touch with the communities they serve would be able to better address the issues faced by ordinary citizens and would be less likely to make unethical or corrupt decisions . A tech company which keeps the interests of the general public in mind will be better equipped to accommodate the needs of a wide range of consumers. Friedersdorf’s proposed dorm system would be an excellent tool for helping young, privileged men and women develop empathy and human connections with groups who they otherwise might never have come into contact with. The important experiences formed between dorm residents would not only help elite students develop a more varied network of friends, but also help them to become more successful in their chosen careers.
LikeLike
While I believe Friedersdorf’s suggestion is potentially beneficial to the production of individuals of higher caliber, I cannot help but disagree with him for much of his argument–specifically that a good solution to this issue is the mixing of dorms across multiple colleges, universities, trade schools, vocational schools, etc. using off-campus housing. First and foremost, money is an issue. To my knowledge, colleges and universities charge astounding amounts of money in order to accept new students. This monetary barrier makes it difficult for most to get into college and supporting a system of dorms which cater to multiple schools across a town, city, or county would drastically increase the cost of these colleges which would worsen the student debt issue plaguing the country at the moment. To add to that, students would have a much harder time becoming proficient in the specialized skillsets they learn at schools and lose easy access to a resource in their peers who are studying the same material. Finally, students would be deterred from spending time in their dorms as their lack of proximity in respect to most schools involved would lead to students spending more time on their respective campuses which would reduce the community aspect of dorming.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf claims in his third paragraph that this housing change will not affect the average American college student. I understand he mentions this as to not arise panic, but it also brings up the question: why is this while housing thing such a big deal then? I’m sure it will still effect tens of thousands of students, but if those tens of thousands is only a small portion of a whole, then maybe we should spend our time and resources elsewhere. Such as how inflated the American college system has become, and how college students are put in debt for more than half their lives for a degree that doesn’t even guarantee them a job. Just a thought.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf believes that this E Pluribus dorm would work in the fashion of students going off to their own classes by day and returning to the dorms by night, coming home to programming and activities encouraging them to interact with the diverse group they would be living with. I believe that this type of forced integration would create nothing but problems. Kids from a community college and kids from an elite institution face entirely different workloads and most likely have an entirely different idea of what school means to them. Forcing them to interact with people who are vastly different from themselves may distract them from their own studies, which I believe to be more important in college than who you are living with.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf agrees that “When bright young people study math, physics, philosophy, and other subjects among minds of similar caliber, they learn at a similar pace and help one another achieve greater mastery. Their greater mastery is, in turn, good for society.” He agrees that people who are comfortable with the people they are surrounded by, people who think like them and have similar beliefs or values, especially about education, learn well together and help eachother grow and experience more. If this is good for society then why does he want it to change? If people are forced to be surrounded by people they dont understand or connect well with then they can’t comfortably go through their everyday lives. I feel like they would be less outgoing and willing to share their ideas if they believe that the people they are surrounded by wouldn’t agree or would look down upon them and the way they think. It may cause people to feel like there is no one to relate to and that they may be the only ones struggling.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf claims that, “ [the students would] go off to their respective classes by day and return in the evening to programming and activities that encouraged them to interact.” He says this as if it’s a fact and will happen every time no matter what, but he could be completely wrong. Students might hate being forced in the same place with the other young adults and self segregate. They might not interact with anyone from a different school so the effect Freidersdorf is going for wouldn’t happen and the differences and dislike between the groups might grow. He could be right and they’d separate for classes and then come back together and be best friends but we don’t know for sure. Because of all the factors that could change the whole experience, Friedersdorf has to do a lot more research and experiments for him to truly know if his idea will work and be effective.
LikeLike
Friedersdof claims colleges around the US should tweak or abandon the current housing arrangements. He believes student will significantly benefit from being exposed to those of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Friedersdof believes by doing so, it will lead to those who may strive to become future leaders to share similar experiences with all walks of people. I do not believe his idea is merit. The idea of switching around dorm situations just isn’t plausible. The idea isn’t impossible but would take a lot of work.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf discusses his plan for a new dorm style that will have students “go off to their respective classes by day and return in the evening to programming and activities that encouraged them to interact.” While this sounds like an exciting way to meet people and learn about their backgrounds, the last thing people want to do after a day of lectures or tests or studying is to be forced into social situations which are out of their comfort zone. Many college-age people would rather put on a face mask, watch TV, or eat food without the need to put themselves together in a presentable manner than stubble into a group of strangers in the hopes of finding a new pal or learning something about a stranger that they are bound to forget a few moments later as the frontal lobe isn’t quite developed enough for that just yet.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states, “And the future leaders among them might better serve the public, or the private sector workers beneath them, if they spent more of their formative years with generational peers who, for whatever reason, did not want to or could not attend a fancy university.” This statement means that if the elite people gain a greater understanding of the vast majority of people they might treat the people under them better. I mostly agree with this statement because I do think it is important for the future leaders to have a greater understanding of who will be working under them, so that they know how to better help them, but I do think it’s important that people from lower classes also have a greater understanding of the more elite people not only so they can make connections with them but so that they don’t look at them in a negative way.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf says, “Elite institutions purport to produce not just future scholars but future leaders” when talking about how college students should be exposed to other students of different backgrounds, interests and goals. He says this should be done by having a dormitory made up from different students from different schools. I would say that according to the quotation above that he is correct because students who attend the “ top tier” schools are training to become those dependable leaders. In order to become those leaders they need to be surrounded by students with the same goals and expectations as them. If the students are mixed with other students that don’t have the same expectations they might get thrown off course.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf claims that future leaders would better serve the public if exposed to people of different backgrounds from an early age. If “E Pluribus Dorm” were to be implemented, it could be beneficial when the “elites” become leaders. They would better understand the “typical” American and help find solutions that could help citizens of all kinds. Although Friedersdorf has some great points, this should be implemented on a volunteer basis. If it were to be a requirement, many students would be reluctant to diversify, and potentially stunt the growth of this project and could end up to be a worse outcome than self-segregation.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states “ I wonder if it should be tweaked or even abandoned in favor of an alternative that exposes overachievers to more people unlike themselves.” I do understand his point but he is not taking into consideration that being around people that have similar classes and goals as you can be more beneficial when it comes to studying and having people around you that can relate to your struggles. Being around people who are culturally different can be beneficial socially, but people don’t go to college just to make friends.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf argues that, “Students would learn more outside of the classroom if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top-tier college.” He tries to convey to the audience that integrating college dorms would help bridge the increasing gap between the elite and vast majority of Americans. He believes that if elite students were exposed to students who go to other colleges that they’d eventually gain a better understanding of the challenges they face and they’d stop perpetuating their own tribe’s interests. If college dorms were integrated (in a non-restrictive fashion), all students would be given a chance to gain a better understanding of their counterparts. This may not be a quick fix, but it is a powerful solution that will make a powerful difference in our society.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states that “elites unthinkingly perpetuate their own tribe’s interests-without ever having to meet the people harmed-“, suggesting that this self-segregation harms not only the individual but the whole of society. The lack of political leaders that can empathize with the people they represent places a burden on those in the working class. Connecting these future leaders in their youth with those they would be serving would create leaders that could better represent their people.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf says that the current college dorm model is bad for the country and should be abandoned or tweaked to “expose overachievers to more people unlike themselves”. I disagree with Friedersdorf and his underlying claim that ivy league students don’t interact enough with lower achieving students and therefore should dorm with those non ivy league students. I believe that there is no benefit in having students dorm together of different academic prowess because dorms are meant to facilitate academic growth with peers but if your dorm mate is not your peer, the purpose is defeated. The leaders of tomorrow should certainly have better connections with and understanding of their fellow Americans but having them room together in college is not going to open their eyes to all the varying types of people and views of those people in the country. That has to come from real life experience and I don’t think college can provide something as grand as that whether it’s and ivy league “elitist” or not.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf claims, “ Students would learn more outside the classroom if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top-tier college. I believe that the idea of an E Pluribus Dorm would be of great value to future generations. Diversifying college dorm rooms can open up door ways to learning new cultures and views on life that some people go lifetimes without learning. This would help benefit work places as well because the more diverse your knowledge of people is the more understanding you are. Friedersdorf’s writing does also allow you to know that he himself went to a college that lacked the diversification he discussed in his writing which shows that after college he grew to learn and experience a more diverse way of life in which he’d like to implement in other areas such as college dorm rooms and I believe that his argument holds great merit and if implemented it would serve as a catalyst for a new learning environment outside of the usual classroom.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf mentions the thought of tweaking or completely abandoning today’s dorm systems for a newer, more advanced system. This, being in favor of an alternative way, that will expose the overachievers, with people who are unlike themselves. However, this wouldn’t be fair to those who put forth their best effort and making it into these elite college’s. Though diversity may be good for our community, pairing these overachievers with with those unlike themselves may be problematic. If personalities are so different and can’t get along, they are now living in an environment that is toxic to their mental and physical well-being.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states within his sixth paragraph the idea that, “Students would learn more outside the classroom if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top-their college.” The author himself went to an elite college and believes that the diversity needs to be strengthened. I one-hundred percent agree with this statement. With mixing people together in dorms and just in everyday life, we get the chance to experience new life altering adventures. We can all learn from those of different backgrounds than us. Although, not yet in college I have been able to be in school with all sorts of people, much different than me and have learned so much from each of them.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states that his alma mater, Pomona College, has long housed 99% of its students on campus. He enjoyed living in that culture and even thought that it should live indefinitely, only to later say that he now wonders if that model is bad for the country. With him stating his life in a college dorm it has made me question the need that dorms now have an indefinite problem that needs to change to help scholars gain greater futures. He later states that students would learn more outside the classroom if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds. I can agree that outside of class student will learn more from young people from a greater variety of backgrounds, but I would like to say that in this situation the importance of socialization is made known for the future to have great leaders, with that I find that it’s not the dorms that need to be changed but the work ethic of students living their daily live back and forth from their school and dorm.
LikeLike
One of Friedersdorf’s reasons that an “E Pluribus Dorm would be beneficial is that students would learn more outside of the classroom if they were around people from a greater variety of backgrounds. He uses this ideal in saying that the future leaders would better serve the public, or private sector workers beneath them if they had made connection with those kinds of people in this diversified dorm. I agree that if the future leaders of America made connections with people of the different social classes and upbringings they would have more empathy for and know how to communicate better with all the different walks of life. College is a late place to start teaching people how to make connections with everyone but it is still beneficial to start there.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states his idea that students would go to their daily classes and then return to their dorms to participate in activities that would encourage them to interact with each other. He wants to promote the interaction between students that come from different backgrounds, and encourage all types of students to create new relationships with each other. The problem with this is that students have learned to make friends through self-segregation, and the natural cliques among the students would still be present. Therefore, the students would be put out of their comfort zones when they are forced to interact with those that they wouldn’t necessarily have anything in common with.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf mentions that the students would go off to their respective classes by day and return in the evening to programming and activities that encouraged them to interact. While I agree with the idea that getting to know people from different backgrounds is beneficial, I don’t think it would be a good idea for people from different colleges to room together. They are going to that specific college to be with people who are striving for the same academic goals as them and taking similar classes. Academically it would not benefit students to be housed with students from different schools.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf asked his audience, “How would the world be different if the next startup billionaire from Stanford formed friendships in college with elder care workers, plumbers, and long haul truckers in addition to doctors, lawyers, and consultants?” (8). He used this rhetorical question to strengthen his argument that “elites” and “commoners” should be more interactive with one another in the form of sharing dorms. He thinks this will improve future leaders’ people skills and expose students to new people and ideas. I mainly disagree with Friedersdorf’s proposal. The majority of students are more comfortable with people they have common interests with, rather than forcing a relationship with someone from an entirely different institution.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states that uniting the elite and normal college students in the same dorms would increase acquiring knowledge “outside the classroom”. In making this change it would expose the students “to younger people from a greater variety of backrounds” and exceed their learning more than it would a “top-ier college”. this would not only help with American self-seggregation, but help student learn to know different groups of people other than what’s in their comfort zone or what they’re familiar with. On the other hand, if dorming with student similar to each other, could help them tremendously more than with a variety of different groups. With similar majors and could it could reach to their goal other than leading them astray from the very reason they are at college for.
LikeLike
In Friedersdorfs Op-Ed : Ban Elite College Dorms he states “These arrangements are unlikely to occur naturally even off campus. (Our residential housing market is highly segregated by class and race.)” He believes that these “Elitist” future leaders will take the idea of segregation into their daily lives unaware of how the other side lives and those are the people they’ll be leading. In my opinion i agree if a certain idea is drilled into your head over and over and into your lifestyle sooner or later you’ll believe it. So it’s not surprising that after attending these universities these students carry these ideal with them.
LikeLike
Conor friederdorf expresses in his essay ban elite college dorms. “That students would learn more outside the class room if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top tier college.” I disagree with this statement. He is suggesting in this article that the vast majority of students who attend top tier colleges grow up in wealth but this is not the case. Many students who attend elite colleges grew up in the middle and lower classes and were driven to change their financial situation by working hard and having a good work ethic. So many students that attend elite universities already know what it is like to be the “little guy”
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states the idea that students will learn more outside the classroom when exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top-tier college, and through this, our future leaders can better serve and understand the public. I agree that outside of the classroom, a student does learn more than they would in a top-tier college, as the information is not something you’d learn in a class. Having students learn about different backgrounds through the people who experienced them themselves will allow these future leaders to create a better understanding of the problems that are facing the public, and create more empathy towards them. Though I do agree with a lot of this idea, it just doesnt seem reasonable. Rooming with people of different backgrounds in college will most likely not change the views they had before going to college. Students are going to be more focused on their schooling more than anything, especially those in an elite college. The idea of rooming with someone without any of the same interests as you also is very unappealing to many, which could lead to roommates not opening up to each other at all, defeating the purpose of this whole idea.
LikeLike
Friedersdorf states that “Students would learn more outside the classroom if exposed to young people from a greater variety of backgrounds than they’d typically find at a top-tier college.”, which suggest that only students at top-tier/elite college’s lack diversity among social classes. I do agree that at these colleges there may be a greater presence of “higher class”, or students who come from elite or “rich” families, on account that there is about 20% or less of low income students attending these elite colleges.
LikeLike
Fridersdorf states the idea that “In the United States, the ideological gap between more and less educated adults is widening” and a possible solution to this, as stated by Fridersdorf, is to “Imagine a selective college that used part of its hefty endowment to partner with nearby institutions on a brand new kind of dorm. Half its residents would come from the college itself. The other half would be drawn from vocational schools, community colleges and technical training programs.”. This “solution” would provide the new age work force the opportunity to learn more people skills and improve their understanding of both sides of the spectrum. This, however, I do not agree with because it seems to be counterproductive to focus the students attention on creating new relationships to broaden their views on certain backgrounds rather than let them focus on their studies which is the main reason people choose to attend college. It also seems that keeping them away from people that are involved in the same career path with them is keeping them from growing connections in their selected field of work.
LikeLike
I disagreed with Conor Friedersdorf’s proposal because building an E Pluribus Dorm is an unrealistic idea in the U.S. In his opinion, the E Pluribus Dorm is a college dorm that will be provided for students with different backgrounds, and its purpose is to produce future scholars and leaders by building bridges among these students and prompting their interactions. Theoretically speaking, it is a great idea for a student to reduce a segregated college life, creating a diverse social network. In his article, Friedersdorf claims that the E Pluribus Dorm can offer an opportunity for these students to meet and learn different cultures and knowledge from one another. However, he ignores whether it is practical in reality. In another article, “Why America is Self-Segregating”, author Danah Boyd points out, “people typically revert to situations where they can be in homogeneous environment. They look for ‘safe spaces’ and ‘culture fit’” (393). In other words, instead of being in a diverse environment, a person would like to stay in a comfortable zone that contains people who have the same or similar backgrounds. As a nation of immigrants, the United States of American is flooded with a variety of cultures that represent people’s values, religions, languages, and so on. For each country, the culture not only makes a great impact on its history but also shapes its civil characteristics that are different from other countries. In such a melting pot, on one hand, it gives opportunities for each culture to develop itself; on the other hand, it challenges the compatibility when some cultures conflict with each other. In some cultures, people often use fixed positive terms to describe their own cultural beliefs, habits, or behaviors while using fixed negative attributes to describe other cultures. In this way, a conflict may appear. As a result, even though an E Pluribus Dorm has been built, many students may not want to reside in this dorm to avoid clashing with others. Therefore, building an E Pluribus Dorm is unpractical in the U.S. because of the cultural barriers.
Works Cited
Boyd, Danah. “Why America Is Self-Segregating.” They Say/I Say: With Readings, edited by Gerald Graff, et al., 5th ed., W.W. Norton, 2012, pp. 387-395.
LikeLike
I would like to try to live in a dorm, but I go to a small college and it’s not possible. His idea of having all types in a dorm is under realistic. Many just can’t afford such things as dorms. I do like the idea but it’s not to realistic sadly.
LikeLike