Soufian Carson

Dr. Weaver

ENG 1102

26 April 2022

How Residency Requirements Only Hinder Students

Introduction

When students reach adulthood, they need assistance to transition into college life. They are sort of immature and in need of supervision. They could also use the assistance in finding connections with similar majors and interests and gain some academic benefits while they are staying in their dorms, as universities claim. Universities are so firm in this belief that they require first-year students under a certain age to live on campus. However, colleges have become very permissive, allowing students to act in any manner they please, contradicting the statement that students need supervision (Vedder). In the 21st century, the high costs of room and board, along with the American universities’ societal norms becoming increasingly conflicting with the diverse student population America has, universities have this requirement to inflate their costs artificially rather than supporting students. 

Discussion

A university’s room and board expenses can be the most expensive cost a student must pay. UNC-Charlotte lists that room and board costs average at about $12,432, while off-campus housing options are more minor, at $10,433. Essentially, the insignificant academic benefits that one can gain from living on campus come at two thousand dollars. Additionally, “one 2014 study showed that from 1976 to 2013, the inflation-adjusted rate of increase in public four-year college housing prices was about 72%, compared with less than five percent for housing in the broader economy” (Vedder). If someone had saved up 10,000$ for college room and board, they would only have $2,800 after the end of the inflation period. Coupled with the price tag of receiving small academic benefits, it is apparent that it would be better for the student to choose if they wanted to pay the price for staying in their favorable proximity to the university. However, many universities require their students to stay on campus. 

Richard Vedder, an economist and professor of economics at Ohio State University, compares universities to monopolists. They artificially inflate their costs for those wanting to purchase their primary service or product. If one wanted to get an education- they needed to get the room and board too and add thousands of dollars to their cost of receiving an education for an insignificant, small benefit only meant for those looking for the college experience. In fact, a large portion of students are not so accepting of dorm life (Batdorf, Vedder). In these times, student populations are becoming increasingly more diverse, with students coming from a wide range of different cultures, backgrounds, and religions. Some students may have cultural differences or religions that conflict with the cultural norms of dorms, such as partying, casual relationships with others, and practices that the students would rather not indulge themselves in. By forcing students to live on campus, it shows that universities communicate to applicants that they must place themselves in an environment that can conflict with their beliefs. For example, in Islam, Muslims are instructed not to take intoxicants (i.e., alcohol), have relationships outside of marriage, and consume food that is not lawful to them, such as pork, and with some Muslims, any meat that is not slaughtered correctly (Qur’an, Domun). The prevalent sexual norms of the college experience and the dominance of food in the meal plans that universities offer are not catered toward Muslims can discourage Muslims from applying. And not only Islam, other cultures conflict with the idea of the “Western” mindset. 

As a result of some students having religious or cultural objections to the college experience, students may look elsewhere. However, a problem is presented, as some states may not have enough options for an ambitious student. A smaller state often has only a few types of schools, such as having only one or two higher-level universities, a university meant for the college experience and a handful of general universities open to any student. In states where there are only one or two higher-level universities that correspond with a student’s intended major, an ambitious student will often be limited to those options. Those universities often have the status that a student may be looking for, so they can progress further in their career. However, suppose those universities have an on-campus living requirement. In that case, it forces students to either sacrifice a portion of their chances for their desired success or sacrifice their chances of staying true to their beliefs. Such is the case with a student living in the State of Georgia, as the Georgia Institute of Technology is the only prestigious university in Georgia that specializes in technical education. There are other universities, such as Kennesaw State University and Georgia State University, from which one can receive technical education. However, those universities do not have the high level of education a driven student may look for (U.S. News & World Report, Georgia Tech). Georgia Tech requires first-year students to live on campus (Georgia Tech). An aspiring engineer with religious or cultural objections has to decide between getting their technical education at a lower-level university, such as Georgia State, and hindering their chances of graduating university with a degree from a higher-level university that would improve their chances of getting a career they desire or placing themselves in an environment where they can risk bending their beliefs to fit into the college experience. It severely limits some students’ options, but in fact, “state universities ignore their obligation to accommodate religious objections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (Oliver). Overall, flexibility is necessary for American higher-level education, as diversity in the student population only gradually increases.

Academical research shows the growing diversity of student populations and the increasing trend of students to opt-out of living on campus when possible. More students prefer flexibility rather than being restricted to a set of rules. In a study done by Shazia Jan and Panos Vlachopoulos, they researched the preferences of students whether they wished to learn in a face-to-face course, an online, live-streamed course, or a set of recorded lectures. The surveyed students showed a strong preference for recorded lectures, indicating that the freedom and flexibility to learn at one’s own pace and environment took prevalence. The general idea of being flexible with everything in a student’s career and taking measures that cater to the student, rather than the student catering to the university, such as coaching, tutoring, and mental health counseling, are more effective in leading students towards academic success (Mills). In general, requiring a student to live in the college experience only negatively impacts their finances and does not contribute to their academic success.

Works Cited

Aleem Domun, http://www.quran.mu. “70 Major Sins in Islam.” Qur’an, 

“Colleges Should Stop Forcing Students to Live on-Campus.” The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, 6 Feb. 2019, 

lachopoulos, Panos, and Shazia Jan. “Exploring Modes of Lecturing as a Teaching Method in Higher Education: Student Attendance, Preference and Motivation.” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, vol. 17, no. 5, Nov. 2020, pp. 1–18.

Mills, Lindsey. “Understanding the Experiences of College Students Who Work Full-Time: Juggling Competing Responsibilities and Defining Academic Success.” Journal of Continuing Higher Education, vol. 68, no. 3, Sept. 2020, pp. 181–89. 

“Rankings.” Rankings – Georgia Tech

“Residency Rule (‘36-Hour Rule’).” Georgia Institute of Technology, 27 Apr. 2022, 

Vedder, Richard. “Why Are Universities in the Housing Business?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 14 June 2018,