Hijacking the thread a bit, but I'm not sure people understand how predatory student housing is in aggregate.
At many colleges you don't even have a choice to live in the dorms or not as an undergrad, living on campus for 1-2 years is tied to enrollment.
On top of this lots of financing for college housing is wonky, because some colleges do not pay property tax. (So you can have the college hold the land and some third party company finance/build the building students are forced to live in.) This is a significant part of ACC's business model.[0] Student loan money is used to pay rent on these buildings, so it's indirectly funded by taxpayers.
The power colleges have over students lives is concerning regardless of if this dorm design is good or bad. If UCSB put in one of these requirements students could be forced to take part in a social experiment designed by a billionaire. UCSB, or another campus w/ a Munger dorm, doesn't have this requirement today but could have it tomorrow.
At many colleges you don't even have a choice to live in the dorms or not as an undergrad, living on campus for 1-2 years is tied to enrollment.
On top of this lots of financing for college housing is wonky, because some colleges do not pay property tax. (So you can have the college hold the land and some third party company finance/build the building students are forced to live in.) This is a significant part of ACC's business model.[0] Student loan money is used to pay rent on these buildings, so it's indirectly funded by taxpayers.
The power colleges have over students lives is concerning regardless of if this dorm design is good or bad. If UCSB put in one of these requirements students could be forced to take part in a social experiment designed by a billionaire. UCSB, or another campus w/ a Munger dorm, doesn't have this requirement today but could have it tomorrow.
0: https://www.americancampus.com/