Synopsis

      Arizona State University is a great school. I have known that since my sister attended years ago and I saw her grow academically and as a person. However, in those days, I was too young to understand the logistics that go into the college experience. A new college student goes through a huge transition of change that they can never be truly prepared for, especially if they happen to live in a dorm. Additionally, colleges across the country, specifically ASU, claim to create an environment that eases that transition. They use phrases like "best interest of student" or "building a sense of community" to justify policies that force students into sometimes unwilling circumstances. This is a foggy situation because when one body (school) decides what is best for another body (student), the best answer gets lost in translation, so to speak. A university where dorm life is a requirement for first year students has a negative effect on those students.
     To know if there is any truth to the seemingly good intentions of Arizona State University, it was necessary to conduct some brief research to find out exactly why the school forces the dorm life on its students and found three criteria to evaluate. It is apparent that the overall safety of residents, building a strong, lasting community and affordability of all college related costs are the distinct aspects of life that are connected with dorm living.
     Repeatedly throughout the network of pages on their website, ASU makes references to the importance of keeping students safe. More importantly, they consider dormitories to increase the level of safety because of supervision by peers. This is an obvious ploy to prevent or decrease dangerous behaviors like drinking alcohol and drug usage which brings the discussion to the effectiveness of that plan. With a reputation for one of the best party schools in the country, it is easy to see how shedding that rep is a top priority. The question still remains if it works or not though. By simply asking ten random peers in my community, I found that it is not completely effective.
     Establishing a community of connected peers is absolutely the criterion that I found to be most productive in my study. This collection is not the first to investigate how dorms change the college experience, whether it be positive or harmful. There is an article that approaches the relationship between dorm life and students' ability to deal with the idea of diversity. The results, although unable to be applied expansively, showed that students who live in dorms become more open to diversity. That being said, I do not think it is as successful as the school would like it to be. Much of that evaluation is based on the community within Adelphi Commons II.
     If you were to ask the average family what they considered to be the number one criteria for picking a college, I would be willing to bet that their answer would touch on money/affordability. It is simply impossible for families, excluding the wealthy, to overlook cost. In contrast, there is such a thing called cost effectiveness, or "getting bang for your buck". Tuition wise, ASU has a very low price when compared to other public universities so they do have some leverage in using the dorm requirement policy. On the other hand, there is more that goes into the total cost of attending a university like the cost of a dorm. Upon my examination, the amount necessary to live at a dorm such as Adelphi Commons II is purely exorbitant when compared to the cost of other comparable housing options in Tempe.
     It is evident in breaking down these criteria that there are statements here and there that oppose my thesis. Some may perceive that as a weakness in my argument, but I believe that exposing the opposition to an argument makes it stronger. In all the supposed weakness, there is a clear conclusion from my findings. Forcing incoming students to either live at home and drive or live in a dorm is not in their best interest. I would not go as far to say that it is an abuse of power but it is certainly a result of a collegiate agenda gone wrong.