In late spring 2007, the Department of Resident Life announced rising seniors would no longer be allowed in on-campus housing. Suddenly homeless, hundreds of seniors scrambled to find lodging off of the campus, furious they didn’t receive more warning. There are two important lessons to be learned from Resident Life’s bungled action and subsequent improvement.
The first lesson is the need for clear communication. Last spring, when a housing crunch loomed large once again, Resident Life preached impending doom for rising juniors. They repeatedly announced that, according to internal projections, as few as 150 juniors would be able to remain in on-campus housing.
The dire projections frightened droves of juniors to off-campus housing, unexpectedly allowing Resident Life to house every junior who remained in the lottery, eliminate forced triples and quads and house hundreds of transfer students. Though some students might grumble that they were unnecessarily pushed into off-campus housing, it is without question preferable to emphasizing more optimistic projections and having to eject those expecting housing.
The second lesson is the need to prioritize goals, particularly when working with a tight budget. When faced with limited resources this past spring, Resident Life joined student leaders to debate the merits of potential solutions, including converting University Courtyards apartments to accommodate more residents and prohibiting rising seniors from leasing apartments in South Campus Commons.
The lessons learned extend far beyond housing. By improving dialogue and prioritizing goals, the university will become more successful and will better satisfy its clientele. The Strategic Plan is the clearest articulation of the university’s vision for the coming decade, and these lessons are crucial as we begin its implementation.
The Strategic Plan contains many ambitious new initiatives to enact in the coming decade, but also describes the university as a “chronically under-funded institution.” The plan notes that the university “faces more than $600 million in deferred maintenance, a shortage of space for current programs, faculty, and students, and insufficient levels of investment in technology and library services.” And if the last decade of budgets in Annapolis indicate anything, it does not seem likely that will change in the coming decade.
Administrators must openly decide whether they will first address these basic shortages or pursue new initiatives. Shortages can be addressed in many ways, including by limiting enrollment, capping enrollment in specific academic programs or even reducing the number of academic offerings.
Taking such measures might free up the resources necessary to execute the plans that will propel this university to meet its goal of becoming a top-10 public institution within the decade. Deciding which sacrifices to make, and in what manner, should be done publicly and with a wide range of input – in a word, fairly.
