Lyndee Pinkerton

Like so many other students these past couple of weeks, I’ve been running around trying to stay on top of the housing process. As a rising junior, finally living in a City Vista apartment was the goal. I wanted my own space — or more of it, at least. I did everything I had to do when I had to do it, and ultimately, I was still screwed over by the selection process.
It upsets me, of course. I don’t want to be living in a dorm when I’m 21; I want my own kitchen and in-unit laundry machine. But since Trinity has a three-year residency requirement and the current housing process is a randomly generated wreck, that option isn’t available to me.
It should be, though. The three-year residency requirement is practically unheard of in any other undergraduate program. Look up any variation of “undergraduate three-year housing requirement,” and Trinity is the only school that comes up that fits the criteria.
Don’t get me wrong, being guaranteed housing for three of my four years in undergrad in such a big city is important. It isn’t, in and of itself, a bad thing, and I’m very lucky to have that option available to me in a city that has a constant shortage of homes.
My issue lies with the requirement aspect of Trinity’s housing. There are 1,874 dorm rooms and 300 City Vista apartments for roughly 2,500 undergraduate students. With a three-year residency requirement and rising seniors given first choice in the housing selection process because of their increasing desire to live on campus, there is very little space to house everyone.
Since there are no other options and such a limited amount of space, students must put aside their wants, like having a kitchen or even staying with their suite, and accept whatever housing they can get. In fact, students must put aside their needs to have a place to live. If a student needs accommodations, like easier access to a kitchen for dietary needs, for example, they will be placed in a completely random spot with a completely random roommate, which can cause dysfunction and anxiety for those living there.
In the current housing selection process, even health necessities are ignored, too. Students who need to be in single rooms are often not granted their request due to the lack of adequate housing on campus. I’ve heard of multiple students with genuine health concerns who were denied appropriate living accommodations when they really needed it. But then, I ask, why not ensure that everyone who needs accommodations gets their accommodations? Taking away the third year of the housing requirement would give everyone more freedom of choice.
The simple ability to choose strongly and positively affects people’s well-being. I would be able to have my own laundry machine. Students needing accommodations wouldn’t be competing for their safety and comfort. We wouldn’t be as cramped. I know I’m not the only rising junior who would rather live off campus. And if rising seniors want to live on campus as much as Residential Life claims they do, students will still live in the dorms. In fact, 98% of students at Harvard still live on campus, even with their one-year residential requirement. The school offers a sufficient amount of living space for their students, while also allowing them the freedom to live wherever they want.
Even though I’m guaranteed housing, sometimes it’s more about quality. Removing the third year of the housing requirement would give juniors more options and would leave space for students who need accommodations. Even without the requirement, students will live on campus … assuming the rooms are nice enough.