Web Exclusives: Comparative Life
a PAW web exclusive column by By Kristen Albertsen '02 (email: albertsn@princeton.edu)

March 13 , 2002:
Princeton, rethink yourself!
Try asking opinions about what really matters

By Kristen Albertsen '02

A recent university campaign uses big, glossy posters and a hip and sophisticated website to encourage students to "rethink" the residential college system.

The campaign heralds the advent of the sixth residential college, recently christened Whitman College, which is to be planned, constructed, and completed by 2006. The speed of this expansion seems to me further proof of the half-baked nature of the entire scheme. Just two short years ago, the debate raged concerning the proposed expansion of the student body. Mot only was the decision made with minimal input from students and faculty, but the decision to construct a sixth residential college — and a four-year one at that! — has also been imposed.

Thus, by way of apology, the university has concocted this charade of student input. Prospects02, as the campaign, a sequel to last spring’s Prospect, invites students and young alumni to submit idyllic visions of under- and upperclassmen romping in harmony, neatly packaged on a single 11 x 17 piece of paper. On this sheet of paper, students are to write, draw, outline, draft, pontificate, or wax poetic.

Not wanting to limit the campaign to architecture majors, the instructions avoid requiring that the plan be architectural in nature, though this is exactly what the project requires. Instead, the project’s website (at www.princeton.edu/~rethink) speaks vaguely and idealistically of "reconceptualizing" and "envisioning"; of its hope for a "highly stimulating, enjoyable, and interactive living experience"; of the importance of "space" in the "social environment" and other such empty, feel-good phrases.

The average student would write Prospects02 off as another of the university’s glitzy and well-endowed, but largely ineffectual, campaigns, were it not for the carrot of $10,000 in prizes. This obscene reward elevates the project from merely self-indulgent to a rather appalling waste of money, effort, and condescension. The university anointed itself with the right to make the important decisions — increasing the size of the student body, instituting Yale’s model of the four-year college — and is attempting to resurrect the illusion of consideration with this lavish and self-important project. It is telling that the deadline for submissions has just been extended by a week; presumably, the university is hoping for a bare minimum of 10 to enter into its semifinal round.

The ludicrous nature of this project is underscored by its predecessor, Prospects. Like Prospects02, Prospects exhorted students last spring to consider ways in which the Street could be "reconfigured, enhanced, or redefined" in order to address the future of "spaces and social life on Prospect Avenue." If possible, the project of Prospects was even more undefined and abstract than its younger sibling; how does one "redefine" a suburban road populated by manicured lawns and large private residences, a property one does not even own? Like Prospects02, the deadline for submission to Prospects was also extended last spring. Though I don’t have exact statistics, rumor had it that the final count of submissions was between two and five; and the number of viable proposals was approximately zero. Certainly I have seen no reconfiguration, enhancement, or redefinition of the Street recently.

Certainly I am not advocating that the university ignore all input from students and faculty and instead institute a sort of bureaucratic oligarchy. However, consideration of our opinions on issues that actually matter would be nice. Furthermore, a slightly more systematized and specific means of evaluating them could easily be instituted. If the university so desperately wants to give away money, as it apparently does, why not pay students $5 for filling out an online survey, containing both option-based and open-ended questions? Instead of paying lip service to everyone while intimidating all but the most postmodern of architecture majors, the university could solicit a much broader, representative, and practical student opinion. Perhaps it’s time for Prospects to rethink itself.

You can reach Kristen at albertsn@princeton.edu