#SwigLife, the Sequel

New residency requirement is an administrative cash grab

Attention, first-years: At only $17,000 a year, you too can be a sophomore in Swig! If you don’t want 12 a.m. fire alarms or vomit-infested stairwells, no worries. Another space is waiting for you… elsewhere on campus!

Santa Clara implemented a two-year residency requirement for the class of 2024 before the pandemic, meaning that all incoming freshmen would have had to live on campus during their first and second years at school. The policy was deferred due to the campus’ closure in 2020, and the administration instead implemented the rule for the class of 2025.

This new policy will not usher in a better “Bronco experience.” Sophomores should have the freedom to pick their housing, whether that be on or off-campus. The current class of first-years have already had a year of the quintessential college dorm life experience, so they shouldn’t be forced to relive it if they prefer something different.

Santa Clara’s housing page lists reasons why living on campus for the first two years is essential for students, but the reasons for their decision seem arbitrary and trite. The list reads as if the administration doesn’t even whole-heartedly believe in their own policy.

Let’s break down some of Santa Clara administration’s dissuasive reasons for implementing the residency requirement:

First, “Make friends easily and quickly; interact with other students who share similar and different interests.”

Proximity to other students does not automatically ensure friendships. One still needs to possess basic social skills for building relationships, and even if dorm life makes the prospect of friends more accessible, there is no need to force it on students.

Second, “Enjoy the SCU on-campus living experience leading to greater satisfaction with the overall SCU experience.”

I live in Swig as a sophomore. Take it from me, it's been fun, but the communal bathrooms will not be the defining moment of my college experience nor has it “satisfied” my time here as a Bronco.

And finally, “Take advantage of a wealth of social opportunities.”

These social opportunities are still there — you might just need to walk a little further to reach them.

Clearly, these are not very persuasive reasons for requiring the largest freshman class in Santa Clara history to live on campus for another year. Mandating all incoming freshmen to live on campus for two years is ineffectual.

Yes, living on campus can be a great experience for some, but others may not want to do it again. This year specifically has been extremely difficult, stressful and emotional for students. The class of 2025 probably did not expect their first year of college to unfold in a way that was heavily impacted by tragedy and an unpredictable pandemic.

When implementing this rule, Santa Clara fails to account for the negative side of the dorm experience and only focuses on the positive — but not promised — friendships that could be formed.

The motives for Santa Clara requiring students to live on campus for two years appear clear: give the school a monetary boost, due to the expensive cost of living on campus.

Comparably, on average, living off-campus with roommates is cheaper. The administration’s inattention for what better fits a students’ financial or social needs is not merely an oversight, but rather a deliberate cash grab.

Once again, Santa Clara students’ living experiences are defined by unreasonable and pointless policies. This residency requirement has been marketed as something that the administration is doing in “good faith” for the betterment of student experience, but their generalizations make it seem as though they are completely disregarding the nuanced dorm experience and student needs.