The University of Houston has five-story high climbing wall. Penn State has a movie theatre with surround sound. Washington State University has a jacuzzi that seats 53 people. According to an Oct. 5 New York Times article, these schools are just a few examples of a recent trend in university spending.
Amenities are all the rage lately, as more and more colleges and universities are feeling pressured to draw the most talented students to their school in whatever way possible. The University of Vermont's pub, ballroom, theatre and pond for skating in the winter are described as "necessities" by administration, as are Ohio State's indoor batting cages, rope courses and free massages, as well as the water park that the University of Southern Mississippi is planning on building.
These schools claim that by having amenities such as these, they are able to attract better students. While these "necessities" might be a highlight of the campus tour, their subsequent tuition hikes are not as appealing. Where should schools draw the line? What is excess and what is acceptable; what is luxury and what is necessity?
The costs of these facilities are mind-boggling. Ohio State, for example, is spending $140 million on its new athletic center. These costs are not only driving up university debts, but are also driving up tuition that many can't afford.
There is little question that here at Johns Hopkins, there isn't much to be considered excess. "We see our facilities as needed," said Dean of Student Life Susan Boswell.
Take, for example, the athletic center, built a year and a half ago. "[The athletic center] has brought so much to the community," said spokesperson Paul Jacobus. "We have 1,800 people here a day, and 82 percent are from the Homewood campus. The place is packed from morning until night."
But the idea is that more amenities make students happier, and make more students want to attend a specific college or university. "What Universities need to do to remain competitive is to offer a wide array of facilities for both in and out of the classroom," said Boswell. "I don't include water parks in that array."
Many students share this opinion -- that the recent trends among other universities are simply wasteful spending, and are improving schools in purely superficial ways. They agree that Hopkins should not follow suit. "[Hopkins spends] too much money on stupid things anyway," argued junior Matt Cook.
Yet these opinions are not universally shared. "We need more," said freshman Justin Batoff.
Meanwhile, colleges and universities across the country continue to up the ante in what has been referred to as an "arms race" for the best amenities.
Dean Boswell views what the university provides as more than sufficient to meet students' needs. "All universities need to be aware of what students need and want, and things that will enhance the community both in and out of the classroom," she said. Yet she also acknowledged an underlying issue on the subject. "I don't think people choose Johns Hopkins University based on amenities, but on academics."
So we're back to the original question. Are the amenities here up to par, or are the high standard of the academics here being looked at as making up for possible lacking in other areas? "I'm paying $5000 a year to live in a space that's five feet by nine feet, and that's including the windowsill," said freshman Katie Ross. "Is it too much to ask for there to be nicer stuff to do outside of the dorm?"
This opinion is most likely the majority. Most freshman dorms lack air-conditioning, and there's no local phone service provided by the school. In many houses in the AMRs, the lounge is in reality two couches in a corner, sharing space with a bathroom whose door doesn't close -- not exactly an inviting atmosphere. Compare this to other schools, where, perhaps, laundry costs are covered in the initial room and board, fitness classes at athletic centers are free, or student unions are entire buildings of food and other conveniences, catered solely to students, and suddenly we seem to be lacking.
Dean Boswell points to facilities like the Mattin Center, the athletic center and the Charles Village Project as proof that the University is trying.
Paul Jacobus, Assistant Director of the Athletic Center, says that a place like the athletic center "Gives students an outlet for their stress, an alternative for whatever else they might do if it wasn't open until 12 on a Friday night."
Has Hopkins already fallen behind despite the fact that it continues to construct new classrooms and recreational facilities each year?
For many top 20 schools, students are want to attend regardless of amenities; for academic reasons only. But is it enough to simply give students what we need, and instead give them what they want?
