New college plans threaten failing system

Most of us at Rice have now received notice of the upcoming 50th anniversary of the residential college system. According to the announcement, we are to celebrate “the most persistent and distinguishing feature of the Rice experience,” “the most widely admired and copied college system in the United States” and “the addition of the 10th (Burt and Deedee McMurtry College) and 11th colleges.”

I am passionate about the Rice college system. I am also extraordinarily grateful to the McMurtrys for their generosity. That said, it is difficult to escape the deep irony in the announcement.

As clearly stated in its founding documents, the Rice college system was established for two primary reasons: to increase social responsibility and to stimulate intellectual ferment, especially among faculty and students. One can find vestiges of these goals in mentoring programs, theatrical productions, art projects and cultural activities. However, in many regards the present system is broken.

For example, colleges generally have fewer than 10 active faculty associates, few colleges have resident faculty associates, and the faculty and staff who are involved have limited time and resources to properly advise students. Furthermore, academically oriented college events are few and far between, with college functions rarely attended by more than a third of its members and significant numbers of students seeming to refrain from college activities altogether. On top of this, masters at every college are feeling the pressures of both overseeing college life and pursuing research.

Most problems reflect an administration that simultaneously praises and dismisses its college system. For example, intellectual and cultural events — such as lectures, concerts and exhibits — are continuously sponsored around campus but rarely in the colleges. Students are selectively admitted into Rice but with seemingly little regard for their interest in citizenship. Faculty members are desired in the colleges as advisors and associates, especially as RAs — but there are no strong incentives to convince the best candidates. All the while, masters are expected to maintain active academic programs but have only limited support.

Problems with the Rice college system and their potential solutions have all been explained before. Most recently, they were spelled out in last year’s “Gruber Report” — an evaluation produced by the Committee on Masters and Resident Associates. But rather than addressing these issues, the university has embarked on a mission to radically change our college landscape.

The nine current colleges average 330 total students and 231 on-campus students. While such numbers have fluctuated somewhat over the last 50 years, they have generally conformed to those outlined in documents from the 1950s, including the statement that it is “advisable to preserve a reasonable numerical balance between the colleges.” The two new colleges, at nominally 325 on-campus students each, will contrast markedly with the ideals and history of the Rice college system.

So, I return to the irony: If the Rice college system is “the most persistent and distinguishing feature of the Rice experience,” why do we neglect it? If it is “the most widely admired and copied college system,” why are we changing it? Of course, the irony is that this line of questioning would have risen to the forefront long ago if the Rice college system were operating properly.

Gerald Dickens is the Martel College master.

Back to top