Several weeks ago I wrote a column discussing why I believe substance-free housing creates an unnecessary and sometimes unfair division in the Washington University community. Today I present my case for why the difference in price between modern and traditional housing creates an even more unfortunate divide.

There is almost no question that when it comes to freshmen housing, modern housing is much more desirable than what is euphemistically referred to as “traditional” housing. While there may be more debate when it comes to sophomore housing because of the larger common rooms, private bathrooms and balconies that the sophomore traditional dorms offer, the remaining freshmen dorms of Lee, Beaumont, and Rubelmann undoubtedly offer considerably worse living conditions than the modern dorms.

To cite the worst example, Beaumont has crooked hallways, no common rooms except on the ground floor, no balconies, a tiny laundry room, none of the computer labs or classrooms found in modern dorms, and for the first few weeks of first semester, several of the floors smelled terrible.

Worse still, traditional dorm residents do not have access to the residential peer mentors (RPMs) that modern dorm residents do. RPMs are upperclassmen paid to be available to tutor freshmen in math, physics, chemistry, and writing. They offer free one-on-one tutoring and review sessions before exams. Put simply, the lack of a RPM program leaves traditional dorm residents at an academic disadvantage.

So why do many freshmen request to live in traditional dormitories? The answer is price. Next year, a modern double will cost $810 more than a traditional double. What is the effect of this price difference? Though there are most certainly exceptions, the price difference largely forces those students for whom the cost of college is a significant burden into traditional housing. I believe that this is a serious inequity with significant negative consequences. One of the great benefits of going to a college as wealthy as Washington University is that students are primarily chosen based on their intelligence and achievements regardless of whether they can afford to attend. Unfortunately, the aforementioned price difference erodes the valuable opportunity for students to live with students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

In addition, the fact that living in a modern dorm offers the academic advantage of RPMs furthers the inequity. Would it be fair if students receiving financial aid registered last for their classes? Certainly not! Then how is it fair for students who cannot afford the most expensive housing not to get the same academic tutoring options as their fellow students? The answer is that it is NOT fair, and the system should be changed.

Residential Life would argue that a difference in pricing between housing options is necessary because modern dorms simply cost more to build, operate and maintain (including the RPM program). I do not dispute this. Instead, I propose a solution: Simply average the price of traditional and modern housing, charge every student that price for housing; then hold a lottery to decide where everyone gets to live. While some students would still have to live in the older dorms, at least students would not be grouped by their ability to afford housing. In addition, because everyone would be paying the same amount for housing, RPMs could be provided for every dorm. This would of course require some sacrifice by those who can easily afford modern dorms; they of course could instead be placed into a traditional dorm. I would argue that this is a small price to pay to ensure that everyone has the enlightening opportunity to live in a more economically-diverse community.