One gleans from watching the video a really odd sense of students projecting a certain version of themselves toward the camera’s lens and, by extension, the video’s audience: The interviewees seem to take a big breath, look up at the sky to summon their words and then launch into an automaton-like imitation of a real person saying what he thinks about this new ranking. There are a number of moments when the interviewees are saying something grammatically quite simple, but at which they pause and need to collect their thoughts, even if very briefly, before moving on to the next part of the clause. Their eyes stare at the camera hypnotized but also, quite clearly, calculating.

It’s not that Student Life chose to interview a bunch of deadbeats. It’s that there’s been this internalization of the video camera’s gaze developed in light of the knowledge that all of us now have, of what things look like on television and in the movies. (I’m cribbing most of this from David Foster Wallace’s “E Unibus Pluram,” so you know.) We’ve become hyperconscious of the power of audio-visual media, and we more or less understand that it textualizes life, taking the stupid, insignificant stuff we say and making it the only thing people know about us. As Wallace puts it, “we receive unconscious reinforcement of the deep thesis that the most significant quality of truly alive persons is watchableness.” And because we are so thoroughly shot through with this idea, we can’t function when we are actually on camera. We look like robots.

Is there a solution to this? Maybe watch no/less television. Maybe cultivate in yourself contempt for the video camera rather than a nervous reverence. But one thing I know will be a step in the right direction is to, emphatically, get an opinion. Or a style. Or an ability to analyze interestingly. The students in this video (to whom I should by now be apologizing profusely) also display a real inability to articulate anything of real interest. It is largely the gaze of the camera that precludes good thoughts, I know; camera anxiety extends not just to manner but to content as well. But this video watches like a Wash. U. propaganda piece. Interviewees said, “The food is good, the dorms are nice, people are nice,” etc., which is positive because it means people like it here and that, theoretically, they really value the good things they have.

The real problem with these declarations, I think, was the lack of enthusiasm with which they were delivered. Students listed aspects of the school that were “good” as if by rote, and if there was enthusiasm, it was performed. This “good” evaluation sans enthusiasm is very unsettling to me. It indicates that students in fact expect the good—that “good” is their baseline—and that though they verbally acknowledge that we are very lucky to be here, their emotional state does not correspond. When they say they are “happy,” they mean they are going through their lives and everything is going fine.

In my mind, when we are a part of something as “good” as these students claim it to be, we should be emotionally (not just verbally) ecstatic every morning we wake up. We, as students, should re-evaluate either the way we describe this place or the way we really, actually feel every day. “Good” is not baseline.

“We actively seek student input on all of our services and programs. We listen, and we make changes when they are reasonable and within our ability to do so,” Hoffner wrote in an e-mail to Student Life.

The University also placed in top rankings for several subcategories, including 10th in both “Best Campus Food” and “Dorms Like Palaces.”

Two newly arrived freshmen unpack and assemble their room on move-in day in August. Washington University ranked fourth in terms of quality of life, according to the 2010 version of an annual survey by The Princeton Review. The survey judges universities on numerous factors, like dorms, food and overall happiness. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

The publication surveys more than 122,000 students each year to rank 20 schools in a variety of categories for its “Best 371 Colleges” book. The 2010 rankings came out in July.

The Quality of Life category judges schools based on the quality of their food, dorms, campus accessibility and attraction, safety, surrounding communities, administrative operation and students’ interactions, friendliness and overall happiness.

Rice University was ranked at No. 1 in Quality of Life, followed by Bowdoin College, Claremont McKenna College and Washington University. Other schools featured in the category include Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Middlebury College, Smith College, Barnard College, St. Michael’s College and Clemson University.

Justin Carroll, associate vice chancellor for students and dean of students, also noted the role of students’ feedback in the University’s high quality of life ranking.

“[Continuing to seek input of our students and other University colleagues] is the way things are done here—it is part of our campus culture,” Carroll said.

A Campus Services Committee within Student Union and headed by junior Greg Schweizer focuses on improving non-academic aspects of the University, such as dining, transport, security, residential life and sustainability. An administrator sits in on the committee’s weekly meetings to ensure that its members are aware of new developments within the University. The process also allows the committee to make suggestions about campus life to the administration.

Last week, the committee met with Hoffner and Nadeem Siddiqui, resident district manager for Bon Appétit. According to the SU blog, the committee suggested that certain food items from last year’s menus be returned as meal options, the possibility of a crepe night in Ursa’s Café and the use of biodegradable plastic water cups.

Dining Services is already incorporating some of these suggestions into practice, according to Hoffner.

The administration takes recommendations from students in other forms as well, such as through comment cards and advisory committees for dining services and parking and transportation.

“The administration is responsive because they care about undergrads,” Schweizer said.

Schweizer said he believes the University is worthy of its ranking.

“I think we have a really great quality of life,” he said. “I think our dining is superb. I think our housing for the most part is far above other institutions.”

For Hoffner, having the 10th best campus food is well deserved, too.

“We offer more locations and more operating hours than many of our peer institutions,” Hoffner wrote. “Overall, I think the quality of our food is outstanding.”

Hoffner indicated that once the issues with dining on the South 40 are fixed next year, the food on campus will be even better.

“We know that we are limited on dining space and options this year, but we are confident that next year we will have the best university dining facilities in the country,” he wrote.

Besides the food services, the University benefits from other attributes that Hoffner believes may have helped the institution in its rankings. The Washington University Police Department (WUPD), for one, is a great asset to the University, according to Hoffner.

“WUSTL’s Police Department is headed by one of the most widely respected University Police Chiefs in the country, Don Strom,” he wrote.

Hoffner also complimented WUPD’s off-campus involvement, coordination with the city police and its positive interactions with the student body.

Hoffner said, overall, that the people who work at the University make all the difference.

“We have an incredibly dedicated staff in Student Affairs, Campus Life, Residential Life, Student Financial Services, Student Health & Wellness and many other departments,” Hoffner wrote. “They truly care about students, and they are totally committed to making WUSTL among the very best in the country.”

Carroll pointed out, however, that the reasons behind the administration’s decisions are not merely for the sake of gaining high rankings.

“It is always nice, of course, to be considered by others who provide input such rankings. But the rankings don’t motivate our decisions—our students do,” Carroll said.

While it is impossible to rank someone’s quality of life, it is possible to approximate. We know that someone who does not need to worry about where his next meal is coming from has a better life than someone who does need to worry. Once people have shelter, food, water and safety, we must look at harder to quantify areas. This is where the approximating comes in.

With physical needs met, relationships, esteem, love and self-actualization must be considered. If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because Abraham Maslow thought this system up in the 1950s. He outlined a hierarchy of needs with the physical—food, drink, sleep—at the bottom and, at the peak, self-actualization. Self-actualization is doing what you were born to do. For example, writers write, teachers teach and directors direct. When all of these needs have been met, your quality of life is the best it can be.

How do you measure someone’s progress to self-actualization? Doing so requires knowing what the person was born to do and how close they are to achieving it. We cannot measure this for ourselves, let alone for those around us. However, we can estimate the quality of someone’s friendships, love life and esteem through questionnaires. Using these, we can extrapolate how near someone is to self-actualization, but extrapolation is inherently inaccurate. Effectively, we must take that quality-of-life ranking with a large grain of salt.

Self-actualization is the something missing when nothing else is missing. The need for self-actualization makes otherwise-comfortable people restless. College is the time for this restlessness, as all of our other needs are best served by the academic environment. All of our physical needs are provided for, and the needs of belonging, love, affection and esteem can be easily satiated. You can knock out at least two of the four by simply joining a fraternity or sorority. Freshmen Resident Advisors’ jobs include making sure these needs are being met.

At no other time in our life will we live surrounded by people our own age, all working towards similar goals. Now is the time when all of our friends are no further than a walk. Taking advantage of all of these privileges to work on our last need makes sense.

Finding out what we were born to do and doing it is a tall order, but it only gets harder when we have other commitments—jobs, families. When we finish college, our good friends may be too far away or too busy to have those conversations that make us reevaluate how we see the world. College is the time for restlessness—at the very least, we can observe this from most people changing their major at least once (especially if they come in as a BME at Wash. U.).

In changing a major, we gain the experience of having tried something. It seems that the best way to find out what we were born to do is to do it. So go for it. Try new things, but more importantly, meet new people. Wash. U. prides itself on its diversity of race, but diversity of thought is what is most needed.

We are truly privileged to be at Wash. U. Resources to improve our quality of life surround us. St. Louis is a Metro ride away. The Loop is a short walk or shorter bike ride. Olin library is in the center of campus. Your new friends are down the hall. Be restless and go for a trip.