The capsule will include many items that showcase today’s University life and culture, including letters from Chancellor Mark Wrighton, Vice Chancellor for Students James McLeod, Dean of Students Justin Carroll and various student leaders.

Other tokens of University culture for the capsule are under consideration as well, including an iPod and a menu from the dining hall.

Nadeem Siddiqui, resident district manager for Bon Appétit, originally came up with the idea for the capsule.

Siddiqui said his fondness for the University and its campus inspired him with the idea that a capsule of today’s college life needed to be preserved.

“Over all the places I work, this place has such an amazing energy and amazing students that you feel that it needs to be captured somewhere in such a way,” Siddiqui said.

Sophomore Hannah Bowling, speaker of Congress of the South 40, who has been involved in helping with the time capsule, agreed with Siddiqui that the capsule offers a unique opportunity for historical preservation.

“[The time capsule] seems like an incredible opportunity to preserve a piece of the current South 40 history and the current makeup of the student body with all the great new construction going on,” Bowling said.

Although the South 40 House will probably be renovated over the next century, the time capsule is expected to remain in the building until 2110.

According to Sara Koester, an architect from Mackey Mitchell Architects involved in the actual implementation of the time capsule, research is still not completed as to the size and makeup of the actual capsule.

Siddiqui on the University’s future

The capsule, Siddiqui said, will show future generations what life at Washington University was like in 2010.

“I think the main idea is how exciting would it be if we had 100 years later to open and look back at how the students lived their life [and] what the administrators’ vision was,” Siddiqui said.

Siddiqui also mentioned that when the time capsule is opened, it will be interesting for future University members to see how the current administrators’ vision of the University in 2110 compares to what actually occurred.

As much as Siddiqui said he values the current state of the University and its leaders, he expressedeven higher hopes for the University’s future.

Siddiqui said he believes that the University will continue to be involved in many scientific breakthroughs, including cures for cancer and AIDS.

Furthermore, he would like a University alum  to become the president of the United States.

“If I had my way,” Siddiqui said, “I would like the U.S. president to be a WU alum because…the students I have met and know have such a clean-cut vision about…improving the world, helping each other, supporting each other, building a community that is designed to help people who might not be as fortunate as we are. [They] are extremely smart people, but very humble.”

Siddiqui also commented on the future of food at the University.  He would like University members to continue eating healthy food and locally grown food items.

“I’d love to see, in 2110, farms on campus to provide the whole food system for eating on campus,” Siddiqui said. “[We should] have much more local products, healthy products, and [have] the students and people who come engaged in eating [and know] that it affects their body [and] affects their brain.”

But this tradition will soon be changing. The Student Technology Advisory Committee (STAC) and Student Technology Services (STS) have teamed up to reduce printing waste in residential halls.

Their solution is a system that enables students to print to a virtual universal printer from anywhere in Residential Life housing. They can then go to a printer anywhere on the residential campus and release their print job from that printer. But they must actually be in the computer lab to print the job.

Members of STAC and STS hope this system will cut down on the number of pages students print and never pick up.

The new system is managed by PaperCut. PaperCut gives Washington University technology services the power to implement many different sanctions, including paper quotas, fees per sheet of paper and the new release system.

Members of STS have high hopes for the new system.

“We hope that by having to physically be at a printer, that will cut back on the amount of waste,” said Barbara Braun, director of STS.

Although STS has not kept count of exactly how much waste there has been in the past, employees say they often observe a large number of packets that just sit in the computer labs until someone recycles them.

Students have also noticed this wastefulness.

“There’s this big tray full of paper that nobody ever uses,” sophomore William Swanson said.

Few students have reported problems with the new system.

“I think that so far students’ reaction to it in res-halls has been really positive,” said John Bailey, manager of STS. “I think the students like that you can print to the system anywhere and release it to any printer in the system…which I think is a nice thing they didn’t have before.”

Students also seem to understand the need for the new system.

“In terms of wastefulness, yes, it’s a good idea. In terms of convenience it might not be, but when it comes to environmental issues in general, oftentimes convenience has to be sacrificed, because in the long run what’s most important is that our environment is in a stable condition,” freshman Justin Blau said.

“I think it makes sense because if someone goes there and prints and doesn’t pick their things up, it saves paper,” sophomore Bridgette Zou said.

STS will be tracking the results of the new program over the next few semesters.

“We’re going to be monitoring this fall and this spring, working with STAC to see how printing totals compare and watching recycle bins to see waste anyway,” Braun said. “We’re taking it out for a test drive, and we’ll see what happens.”

Construction on the South 40 moves into Phase II, which includes College Hall and Eliot B. On Monday, ResLife and Dining Services representatives presented their vision for the South 40 to students. (Matt Lanter | Student Life)

“I understand that [the hole] is going to be a restaurant—dining area of some sort,” freshman Cameron Moubray said.

Some students, on the other hand, feel less clued in.

“I don’t know. I really don’t know,” freshman Annabella Chang said. “What is it going to be?”

In an effort to enlighten students about the future of the South 40, Student Union’s Campus Services Committee sponsored a “Dining and Construction Forum” on Monday night as part of Senate Outreach week.

Representatives from Dining Services and Residential Life at the forum discussed the second phase of the construction and beyond.

Following the completion of Umrath Hall and partial completion of the South 40 House in late August, the construction moves into Phase II, which is expected to bring radical changes to residential areas by fall 2010.

For one, the lower level of the South 40 House will be expanded into a permanent dining area five times the size of the current one.

The new dining area will also feature additional food options. A taquería and salad bar will be joining the currently available bakery, sandwich station and grill in the new dining area. In the meantime, the two stations reside in the temporary dining area on the upper level.

The new dining space will offer global cuisines such as Mongolian and Indian. The upper level will contain a kosher kitchen and office spaces.

A special chef’s kitchen will be added to the permanent dining facility. Students can reserve this space to host events like birthday parties and private dinners during which the chef will cook directly in front of students.

Chefs also plan to use this space to provide healthy cooking lessons for students that may be broadcasted through WUTube for any other interested students.

“[Students] come [to Washington University] for classes very far away from cooking, but there is a great amount of interest in healthy cooking,” Bon Appétit Executive Chef Gary Suarez said. “This is an opportunity to get together, teach a little and educate students on what we do here on campus.”

Bear Mart, currently located in the upper level of the South 40 House, will move downstairs. As part of the campaign for healthier eating and living, the new market will be similar to Whole Foods—selling more vegetables, fruits and homemade food and cutting down on processed food.

Connected to the South 40 House will be a new multipurpose area for student gatherings called College Hall. During regular hours, College Hall will serve as a seating area with flags for different residential colleges hanging from the ceiling. For special occasions, the space can accommodate events such as housing meetings and student group performances.

Outside the South 40 House, the asphalt driveway that currently divides the Swamp will be removed, and the Swamp will return to its original size.

Another addition to the South 40 will be a dorm near Eliot House, which the architects and administrators currently refer to as “Eliot B.” This new dorm, which will be named after a donor, will form a residential college with Eliot House.
The innovations for Phase II detailed above are not all that are in store for the South 40. Although plans to renovate Rubelmann Hall have been delayed due to the shortage of funding, the Office of Residential Life still intends to renovate the dorm in the near future, said Justin Carroll, associate vice chancellor and dean of students.

Connected to Umrath, the new Rubelmann will have storefronts for student activities on the lower floor and residential areas on the upper floors. If the financial situation allows, ResLife plans to renovate Beaumont and Lee halls as well.
Dick Kirschner of Mackey Mitchell Architects, the firm in charge of the South 40’s renovations, said he is excited for the construction’s end product.

“The whole idea is to create an urban space—an exciting neighborhood space,” Kirschner said.

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.

Why was everyone so riled up about Randy’s column? I’ve heard a couple of reasons.

The first is that its method was disrespectful and poorly executed. Criticism is fine, people said, but not when it is displayed in such a way. The Orientation Executive Board implies the same thing in their letter to the editor: They “would appreciate constructive criticism” sent to their e-mail address in clear opposition to what they thought Brachman’s article perpetrated.

I thought his criticism was indeed constructive: Most mandatory events entailed being talked at. Other events made it hard to interact with other freshmen. Events went late and caused sleep deprivation. Events were not memorable.

And his method, though perhaps not expert, was honest. He began with an introduction of self: “I am a freshman, and here is my personal experience.” He claims no more authority than that. He admits that he likes winning, and he acknowledges the reader-writer pact. His tone is sincere.

Comments and letters to the editor in opposition to the article, though, were generally neither constructive nor expertly formulated. Two of the comments were bitterly sarcastic: “I think your humility will truly benefit the WU community” and “I am sure that constructive criticism and positive thinking would do much to spare next year’s freshmen from suffering such a horrible fate as yours.” Needless to say, not only are these writers jerks, but also their style contradicts their own assertions.

And if we are talking about poor execution, let’s talk about the letters to the editor. I won’t point out particular parts in Joseph Marcus’ letter because I admire him for putting himself out there in the name of positivity, but I will say that I am surprised that nobody commented about his writing style—when we agree with the content, we let poor execution slip by, though we pounce on it feverishly when we think it purports controversial beliefs.

The Orientation executives’ letter, on the other hand, bothers me not so much with its sterile verbage but with its own lack of support for its claims. The “freshman orientation evaluation from this year,” on which Orientation activities appear to be “highly ranked as fun programs,” doesn’t have any bearing at all on Brachman’s claims. He made legitimate criticisms, and high “fun” rankings (and number one rankings for helpfulness in preparing for Wash. U.—duh) don’t refute those. Only good sense does, and we don’t see that in the Executive Board’s letter.

I understand as well the second criticism of Brachman’s article, and perhaps the one that most inflamed tempers: that many people had worked very hard on Orientation this year for very little compensation. A lot, indeed, was put into this event.

But hear this: Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Student Life comes out with a staff editorial criticizing something in the University that has gone wrong. Last Monday, it was communication about construction. Now, I cannot even imagine the amount of resources going into construction right now and the amount of effort going into the links between Clayco, Residential Life and Washington University as a whole. It is on their minds, to be sure. But they still do a terrible job at this communication. Nobody has any idea what is going on with construction. This need to change. Using so many resources to do a job so poorly is even sadder than not having tried in the first place.

The same goes for all Student Life staff editorials, and the same goes for Student Life columns. People, generally, do the best they can. They know the goal, and they are working toward it. But sometimes they do an awful job. That’s where we step in, as an entity not so entrenched in the relevant work as to be blind to its macro results.

People work hard, but often they need to change anyway. Communication about construction certainly does. Maybe Orientation needs to change as well.