Fri 2 Mar 2007
The Record claims that “Dodd is coming to be seen as the ugly alternative to the larger, more attractive clusters.” True? I haven’t heard this before. I have my doubts. How many students applied to switch out? I can’t remember anyone claiming that Dodd was significantly less desirable than the other clusters in the last few years. And I looked hard for criticisms of neighborhood housing. If anything, the convenience of having a cluster-specific (and accessible from inside) dining hall seemed to make Dodd one of the more desirable clusters. There was no evidence (that I recall) that students favored other neighborhoods over Dodd during the selection process last year.
Or is this just the case of upset Record board members wanting better housing next year?
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:20 pm
It is absolutely true. Dodd has 69% single rooms (compare to Currier, 84%, or the other two clusters, both >90%). It’s actually worse than that, when you consider that a disproportionate number of those singles are in Tyler Annex, of all places.
If you’re a senior, it’s great, unless you’re one of the few seniors who are stuck in Lehman — without the kitchen B&G said they were going to install. If you’re anyone else, your housing is substandard. Way substandard. Now throw in the North Academic Building construction project, coming to the Lehman-Dodd corridor after spring break.
And Dodd’s wacky geographic distribution, high percentage of beds in teeny houses instead of decent sized dorms, and lack of logical social spaces all add up to a lack of the semblance of community other clusters might have.
When we were drawing up the criticisms of anchor housing way back when, we didn’t know the frosh would be in Mission. Dean Roseman’s great idea has destroyed any chance Dodd had at being even close to on par with other clusters.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Whoops, that 84% number may not be Currier. It could be Wood.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
this isn’t directly on point, but I always felt Dodd, the dining hall, was vastly overrated. I felt it was”ergonomically autistic,” and it didn’t make much sense, trying to use it, going one way, then another, bumping into people, nothing logically laid out. Then again, there were Dodd partisans who would stop at nothing to convince you that it was the greatest dining hall on God’s good green earth.
This might be a contributing factor. On paper, having a dining hall in your dorm is sweet, but in actuality, wouldn’t you rather eat at Greylock?
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
There’s also the factor that the Dodd dining hall will be even more restricted in its service times now that Paresky has opened.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Aidan - agreed.
J Lev - thanks, I knew I’d forgotten something.
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
The food in Dodd went significantly downhill in the 2005-2006 year. They didn’t seem to be able to handle all the increased foot traffic that resulted from the closing of Baxter.
Kids food night was truly terrible. Every single lunch at Dodd was nothing but hamburgers, hot dogs, and french fries, and they felt they would break the mold by serving again, hamburgers, hot dogs, and french fries on Sunday nights, as if it hadn’t been on the menu every day for the past week and were a novelty. And yet, it was the busiest night of the week, with tremendous lines out the front door, over-eager freshmen at the back of the line “saving” tables with their jackets while people in line in front of them struggled to find tables, and so on.
Living in Dodd was nice before cluster housing, but it didn’t have a big community feel unless you were involved in the BSU, whose members tended to dominate the house.
March 2nd, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Actually your numbers are a little off. Dodd is 65% singles compared to 81% for Currier, 79% for Wood, and 84% for Spencer. As AWG points out, over half of Dodd’s singles are in Tyler Annex (the least desirable house on campus) and Lehman (arguably the second least desirable house…if not, without a doubt an undesirable house).
Regarding pick-in, I was off campus but my understanding was that Dodd was either the last or the second to last cluster to go in 2/3 of the class years. Regarding transfering out, I don’t have the exact numbers, but Dodd did have the highest absolute number as well as the highest percentage of frosh request to transfer out.
Why was this not addressed by the CUL in the past two years? The 2004-2005 CUL was working with a 5 cluster model that would have included significant Tyler Annex renovations, as was the 2005-2006 CUL for most of the year. The proposal to change to a four cluster model was not made with sufficient time to fully analyze housing equity. Most notable, was the decision made–I believe by the OCL–to convert many Dodd Neighborhood former singles into doubles.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Dean Roseman bypassed CUL to implement the current cluster model essentially as a fait accompli.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
They’ve killed Dodd. It was by far the best dining hall during my freshman year. Now, with the rise of Paresky, Dodd has stopped serving breakfast and lunch altogether, and only serves dinner and Sunday brunch.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
1. Dodd and Dining Services
2. Anchor Housing gripe
A map of the current grouping of clusters, in case anyone hasn’t seen it yet, is here.
I believe I can confirm that Dodd Dining Hall was on its way out even when I was still there, 2004-5. Aidan points out that its design is a challenge indeed — you fill your drinks where the incoming crowd files in and that’s just one of many bad bottlenecks — but I want to defend Dining Services (DS) some here. Ronit, no one “killed Dodd.”
Dodd was considered the leader when I stepped onto campus, by many. DS rightly turned their attention to improvements elsewhere, and by Fall 2005 factors had aligned to put Dodd dining in last place. It was taking an influx from the closing of Baxter that its architecture couldn’t handle. Mission and Driscoll had had major successful renovations and Greylock had brunch and wrap and other special food nights that people loved, as well as a lot of open seating.
Dodd dining didn’t get worse, it just got relatively worse. Its burden should have gone down already, which will greatly improve the experience . . . if not, making that happen should be the short term solution.
And to get on my anchor housing box briefly again . . . Roseman’s last minute decision about freshmen in Mission was indeed something of a coup, but probably no more than the last in a long series of serious threats to keeping the clusters balanced in the eyes of students. The CUL went through at least four plans of grouping the dorms — and that just counts those they made public — and each one had serious problems with geography. Group Tyler and Tyler Annex with the Dodd quad? Great idea! You would never, never, never make such a ridiculous choice unless you felt forced to. When the CUL decided they had to put every dorm in a cluster, they forced themselves to choose among a bunch of half-bad options with regards to geography.
That the school is now committed to a constant effort to try to balance the desirablility of the clusters is a nightmare they will constantly reap. The better clusters fight the rise of cross-year theme or segregated housing, the more students will judge the clusters by their amenities — because that is all that will distinguish them. The only alternative scenario I can think of is the establishment of four clusters with four equally robust, multi-year, desirable social traditions. No, I do not think that this is a realistic vision. It was the CUL’s vision.
So for now, it’s Dodd that is bearing the brunt of the challenge, but the Record and other fora are sure to publish similar articles each year as Room Draw approaches, and preferences are bound to develop each year. It must be frustrating to the administrators, who probably feel we make big deals out of small ones in our mostly fabulous housing. They are half right, but it does not change the forces that have always moved the students, and led to the destruction of the previous “you live in one house for three years” system.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Actually, up until and including 2003-2004, Dodd had theme, usually international, dinners every night (or almost every night) which were quite popular. It could rightfully be argued that eliminating all of these except Kids’ Night amounts to “killing Dodd.”
March 5th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
They actually brought back the theme nights when Paresky opened. That said, the new “international” theme nights are weak imitations of the originals.