Opinion: The first-year on-campus living requirement creates a stigma around living on campus past that first year, even if that is a more sustainable option.
– – – – – – – – – –
Toward the end of the winter term of my first year at the University of Oregon, I was sitting in Riley Hall one day pretending to myself that I was getting Spanish homework done when my roommate walked in. He said that we and two of our friends were going to look at apartments for next year in a half-hour and to throw some shoes on. I just agreed to tag along.
Until then, my roommate and I hadn’t once discussed where or with whom we’d be living after our first year. Whether or not we’d stay in the dorms was never a question before. Though as soon as he mentioned looking for a place to live off-campus, I immediately accepted that as the next step. After all, the requirement to live on campus is only for student’s first year. When that first year ends, you get an apartment or a houseThat’s the plan, right? I’d never considered staying in campus housing more than that first year.
I don’t regret my decision at all; It was the most sensible decision for my living situation financially, socially and ergonomically. However, I continue to ponder why I had never even considered staying in the dorms for another year or so.
The most concerning reason to me is that said rule of on-campus housing expires after that first year. I would assume most people’s thoughts after hearing they don’t have to do something they were required to do for an extended amount of time is to stop doing that thing. For some, the instinct doesn’t arrive instantly (see: graduate students), but for the most part, the dorms are by association a “freshman thing”: land of the green lanyard and 8 a.m. J201.
This stereotype is unfortunate to me because it deters students from staying in the dorms past their first year even if they are a more sustainable housing option for them.
Most of the dorms are directly on campus, allowing students without means of long-distance transportation to get to their classes conveniently. Cooked food prepared for students could be a realistic option for those not used to shopping on their own or some that get distracted by school and forget to eat.
With how fast housing moves in Eugene, upperclassmen shouldn’t feel boxed in to get an apartment or rush into leases not compatible with their living needs.
Yet the one-year requirement makes it feel like a deal you need to get out of. The university should drop the rule if it actually wants to house those who need and want it.
The one-year requirement feels like a housing hustle from the university, anyway. Is it not enough that they need to dictate our learning curve and career path but also our living arrangements, too? 
The housing website states that the requirement is based on studies showing on-campus students yield higher GPAs and faster graduation tracks. They also cite that one-year will allow students to create connections and networks between themselves and campus. 
Do you know what would help bolster the dorm life networks? If that network wasn’t full of people that just got to college and don’t know what to do yet; if there was a natural mix of upperclassmen and underclassmen. The upperclassmen don’t know what they’re doing either, but at least they have experience in being lost.
Moreover, the data on student’s academic success on campus comes with many external factors. Some specific dorm arrangements would be cheaper than the average cost of renting and living in Eugene apartments or houses, but others (like Unthank or Kalapuya Ilihi) can be much more expensive. There has been a gap in education quality wedged open by wealth for some time now in this country, and that affects the data much more than proximity to campus.
The other argument for the first-year requirement is building community on campus and feeling connected with the goings-on of college, which is fair. That’s something many people look forward to with their time here, and their choice of where to stay should accommodate that.
Upperclassmen shouldn’t feel outcasted after their first year, though. 
If the rule were to be dropped— as I think it should —the university should focus on neighborhood events and community outreach off-campus. This could be as simple as planning get-togethers for student-dense areas like the Courtside and Skybox apartments or along Patterson Street. In my mind, the university could also designate student advisors to live in each of these areas, and their student neighbors could reach out to them for information on campus and events. 
In short: try harder to make students feel a part of campus than chaining them to it for a year.
The first-year living requirement should be dropped to avoid the brand of it being a freshman jail and allow those of all grade levels to experience the dorm life.