To the Editor:

      It is necessary to view The Commons qualitatively and accept the positives as well as the negatives. There is no reason that a definitive black and white label must be created to commend its success or condemn its failure, though both Greg Gauthier and Katherine Miller imply just that.

One student’s perspective, Gauthier’s specifically, is not representative of the entire Class of 2012’s experience, and certainly one’s experience is what is made of it. There were numerous opportunities to participate in events with other houses, but if one does not want to participate — and Gauthier himself even said he was not outgoing — then one isn’t going to feel a sense of community or connection with other students. One may even miss the subtle personalities the houses have developed over the year.

However, house identities as pronounced as Gryffindor or Slytherin aren’t terribly important anyway when students are interacting as a class and not a house. Roommates meet with friends from across The Commons at fourth meal to lament the latest chemistry test or to simply procrastinate.

With regards to roommates, Vanderbilt could certainly come up with a better selection process. I would be the first person to attest to this and advocate for a more in-depth system for random pairing, but this is something to learn from and change. The random pairing for the VUcept groups, though, is not without merit or purpose. Even if you don’t become best buddies with the group members, you are exposed to people and viewpoints you might not otherwise take the time to consider. However, VUcept is also still changing and evolving into something more students can relate to and enjoy. It’s not perfect, but it’s not immutable.

As for Miller, she seems to be under the impression that everyone must study in groups in order to be successful or bonded. The dorms, new and old, offer plenty of quiet study space, and the Commons Center is a great place to socialize. Why must we study there specifically to be considered bonded or connected?

That aside, I mostly take issue with Miller’s conviction that we wasted The Commons. This class of students walked starry-eyed onto campus into this completely new concept of college life, and on top of that, we were the guinea pigs for the new Commons experiment. Was Miller expecting perfection? I hope not; we were given this experience to see what would happen. Perhaps we didn’t achieve the Hogwarts she would have liked, but Hogwarts was a thousand years old; The Commons is only one, and there was plenty of room for error.

Was the project a complete failure? Certainly not. But was it a complete success? No, not quite. Peabody lawn could have been turned into a much-needed Quidditch pitch, for one thing. But we take these shortcomings in stride, make modifications and try things differently the next time around.

Kyle H. Broach
East House Vice President
College of Arts & Sciences