When I first read about Saint Mary's College requiring sophomores to live on campus starting in 2026, I was ready to cross them off my list . I'm 22, and I've been looking forward to the independence of off-campus living. The thought of being stuck in a dorm for two years felt stifling.
But after reading the rationale from the college and the perspective of an RA, my opinion has done a complete 180. I realized I was thinking about it all wrong.
I was prioritizing privacy over community. The article cites years of evidence showing that students who live on campus earn better grades, finish college sooner, and feel a deeper sense of belonging . As someone who is anxious about transferring to a new place, "belonging" is actually what I need most.
The RA, Galilea Candido's, description of her role changed my mind. She talks about creating a "welcoming environment" where residents feel comfortable just stopping by to chat . She hosts events and sees her hall as "home." This isn't just a place to sleep; it's a built-in support network. She also pointed out that living on campus gave her access to resources like CAPS and made it easier to get involved with clubs and sports .
The college isn't just forcing this on students; they're responding to data showing that second-year students already choose to stay . They're leaning into what works.
For me, the first year of college is about survival. The second year, with a requirement to stay on campus, could be about thriving. It's an opportunity to double down on relationships, get leadership experience (like becoming an RA), and take full advantage of everything the campus has to offer before being thrust into the "real world." The expanded meal options and Bay Area outings also sound like a great way to de-stress .
I'm not saying it's for everyone, but for a student like me who needs help building a community, this policy is starting to feel less like a restriction and more like an investment in my future self. For other transfers, would a two-year residency rule be a dealbreaker or a selling point?
But after reading the rationale from the college and the perspective of an RA, my opinion has done a complete 180. I realized I was thinking about it all wrong.
I was prioritizing privacy over community. The article cites years of evidence showing that students who live on campus earn better grades, finish college sooner, and feel a deeper sense of belonging . As someone who is anxious about transferring to a new place, "belonging" is actually what I need most.
The RA, Galilea Candido's, description of her role changed my mind. She talks about creating a "welcoming environment" where residents feel comfortable just stopping by to chat . She hosts events and sees her hall as "home." This isn't just a place to sleep; it's a built-in support network. She also pointed out that living on campus gave her access to resources like CAPS and made it easier to get involved with clubs and sports .
The college isn't just forcing this on students; they're responding to data showing that second-year students already choose to stay . They're leaning into what works.
For me, the first year of college is about survival. The second year, with a requirement to stay on campus, could be about thriving. It's an opportunity to double down on relationships, get leadership experience (like becoming an RA), and take full advantage of everything the campus has to offer before being thrust into the "real world." The expanded meal options and Bay Area outings also sound like a great way to de-stress .
I'm not saying it's for everyone, but for a student like me who needs help building a community, this policy is starting to feel less like a restriction and more like an investment in my future self. For other transfers, would a two-year residency rule be a dealbreaker or a selling point?