With the news that the REAL (Residential Engagement in Academic Life) program is no longer active, it is worth reflecting on the effectiveness of such an initiative. I participated in the REAL program as a First-Year primarily because college forums had successfully convinced me that my life would end if I was placed in Dunham. The community-building part seemed all well and good, but, in all seriousness, the overdramatized tales of Dunham being a cesspool had thoroughly scared me to the point that I was willing to do pretty much anything to avoid living there.
In previous years, rising first-years could request to participate in the REAL program on their roommate survey. REAL students lived together on the top two floors of South Residence Hall and took a class together. Additionally, the professor of whichever class you took was your advisor, thus creating, in theory, a close knit and small community within the Hamily. The stated purpose was that, “Students have a chance to connect with faculty and one another meaningfully during their first semester on campus.” This mission statement, while incredibly wholesome, is pretty much the tagline of every Hamilton program — building community, making friends and student/faculty engagement. What it boils down to is that the REAL program was designed to give you a few friends and a relationship with one professor with one of the newest and most aesthetically pleasing dorms on campus as bait.
The effectiveness of the program was moderate. Although the REAL program was not detrimental to my first year experience, I do not think it had any more or less of an effect than any other freshman dorm would have had. I definitely made friends through living in close proximity in South, but most people make at least a few friends in their first year simply by living in the same building or on the same floor. I do not think the experience I had making friends in South as a part of the REAL program was much different than what I would have had if I lived in Keehn, North or even, quite honestly, Dunham. The ease of meeting and visiting a friend who lives across the hall or downstairs is nearly universal and certainly not exclusive to the REAL program. I suppose the initiative was designed to create a more intense bond between floormates because of the shared class, but, again, the relationships I built in class with fellow program participants
were not materially different than those I made in classes outside of the program. The REAL program had no unique effect on my relationships. I think perhaps the program could have been more effective had there been more organized activities in the dorm or even within classes. That did not seem to be a priority of the program at all. REAL program gatherings were limited to floor meetings organized by our R.A., which every dorm has. Most programs on campus that center around engagement of one type or another mandate a whole host of bonding activities, which the REAL program neglected to do.
The REAL program also failed to maximize its possible effectiveness because of the manner in which participants met and interacted with each other. Although I believe I at least recognized the majority of REAL program participants in my year, there was no mechanism through which we all met one another. The only time we were all together in one space was at an R.A. meeting at the beginning of the year. Something like a field day or brunch early in the program could have helped in creating an overall program bond, even if it did not involve the most exciting of activities. Even weekly meetings or check-ins might have improved the program’s effectiveness in facilitating durable connections.
The REAL program did not detract from my first-year experience, but I cannot honestly say that it contributed materially either. I think I would have made the friends I made in my classes and from living in South without the blanket of the REAL program. Being exposed to as many people as possible freshman year is often a good thing; it allows you to find your niche. But the REAL program did not expose me to anything I would have otherwise missed. It was, in many ways, contentless because it did not consciously “do” much of anything to accomplish its stated goals. None of this is to say that the goals of this program were useless. In fact, if executed differently, it could have served as a great facilitator for transitioning into college life.
If the REAL program, or something like it, is ever to be brought back, there would need to be increased exposure to more program participants through periodic organized activities. Otherwise, it would remain an essentially hollow program for what living in any first-year dorm and taking first-year courses already provides you.
