University of Texas Austin - Cactus Yearbook (Austin, TX)

Page 31 text:

: - -::,-; times, problems and sometimes even a little studying. Several private dorms catered to the needs and wants of other students. Located just off the campus border, dorms such as Dobie, the Castilian, Contessa and Barrone housed resi- dents who enjoyed dorm life with a flair. Residents enjoyed large game rooms and spectacular views of the campus and the hills of West Austin. The spirit of sharing engulfed coop- erative housing. Students took turns at cooking, cleaning and shopping. Closeness prevailed, and many co-op residents seemed reluctant to change their environment. If the student was independent and wealthy enough, the temptation of apartment living was ever present. Size and privacy were big advantages for apartments, while the distance from campus and finances made many reluctant to move from other compara- tively secure living arrangements. Cooking and cleaning for themselves did not make apartment living any more pleasing for students. Such things as a shuttle bus strike and the escalation of already high utility costs left apartment dwellers looking for scarce parking spaces or huddled fully clothed beneath blankets in order to conserve energy and money. Married students found that eco- nomical living was available at the married student housing and trailer park. They were able to live in close proximity to others with much the same goals and problems, succeeding at school and at marriage. Fraternity and sorority houses pro- vided residents with steadfast friend- ships. Sticking together were the key words in describing the Greek atmos- phere, as members lived and shared experiences. Living at home seemed to be the epitome of security. Homestyle cook- ing outweighed the burden of having to drive to campus every day. How- ever, the students living at home found that they were unable to completely immerse themselves into campus activities. While some students found the library and classes only a short hike away, for those living at home, studying was usually done far from campus in a sometimes tumultuous environment. Most of the housing on campus or owned by the University is relatively old. Few of these monuments are ever destroyed, even in the cases of Brackenridge and Deep Eddy Apart- ments which were supposedly tempo- rary housing in 1946. However, the thought of replacing these or any of the other housing buildings seemed almost inconceivable to those who live or have lived in them. The buildings contained more than posters on walls and furniture. Apart- ments, dorms, co-ops, houses, mobile homes and Greek houses contained the experiences which go hand in hand with living and attending the Uni- versity. Continued '

Page 30 text:

STUDENT LIVING There ' s No Place Apartments, dorms, co-ops, houses and married student housing where students lived often dictated how they lived. Since the University ottered so many different types of residences, students could easily find their niches and live in their own way. At times dormitories seemed to have been built in order to allow friendships to develop, and to enable a wide array of persons to touch the resident ' s life. Whether on or off campus, the major outward goal of a dorm was to provide a no-hassles environment near the campus. Freshmen especially found the dorms desirable for getting the feel of college life. That environment was sometimes interrupted with pranks or discussions which were reminders that the true accomplishment was in bring- ing persons together for sharing good

Page 32 text:

Littlefield residents enjoy the relaxed, friendly atmosphere of dorm life. ...home You just received your letter of acceptance to The University of Texas at Austin congratulations! Now you and 41 ,000 other students must decide where to live while attending the biggest university in the state. The first decision concerning housing a student needs to make is whether to live on or off campus, and then how much money he or she has to spend on living accommodations. On- campus housing prices ranged from $398 for a long session term (two semesters) with no meals at Andrews for women and Brackenridge-Roberts-Prather halls for men, to $1544 for a long term with meals included at Jester Center Hall, the only on- campus coed dorm. Living on campus provided convenience to classes, on-cam- pus libraries and organization meetings. It also meant little change in scenery for the student who could not get off cam- pus. Most dorms offered a dining option so that residents always had a prepared meal ready for consumption, without the worry of cleaning up dishes. However, dorm food was some- what notorious for its lack of variety and mass production blandness. All on-campus dorms provided limited maid and linen service and a private Centrex phone line as part of ser- vices included in the rent. Resident Assistants (or RAs) offered h elp to residents with personal, academic and housing prob- lems and often planned the dorm parlies or wing flings and meetings to discuss policies which varied on each floor. One of the major disadvantages of the on-campus dorms was the excess of noise which occasionally exceeded concentration levels. But whatever the pros or cons, on-campus housing contin- ued to boast of near full capacity with 5400-plus students. Dorm living is an opportunity to meet people and get ac- quainted with college, Nevada Blackburn, who recently retired after 37 years as head of Housing and Food Service, com- mented. Dormitory living gave residents a chance to know fel- low students outside of classroom experiences. Most residents agreed the experience of living in a dorm helped them grow emotionally as well as intellectually during their college years. 24 On-Campus Housing Built in 1 936, Roberts Hall offers economical housing for men