By Stefania Zajdel and Esmée Zuiker
A major advantage AUC has over the other branches of UvA or VU is the fact that it ensures housing for the three years it takes to finish its program. With roughly 900 students living in the dorms, the housing selection and internal move turn into complicated processes, which can lead to inconveniences for some students. But is it AUC’s fault, or is it an unavoidable part of an endeavour of this scale? There are two perspectives worth considering: that of the students, and that of the people in charge of making the moving magic happen.
A person who sees the more administrative and technical side of the moving process is Marcus Smit, Head of AUC’s Service and Communication department. He has worked at AUC for about a decade and describes his role as “basically taking care of all the non-academic stuff,” including internationalization, press and media, communications and acting as liaison with DUWO.
Smit explains that AUC was founded with the vision of being a residential program, a plan that was difficult to realize, but found luck in our dormitory. “The housing facility wasn’t purpose-built for AUC,” he explains, “it was designed as a mixed-use residence for students, PhD candidates, and visiting researchers.” He says it took a few years before it was fully occupied by AUC students and, in the meantime, the administration had to figure out how to house 900 students in roughly 600 apartments. “It would have been ideal to have 900 identical rooms,” Smit admits, noting that the differences in room types cause feelings of unfairness. This led to AUC introducing the internal move, a system that allows students to switch rooms after their first year.
While an internal move can be an attractive option, it is not without its challenges, as highlighted by Pam-Pam Patthanadettrakul, a first-year Science student who is currently in the process of switching rooms. She found the procedure poorly organized and communicated. “I probably would have missed the move’s registration form if it weren’t for my roommate, since it was in the AUC email newsletter, which I usually don’t check.” While she caught the deadline in time, she points out that many others did not.
When asked about the communication issues, Smit explains he would prefer the housing timeline to be online during the entire academic year, but that AUC relies on DUWO for creating it. “DUWO works with multiple institutions and has limited staff, it cannot manage all housing allocations simultaneously”, he states. He explains that each year, DUWO is responsible for coordinating the time slots with its affiliated partners and sometimes this is done late. Smit suspects this year’s communication was even further delayed by the departure of AUC’s former housing coordinator, Ms. Tuinier.
Smit also explains that the newsletter only serves as a reminder for important updates, but that the primary source of information should be student.auc.nl. He notes that both the move information and a hyperlink to the registration form were available on the website throughout the entire second semester. Also, according to him, only a few people came to them because they had missed the deadline. Those who came the same day the deadline passed were still allowed to participate. Even the people who reached out later were accommodated, although by then, fewer rooms were available.
“The housing procedure is a huge effort for DUWO,” Smit admits, explaining that “each year already around ten percent of incoming students drop out before the start of the academic year. With the internal move and four person mixer on top of it, you are dealing with roughly 600 mutations, all of which have to happen within two weeks.” He reveals that if it was up to some of DUWO’s staff, the internal move would probably be scrapped. He explains that in their eyes, you already have a room, so you don’t need a new one.
Another type of housing selection developed over the years is the four-person mixer. For a long time, four-person households “arose by random placement,” which led to issues. “People in general will always have problems living together,” Smit says, “but in this case, it was really not working out well.” He saw the need for change. “You need a system where students feel more agency over their living situation,” he explains.
Smit noticed that all the households that did work shared a strong collective identity. Inspired by this, he launched the four-person mixer: a Zoom meeting where students, guided by household-created profiles, join breakout rooms to meet existing households. Afterward, each house submits a list of five preferred students, which AUC uses to create matches. Smit says he’s pleased with the outcome, noting a noticeable drop in room-related issues since the mixer was introduced.
Though highly appreciative of the mixer, first-year Science major Enora Kriegel and her four-person household, who are currently searching for a new roommate, had some concerns. While she feels this year’s mixer was an improvement over the last, she still found it disorganized. “Breakout rooms were too full, making it hard to really get to know someone,” Kriegel says.
She explains that, after the mixer, several students reached out to them, giving their household a better chance at finding someone they felt truly matched. However, the student they selected also became the top choice for another house and AUC only informed the student about the other house and not theirs. Kriegel’s household was disappointed by this, feeling it was never clearly explained why AUC had ‘chosen’ the other house over them.
Kriegel believes that when students are selected by multiple houses, they should be given the choice between them. “It will only apply to very few people,” she says, “and not allowing that choice could lead to bigger issues later if a house doesn’t get along, compared to simply facilitating it.”
Overall, Kriegel and her housemates express their gratitude for AUC housing, but note they see room for improvement. They say students would even be willing to help, recognizing the heavy workload the housing team already carries.
Regarding facilitating such a choice as disputed by Kriegel, Smit states that, “We ask houses to give us five names they all want to live with. […] Since a lot of them pick the same people, there will be some randomness involved in their matching.” He adds that “We don’t want students waiting to choose between houses while others aren’t picked.”
Smit admits that the selection process is far from ideal, but the alternatives, even when receiving help from students, complicate things and make the process unfeasible. Smit also comments that “[He] would prefer if the meeting and greeting outside of the mixer didn’t happen,” since he is afraid it will become a popularity contest and create stress for the incoming students.
In the case of the internal move, students in doubles also faced struggles getting a new roommate. A common problem was that if a person’s roommate was moving out, they couldn’t invite their friend to take their place. It wasn’t allowed because of the rule that the current first-years cannot move into the rooms of other first-years. This meant that if two friends wanted to live together, they had to move into a completely new double, which is a big hassle. The reasoning behind the rule did not make much sense to many of them—especially in spacious doubles, where the move seemed perfectly doable.
Smit explains that the rule has been implemented for simple practical reasons. “As a first-year your contract ends on 15 July. The next contract can only start on 16 July because you can’t have two contracts at the same time. On top of that, AUC gives you basically three days for free where they pay the rent, so people have time to move,” he outlines. What that entails is that if a person was to internally move to another first-year’s apartment, they would have to do so at the exact same time another person moves out. In the case of doubles, Smit reaffirms the rule, adding that space availability is not the issue. He acknowledges that sometimes it could work out fine, but they need to ensure that it always works out, and can’t allow for a possibility where it might not. He emphasises that “the purpose of internal moves isn’t to let students move in with their friends.”
Some people, like Patthanadettrakul, who moved into singles, share the feelings of frustration regarding the selection. Her roommate had arranged to buy furniture from a third-year moving out to avoid moving large items, but there was no way to guarantee she got the room. This was also the case for anyone who had a preference about a room. On the day of the room selection, Patthanadettrakul had to be out of the house for a practical in one of her classes, but still had to wait for the selection to open. “After the practical, me and a few other people had to wait outside for 30 minutes, just to make sure that we were able to choose our rooms right at 13:00, so no one ended up taking them before us,” she says.
Regarding such situations, Smit notes that the internal move is only intended to give everyone a second chance for a preferred room type but that it “runs the risk of becoming an unregulated thing—students making deals outside of the AUC’s procedure, selling things, promising rooms to friends or siblings.” He says, “For them, it might seem like the easiest solution because it’s right in front of them, but it’s deeply unfair. What happens if someone doesn’t know anyone? That’s just not how it works.” He adds that “ the annual moving procedure is a massive job. From an individual’s point of view it might seem like there are endless possibilities, but the moment we make one exception, (…) you immediately get ten more requests.” Due to those reasons, he explains that exceptions are only provided via a medical professional, or in the rare cases when it can help solve the broader housing puzzle.
Smit’s main message is that the housing administration has to look at the overall system, not just individual cases. “We need clear guidelines,” he states, noting that without them, the process would become chaotic. In the end, his goal for AUC’s housing boils down to two things: ensuring feasibility and fairness.
The Herring 