Section 3 provides an overview of housing policy at Williams. Our goal is not to replace the CUL's own summary, but to highlight some aspects of Williams today that may be unclear to those not living on campus. We include a set of assumptions about housing at Williams that, we think, serves as a useful starting point. We also provide an overview of student opinion on anchor -- also known as ``cluster'' -- housing.
The next three Sections cover the three primary shortcomings of the CUL Report. Section 4 describes the CUL's failure to provide any meaningful information on the experiences of peer institutions. CUL acts as if Williams has nothing to learn from what has happened at places like Bowdoin and Middlebury over the last ten years. We disagree. Section 5 reviews the special status of the Berkshire Quad -- the ``Odd Quad'' in common parlance. Section 6 outlines the failures of the CUL in 2002 to provide any metrics by which we might judge the success or failure of its last set of reforms. We believe that the same mistake should not be repeated with anchor housing. How will we know, in five years, if anchor housing has failed if CUL provides no benchmarks against which to measure it? As supplementary material, we provide an appendix with two Record articles that chronicle the experiences of Middlebury and Bowdoin with anchor-type housing systems.3