Last year, Lawrence implemented the Strategic Investment Initiative to address long-standing issues. These improvements included infrastructure improvements, retention and recruitment initiatives, better employee compensation and brand elevation, among other initiatives. Some of the specific projects include the reconstruction of the Drew Street Bridge, the hiring of a full-time Director of Academic Advising, and new athletic facilities. Last year, Lawrence was 10-15 years behind on maintenance. President Laurie Carter commented in a previous article that infrastructure work is ongoing and will continue into future terms.
Although Lawrence has made these improvements in infrastructure, some issues are persisting. Some students expressed concerns over HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) in the academic and residential buildings. According to sophomore Qiaochuhan Li, the music-drama side of the Conservatory has little to no heating, making early morning classes uncomfortably cold. Moreover, Li reported that she and her summer roommate routinely had four fans running over the summer due to the lack of AC. Similarly, CA Adrian Kaiser raised concerns about the lack of AC, especially for summer students. Kaiser compared the lack of preparedness for hot weather here with the effects of the unexpected cold snap that Texas had in Feb. 2021.
Junior Anders Hanhan, co-chair of the LUCC Sustainability Committee, was a student representative on the Initiative’s team that addressed infrastructure and technology. The team came up with a list of recommendations on what should be paid for that was given to President Carter, according to Hanhan. These recommendations included the newly constructed Drew Street bridge and the renovation of Strange Commons, as well as new lights in Ormsby and Sage, plans to renovate Sage bathrooms, new window dressings in Sage, new windows in Brokaw and HVAC and roofing work in the Conservatory.
Sophomore Isabel Dorn argued that Lawrence fails to invest enough in diversity. While Lawrence likes to advertise itself as a diverse school, the burden is largely placed on students, argued Dorn. The entire diversity center has been run by one person since fall term, according to Dorn.
“We need more hands on deck here,” said Dorn. “It’s not reasonable to expect these very few workers to deal with such a monumental task.”
In a small poll conducted by the Lawrentian, 10 of 23 respondents rated the campus’s accessibility for disabled students to be very poor (a 1 on a 7 point scale) and 82.6% of respondents rated it as at least somewhat poor.
“I don’t think it’s a secret that it’s terrible,” said Kaiser in reference to accessibility.
While it is understandable that Lawrence has an old campus that is hard to change, the elevators are underwhelming, argued Kaiser. Moreover, Li produced examples such as Colman’s elevator being out of order on move-in day this term, and Warch’s elevator being out for months last year.
Some students expressed concerns over the lack of funding in mental health services, while others stated that they saw mental health as one of Lawrence’s stronger areas. Li believes that wellness services at Lawrence are strong. The free counseling is a great resource, said Li. Speaking from the position of a conservatory student, access to free physical therapy and discounted massages were also a boon for Li.
Many students worry about Lawrence’s current focus on branding. Li likened this current focus on branding to a house that is beautiful on the outside but is falling apart inside. She went on to argue that it is not sustainable for Lawrence to focus so much on branding, as students will transfer.
“Building a new welcome arch or getting a new mascot – it’s not like those are not important,” said Li. “But I feel like instead of spending money on the school to look good outside, we should fix the problems that are inside first.”
Dorn similarly argued that Lawrence likes to invest a lot into surface-level improvements, but not changes that will truly help students, namely the quality of housing.
Due to a scheduling conflict, many members of the Lawrence administration were unable to comment on some of the claims made in this article. An opportunity will be provided in Edition 8 for other staff to respond.