University of Virginia Library

Mr. Main's Lawn

When Ralph Main founded the University
in 1819, he could not in his most flighty
moments have imagined the problems the
University faces today in determining which
students will live on his bucolic and beautiful
Lawn. Had he been possessed of more
foresight, he would have designed the Lawn
to house 16,000 students by purchasing all
the land from the Rotunda to Lovingston
and building more than a mere 55 rooms.

But he did not, so today the Lawn is the
most sought-after habitat in Charlottesville,
and there is nothing but disagreement over
how best to select its inhabitants. For some
time now the two "criteria" have been
adequate scholarship and superlative student
leadership qualities. The number of applicants
has become unmanageable–almost as bad as
the selection of counselors for the resident
staff.

Therefore, it is no surprise that Mr.
Main–intent on reducing the size of the
applicant pool–decided to raise the minimum
grade point average from 2.0 to 2.5. There is
no question that this University (where over
40 percent of the College is on the Dean's
List) can fill the Lawn with qualified student
leaders whose grade point averages are above
2.5. Our only criticism on this point is that
the divergence of the relative achievement of
a 2.5 in the various schools makes the number
somewhat unfair. Would not a class rank by
percentage be more equitable to the students
enrolled in the more difficult schools?

That procedural dispute aside, it would be
wise to look at the requirements for Lawn
residency from the perspective of those who
live there– namely that it is such an ideal
place to live that one wishes everyone did
have the opportunity. With only 55 rooms,
though, some criteria are necessary, and the
question is: what should they be?

For many years the procedure for
attaining a room on the Lawn has been
shrouded in mysterious committee work,
unknown qualifications, and disputed
decisions. Some people like to operate that
way, and for some good reasons.

However, the present system has some
inequities and inherent problems which, while
we realize it is too late to rectify this year,
must be considered for the future. We would
proffer that most students who serve on the
committee are too close to the candidates to
make objective decisions no matter how
well-intentioned they may be. The original
intention–that students should make the
decision to a large extent because they are
closer to the applicants and know their
merits–is based upon the fallacy that students
are able to resist pushing for their friends,
fraternity brothers, colleagues in particular
activities and honoraries. (In fact, why
honoraries are considered criteria at all is
inexplicable.)

The fact is that remarkable achievements
in all fields should be (and ostensibly is) the
Lawn selection criterion for excellence. Every
individual, and naturally, every member of
the Lawn selection committee, has his own
perception of what is outstanding and what is
not. So there is dispute aplenty when the final
selections are made. Some examples?

How about a Cavalier Daily editor and an
outstanding and creative architecture
student vying for the same position on the
Lawn? Or a Student Council member and an
outstanding musician? Or a Jefferson Society
President and the most outstanding lacrosse
player in the University's history? Well, of
course, there are many unknowns in these
hypotheticals. But the chances are that all of
these people would in the past have been
selected. The trouble is that there are now so
many opportunities for which one can excel
at the University and so many people to seize
the opportunities, that the Lawn could be
filled just with people like these.

It is in these cases, though, where
scholarship (and other factors) can be
important. There is no question that
outstanding academic performance should be
a vital criterion.

The traditional scholarship/leadership
balance should be maintained until someone
comes up with a better idea. However, the
Committee should look to every obscure
corner of the University for its choices. A few
prominent activities, fraternities, and
connections, have been represented too often
already on the Lawn. Great service to the
University can come in many forms–from
heavily scholarship-oriented to heavily
service-oriented.

And (here we will be ridiculed as
anti-traditionalist buffoons, but who cares)
with over 13,000 students at this University,
is it really fair to reserve rooms to
particular individuals because of their
position, or to officers of particular
fraternities? We would submit that those
rooms could in some years be filled by very
deserving people with more interesting
accomplishments than ascending to the
pinnacle of power in XYZ fraternity.

Anyway, we encourage for the present and
future, that individuals apply for the Lawn
even if your claim to fame is not a common
one; and that those individuals on the
committee make maximum efforts to get the
most diversified and accomplished group on
Mr. Main's Lawn each year.

We hope that this year's committee will
begin to look at new procedures, such as an
anonymous faculty committee, to make
selections next year. There is just too much
room for ass-kissing in the present system.

For now, though, the change to a 2.5
minimum is at least helpful.