Water fountains are an essential part of student life on Hofstra University’s campus, supplying vital hydration for overall wellness. Knowing its importance, the Hofstra community should do its best to maintain the quality of these water fountains. Unfortunately, it’s never that simple.
Hofstra’s campus is split into two sides – residential and academic – by the Unispan, serving as the bridge between the areas. The reason I bring this up is because I recently conducted a poll asking two simple questions: “What is the best water fountain on campus?” and “What is the worst?”
Results from this poll were eye-opening, revealing a shocking truth about Hofstra’s campus, according to its students. Using the 50 form responses, I developed a theory. The worst water fountains were described to have come from the residential side of campus. Residence halls such as Enterprise, Constitution, Bill of Rights and Suffolk were namely mentioned. Based on the data, Hofstra has its worst water fountains – those lacking bottle fillers or succumbing to rust – in those buildings.
An overwhelming majority of responses informed me that the best quality fountains were found on the academic side of campus. C. V. Starr Hall, Adams Hall and The Lawrence Herbert School of Communication received several mentions; one comment praised the quality of the dual drinking and water bottle filling stations commonly found on the academic side of campus. While these models are also found in the lobby of the towers, the fitness center and Hofstra USA dining hall (HofUSA), they commonly receive complaints about temperature and water pressure. The HofUSA fountain, in particular, forces students to suck the faucet because the water does not lift high enough for a thirsty individual. Even the full-service stations in the tower lobbies receive frequent complaints based on their low pressure, with water even reaching hot temperatures on occasion. Some of the biggest complaints involved water in the residence halls tasting too much like metal, a concern that should be addressed due to its severity.
In contrast, the water fountains in areas outside of the residential side of campus received praise for aspects that its counterpart lacks – students point out their “crispness” or “water-pressure.” Many of the comments from this poll explicitly mentioned the filling stations being essential for a positive water experience, which the towers (specifically the residential floors) lack altogether.
Hofstra incentivizes its students to spend more of their time on the academic side of campus. The fountains in the residential side are weak, low pressure and outdated versions of a model that’s been perfected as evidenced by the near-perfect stations on the academic side. This conclusion also explains why renovations are almost always on the south side, as more of Hofstra’s time and resources are devoted to improving the academic side while residential students have little improvement.
If you’re an active and engaged student, you’d be spending at least half your time in the academic area, and this is exactly the experience that Hofstra seems to attempt to curate. They incentivize students to go out of their comfort zone and engage with the community, which is noble until it comes at the expense of its residents. They suffer through lesser quality utilities all in an attempt to psychologically convince them to spend more time on the academic side of campus.