In an effort to increase retention rates, the university has recently instituted a policy forcing the vast majority of sophomores to live on campus.  Here’s my question: is the policy about retention, or money? 
Granted, Loyola loses a large number of students, especially between freshmen and sophomore years.  But will the new policy help? 
Supporters cite evidence that states that schools with a larger percentage of students living on campus have better retention rates. That makes sense, but let’s not jump to the wrong conclusion: these schools don’t have higher retention because they force sophomores to live on campus.
The sophomores choose to live on campus and stay at the school because they enjoy being there. If a student enjoyed living on campus and spending time at the university, they would choose to live there.
If a student is not happy living on campus on the first place, do you think that forcing him/her to stay another year will make him/her fall in love with the school? 
Let me put it another way: if a freshman living in the dorms is on the fence about leaving the university, he or she is probably not having a great time on campus.
So, we remove the option of living with friends in a more comfortable, off-campus residence.  Will that entice the freshman to return or push him/her away? I’d bet that the policy is more of a hindrance to our efforts than a help.
The battle for retention is something that needs to be won freshman year.  By the time a freshman decides they can’t enjoy the Loyola experience, the battle is lost. 
We should be spending our time and effort making sure the on-campus freshman experience is a good one, not finding new ways to sandwich more unwilling students into Cabra Hall.
On the other hand, this policy is great for the university – at least in the short-term.
 Loyola is short of cash.  Our endowment took a significant hit in the recent financial crisis, and we are cutting spending left and right. 
But one thing is up: enrollment.  Record numbers of people applying to the university means record numbers of freshmen living in the dorms, which in turn means record amounts of housing payments.  This, coupled with mandatory meal plans, represents a significant amount of money.
With more people applying to Loyola than we can accept, who cares if a few students leave or are a bit unhappy living in the dorms?  We can always replace them. 
Until enrollment slows down, there is no reason not to force sophomores to stay on campus – the school is making money hand over fist, money we need. 
If this is about money, it suddenly makes sense that the university would rather squish more people into the dorms instead of spending the money necessary to renovate places like Buddig and Cabra.
If this policy is about money, I have no problem with it.  It is a solid business decision.  I just wish that university officials would say so. If this is about retention, I think the policy is a mistake.