{"id":9348,"date":"2026-05-06T17:01:40","date_gmt":"2026-05-06T21:01:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cento.centre.edu\/?p=9348"},"modified":"2026-05-06T17:01:59","modified_gmt":"2026-05-06T21:01:59","slug":"centre-survey-says-we-pay-too-much-to-live-in-these-conditions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cento.centre.edu\/index.php\/2026\/05\/06\/centre-survey-says-we-pay-too-much-to-live-in-these-conditions\/","title":{"rendered":"Student Survey Says, “We Pay Too Much To Live in These Conditions”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by Jenna Nicodemus and Simon Forsting<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Cento recently conducted a Student Satisfaction Survey to represent student voices on various campus matters: housing, meal plans, public safety, Greek Life, accommodations, and more. A total of 127 respondents participated, which is exactly 50 more students than last year\u2019s survey. This represents approximately 8% of the student body. While a modest number, we still believe the trends in the results are worth reporting on. Our survey analysis team consisted of the Cento\u2019s Editor-in-Chief, Jenna Nicodemus, and BNS major, Simon Forsting, \u201826.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our survey consisted of 3 sections. The first section was a simple demographic survey. The second section had students rate their satisfaction with various aspects of Centre College out of 5 points, with 5 indicating the highest satisfaction. The final section was an optional free response section where students could elaborate on their answers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Our respondents were evenly split between years, with roughly a quarter of respondents pertaining to each academic year. The majority of respondents were women (61.4%), while about a quarter were men (26%), and a modest percentage were nonbinary (11.8%). Most respondents identified as white (78%), with a small percentage identifying as Black (8.7%), among other racial identities: 4.7% were Hispanic\/Latino, 3.9% were Multiracial, and 3.1% were Asian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Findings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

General Areas of Satisfaction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The highest rating of satisfaction was for quality of professors (4.19), followed by feeling safe on campus (3.86), and the CCPD services (3.67). Other relatively higher scores included Centre Global (3.55), the Title IX office (3.37), ease of receiving academic accommodations (3.29), and the RA system (3.16).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Mid-range values include administration\u2019s treatment of professors (3.13), Greek Life (2.93), overall administration quality (2.91), campus accessibility (2.85), Department of Public Safety (2.84), CentreNet (2.80), meal plans (2.78), and food diversity (2.54). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lower scores appear for the Residence Life Office (2.41), the housing assignment system (2.31), and Centre\u2019s housing value (2.20). The lowest satisfaction levels are for Centre\u2019s communications about financial aid (2.05), total cost of Centre (1.72), and student worker compensation (1.65).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Administration, Administrative Resources, and Cost<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Administrative satisfaction decreased across class years. Out of 5, the satisfaction score average started at 3.37 for first-year students, but dropped to 2.91 for fourth-years. Sophomores and juniors followed this downward trend. The difference between first- and fourth-year overall satisfaction is statistically significant (p = 0.00038).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On average, public satisfaction with administrative resources at Centre (i.e., RLO, DPS, CCPD, and TitleIX) decreased with age. Although we would expect seniors to be relying most heavily on the resources offered by the CCPD, we noted that reported satisfaction on average was slightly <\/em>lower for seniors (3.33) than first years (3.88).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One student commented that \u201cbecause of how departments have to constantly justify their existence monetarily, and how opaque admin is from a student perspective,\u201d they have \u201dbecome increasingly disillusioned over the years,\u201d as admin does not seem to \u201ccare about what students care about \u2026 They don’t ask or respond to student feedback.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, another student said, \u201cIn all four years that I\u2019ve been at Centre, I have never once felt that administration has listened to us. We try to go to them with issues, and I genuinely was laughed at by an administration member when I went to them about the AC. Even my professors agreed this was horrendous.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another student said, regarding cost: \u201cI really wish that I would\u2019ve known that Centre tuition would increase so much every year. It\u2019s not fair for students \u2026 to not know that the scholarship they use freshman year might not be sufficient for all four years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Housing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Housing satisfaction was low across all years. Satisfaction with the housing assignment system ranged from an average of 2.68 (first year) to 2.37 (fourth year), with sophomores and juniors dipping even lower.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

One student said, \u201cThe housing on campus is severely neglected. There are still dozens of washers and dryers on campus that are out of use or broken, despite several complaints to RAs, facilities, and an entire report produced by SGA Campus Improvements last spring semester. SLO and RLO argues that they are licensed out by another company, so repairs are left to them, but they do not prioritize communication and urgency to fix these machines.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another student said, \u201cI believe that this college is too expensive for how poor quality it is.\u201d They cited the \u201cfirst year dorms [being] gross, hav[ing] mold issues, and leak[ing] everywhere.\u201d Another student was frustrated that \u201c[e]verything is broken,\u201d and said that \u201cwe pay way too much to live in these conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another student pointed out the absurdity of Centre making it difficult to \u201clive off campus, even though the incoming class keeps increasing, with no added dorms\/space.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Disability Housing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly, people who self-identified having disabilities ranked being very slightly more satisfied with the RLO on average, as compared to individuals who self-reported not having any disabilities (average score of 2.5 for disabled, vs 2.4 for non disabled). However, satisfaction with accessibility amenities was lower amongst those with disabilities (average score of 2.4 vs 2.89). Results may have been skewed given how small the group of disabled student respondents was. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One student said \u201cthe process\u201d of receiving housing accommodations \u201cwas terrible.\u201d Another student echoed this, saying, \u201cThe Residence Life Office is consistently the most and only frustrating part of Centre to me. I have never had a smooth interaction with them in all my time on this campus.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another student commented on Centre\u2019s lack of accessibility, and that even though \u201chistoric buildings are much more difficult to renovate and make accessible \u2026 that doesn\u2019t change that people with physical disabilities and mobility concerns will have a difficult time moving about campus, and a near impossible time actually living in most of these dorms.\u201d They went on to suggest that \u201c[e]ven simple, band-aid remedies like hiring other students to pick up mail or do laundry for physically impaired students would greatly improve their quality of life.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Meal Plans<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Satisfaction with the quality of food at Centre trended more positively on average for men than women, with an average satisfaction score for men being 3.12 and 2.6 for women. Satisfaction with the variety of options was also ranked more positively amongst male students than female students (3.2 vs 2.2). Nonbinary students were in between for both questions, with average satisfaction at 2.9, and satisfaction with options at 2.7. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Granted, we had fewer male recipients than women. This could explain the lower skew in male satisfaction\u2014we can presume that had we surveyed more men, the results would have been more comparable to that of women (lower overall). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One student said regarding meal swipes that they \u201cshould be allowed to be used for other people,\u201d because they \u201calready paid for them \u2026 Not allowing me to spend them for other people is withholding goods I have already purchased.\u201d Another student seconded this, saying, \u201cThey’re our swipes. We bought them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

One student said that \u201c[t]he food is poor quality\u201d and that they \u201cknow of multiple people getting food poisoning from Cowan and of having issues with cross contamination of food allergens.\u201d Meanwhile, another student said that \u201cthe dining hall does offer lots of options, but consistently does not cook meat well enough.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another student suggested that \u201cdining should improve through more incorporation of local produce and meat products,\u201d and \u201cshould also offer more dining options on the weekend and more dining options in general.\u201d Another student suggested that Centre should \u201cget more workers to handle more [food] orders,\u201d especially the Flame Cafe, which is \u201cthe only place where you can get food for meal swipes\u201d past 9:00PM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greek Life<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On average, white students ranked being more satisfied with Greek Life on campus than any of the other racial minority groups combined (average score of 3.1 vs 2.2). Granted, most of our respondents were white, and white people make up a larger portion of Greek Life involvement on Centre, which could explain why they were ranking Greek Life more positively on average.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By gender, Greek life satisfaction was 3.06 for men, 3.00 for women, and 2.33 for nonbinary students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One student commented that they felt Greek Life gets \u201cfirst priority for a lot of things at Centre.\u201d They went on to say, \u201cI have a lot of friends in Greek Life, and I feel like the structure of it causes unneeded separation between members and nonmembers, and rivalries between members of different sororities\/frats.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another student said that \u201c[w]ith the rising population of Black students on campus, I would greatly appreciate it if at least one D9 fraternity or sorority was added.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Title IX<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Men reported higher satisfaction than women with the Title IX office (3.58 vs. 3.28) and safety (4.15 vs. 3.78). The difference in safety ratings is statistically significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discrimination on Campus<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only 22 students out of the total number who completed the survey (127) reported a discrimination event. A majority of students who reported a discrimination event were women. Although women did make up a larger percentage of total respondents to the survey, they made up an even larger proportion of the students discriminated against (10% more).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

White students barely surpassed the number of students of color in the discriminated against group (i.e., only 10 out of 100 white students surveyed reported discrimination, while 7 out of the 11 Black students surveyed reported discrimination). Granted, these findings also reflect how few students of color were surveyed, so we would caution against these findings being generalized for the entire campus population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A student commented that \u201cCentre treats their colored students as if we are animals, ghosts, or talking points. We’re never treated as actual students.\u201d Another student said that \u201c[s]ome discrimination in class has been evident, from both peers and professors.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Agreement and Disagreement Amongst Students<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Standard deviation values indicate how much agreement there is among students, where lower values mean more agreement. The most agreement appears in ratings of quality of professors (0.68), safety (0.88), and student worker compensation (0.86). The least agreement appears in meal plans (1.24), food diversity (1.19), and financial aid communication (1.19). Overall, then, students show the most consistent agreement on quality of professors and safety, and the least agreement on food, housing, and financial topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Correlations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n