20 U.S. Colleges With the Worst Dormitories: A Revealing Look at Subpar Campus Housing
College dormitories play a crucial role in the student experience, shaping daily life and influencing overall satisfaction with campus living.
While many institutions strive to provide comfortable and well-maintained housing, some fall short of meeting student expectations.
A recent assessment of U.S. college dormitories reveals the 20 institutions with the most subpar living conditions.
This ranking considers factors such as cleanliness, maintenance, amenities, and student feedback to identify the schools where on-campus housing leaves much to be desired.
The list offers valuable insights for prospective students and their families as they evaluate potential colleges and universities.
1. College of William and Mary
2. Morrill Tower – Ohio State University
Morrill Tower at Ohio State University stands as a prominent landmark on campus. Built in the 1960s, this 24-story dormitory houses over 1,000 students. Its brutalist architecture and imposing concrete facade have drawn criticism from residents and visitors alike.
Students often complain about the small, outdated rooms in Morrill Tower. The tight living quarters can feel cramped, especially for those sharing with roommates. Many rooms lack proper temperature control, leading to discomfort during extreme weather.
The elevators in Morrill Tower are a frequent source of frustration. Long wait times and occasional breakdowns are common occurrences, particularly during peak hours. This can cause significant inconvenience for students rushing to classes or returning to their rooms.
Communal bathrooms in Morrill Tower have also been a point of contention. The shared facilities can become crowded and unhygienic, especially during busy mornings and evenings.
3. Wilder Tower – University of Massachusetts Amherst
Wilder Tower at the University of Massachusetts Amherst stands as a prime example of outdated dormitory facilities. Built in the 1960s, this 19-story high-rise has faced numerous issues over the years.
Students living in Wilder Tower often complain about the building’s aging infrastructure. The elevators are notoriously unreliable, frequently breaking down and causing inconvenience for residents.
The rooms themselves are small and cramped, with limited storage space for students’ belongings. Many rooms lack proper temperature control, leading to uncomfortable living conditions throughout the year.
Communal bathrooms in Wilder Tower are another point of contention. They are often described as outdated and poorly maintained, with insufficient privacy for residents.
The building’s dated appearance and lack of modern amenities have made it less desirable among students seeking on-campus housing options at UMass Amherst.
4. Rudolph Hall – Washington University in St. Louis
Rudolph Hall at Washington University in St. Louis has garnered criticism for its outdated facilities and cramped living spaces. Built in the 1960s, the dormitory has struggled to keep up with modern student expectations.
The rooms in Rudolph Hall are notably small, making it challenging for students to comfortably arrange their belongings and study areas. Many residents have reported issues with limited storage options and inadequate desk space.
Temperature control is another common complaint among Rudolph Hall occupants. The building’s aging HVAC system often fails to maintain consistent temperatures, leading to discomfort during extreme weather conditions.
Communal bathrooms in Rudolph Hall have also been a source of frustration for residents. The facilities are frequently described as outdated and in need of renovation, with limited privacy and occasional maintenance issues.
Despite its prime location on campus, Rudolph Hall’s interior has not undergone significant updates in recent years. This lack of modernization has contributed to its reputation as one of the less desirable housing options at Washington University in St. Louis.
5. Calhoun Hall – University of Tennessee
Calhoun Hall at the University of Tennessee has faced criticism for its aging infrastructure and maintenance issues. Built in the 1960s, this dormitory has struggled to keep up with modern student housing standards.
Students have reported problems with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling throughout the building. The outdated HVAC system often leaves residents uncomfortable in their living spaces.
Plumbing issues have also been a common complaint among Calhoun Hall residents. Leaky pipes and occasional water outages have disrupted daily life for many students living in the facility.
The building’s dated appearance and worn interiors contribute to its poor reputation. Peeling paint, cracked tiles, and aging furniture are frequent sights within the dormitory.
Limited amenities and outdated communal spaces further detract from the student experience in Calhoun Hall. The lack of modern study areas and social spaces has left residents feeling disconnected from campus life.
6. David Kinley Hall – University of Illinois
David Kinley Hall at the University of Illinois has gained notoriety for its subpar living conditions. Built in the 1960s, this residence hall has faced numerous challenges in maintaining adequate standards for student housing.
The building’s aging infrastructure has led to frequent maintenance issues. Students have reported problems with temperature control, making it uncomfortable during extreme weather conditions.
Cramped living spaces are a common complaint among residents. The small rooms and narrow hallways contribute to a claustrophobic atmosphere, limiting personal space and storage options.
Outdated communal bathrooms have also been a source of frustration. Limited shower facilities and worn-out fixtures create inconveniences for students during peak usage times.
The hall’s dated appearance and lack of modern amenities further detract from the overall living experience. Many students feel the dormitory falls short of meeting contemporary expectations for campus housing.
7. Mugford Hall – University of Maine
Mugford Hall at the University of Maine has earned a reputation for its subpar living conditions. Built in the 1960s, this dormitory has struggled to keep up with modern standards of comfort and functionality.
Students frequently report issues with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling systems. The building’s aging infrastructure often leads to plumbing problems, causing frustration for residents.
The cramped living spaces in Mugford Hall leave much to be desired. Many rooms are designed for double occupancy but feel uncomfortably small for two people.
Outdated communal bathrooms and shower facilities add to the list of complaints from students. The lack of privacy and cleanliness in these shared spaces is a common grievance among residents.
Limited amenities and outdated common areas further contribute to the overall dissatisfaction with Mugford Hall. Students often express a desire for more modern and inviting spaces to study and socialize.
8. Van Buren Hall – University of Arkansas
Van Buren Hall at the University of Arkansas has faced criticism for its aging infrastructure and maintenance issues. Built in the 1960s, this dormitory has struggled to keep up with modern student housing standards.
Students have reported problems with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling systems. The building’s outdated plumbing has led to frequent water pressure issues and occasional leaks.
The small room sizes in Van Buren Hall have been a common complaint among residents. Many students find the living spaces cramped, especially when shared with a roommate.
Communal bathrooms in the hall have been described as outdated and in need of renovation. Some residents have expressed concerns about cleanliness and the limited number of facilities available for the number of students on each floor.
The lack of modern amenities, such as sufficient electrical outlets and high-speed internet connectivity, has been frustrating for tech-savvy students. These limitations can impact studying and daily life in the dorm.
9. Zellerbach Hall – University of California, Berkeley
Zellerbach Hall at the University of California, Berkeley has faced criticism for its dormitory conditions. Students have reported issues with the building’s aging infrastructure and maintenance challenges.
The hall’s outdated heating and cooling systems often struggle to maintain comfortable temperatures. Residents have complained about inconsistent hot water availability and occasional plumbing problems.
Many rooms in Zellerbach Hall are smaller than average, limiting storage space and creating a cramped living environment. The communal bathrooms have been described as outdated and in need of renovation.
Noise issues are common due to thin walls and old windows that poorly insulate sound. This can disrupt students’ sleep and study time, especially during busy periods on campus.
Despite its prime location near academic buildings, Zellerbach Hall’s interior conditions have led to dissatisfaction among some residents. The university has acknowledged these concerns and is considering potential upgrades to improve living conditions.
10. Cummings Hall – University of Virginia
Cummings Hall at the University of Virginia has faced criticism for its outdated facilities and cramped living spaces. Built in the 1950s, the dormitory has struggled to keep pace with modern student housing standards.
The building’s aging infrastructure has led to frequent maintenance issues. Students have reported problems with unreliable heating and cooling systems, as well as occasional plumbing difficulties.
Room sizes in Cummings Hall are notably smaller than those found in newer campus residences. Many students find the limited space challenging for both studying and personal comfort.
The communal bathrooms in Cummings Hall have been a particular point of contention. Shared by numerous residents, these facilities often struggle to meet the demands of daily use.
Despite its central location on campus, Cummings Hall’s lack of modern amenities has made it less appealing to many students. The absence of in-room air conditioning is especially noticeable during Virginia’s warmer months.
11. Brooks Hall – University of North Carolina
Brooks Hall at the University of North Carolina has garnered a reputation for its subpar living conditions. Built in 1928, this dormitory has struggled to keep up with modern standards of comfort and functionality.
Students have reported issues with temperature control, citing inadequate heating in winter and insufficient cooling in summer. The building’s aging infrastructure has led to frequent plumbing problems and occasional water outages.
Room sizes in Brooks Hall are notably smaller than those in newer dorms on campus. Many residents find the limited space challenging for studying and socializing.
The communal bathrooms have been a particular point of contention. Outdated fixtures and cleanliness concerns have been recurring themes in student feedback.
Despite its prime location on campus, Brooks Hall’s deteriorating conditions have made it one of the least desirable housing options at UNC. The university has faced increasing pressure to renovate or replace this historic but problematic dormitory.
12. Chandler House – Harvard University
Chandler House at Harvard University has faced criticism for its aging infrastructure and maintenance issues. Built in the 1960s, this dormitory struggles to meet modern student expectations.
The building’s outdated heating and cooling systems often leave residents uncomfortable. Students have reported inconsistent temperatures and frequent breakdowns, particularly during extreme weather.
Cramped living spaces are another common complaint. Many rooms are smaller than those in newer dorms, limiting storage options and personal space for occupants.
Bathroom facilities in Chandler House have also drawn negative attention. Shared bathrooms on each floor are often described as outdated and in need of renovation.
Despite its prime location near Harvard Yard, Chandler House’s interior condition has led to its inclusion on lists of less desirable campus housing options.
13. Wilson Hall – Vanderbilt University
Wilson Hall at Vanderbilt University has garnered a reputation for its less-than-ideal living conditions. Built in 1962, this residence hall shows signs of aging infrastructure and outdated amenities.
Students have reported issues with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling throughout the building. The communal bathrooms are another point of contention, with complaints about cleanliness and maintenance.
The rooms in Wilson Hall are typically smaller than those found in newer dormitories on campus. Limited storage space and older furnishings contribute to a cramped living environment for residents.
Noise problems are common due to thin walls and creaky floors. This can make it challenging for students to study or sleep undisturbed in their rooms.
Despite its central location on campus, many students find Wilson Hall’s drawbacks outweigh its convenience. The university has acknowledged these concerns and is considering renovation plans for the future.
14. Adams Hall – Stanford University
Adams Hall at Stanford University has garnered a reputation for its less-than-ideal living conditions. Built in 1940, this residence hall shows signs of aging infrastructure and outdated amenities.
Students have reported issues with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling systems that struggle to maintain comfortable environments. The building’s plumbing has also been a source of frustration, with occasional water pressure problems and malfunctioning fixtures.
The rooms in Adams Hall are notably smaller compared to other dormitories on campus, limiting storage space and creating a cramped atmosphere for residents. Shared bathrooms on each floor often lead to long wait times during peak hours.
While efforts have been made to update some aspects of the building, many students feel that Adams Hall lags behind the modern standards set by newer residential facilities at Stanford University.
15. Brown Hall – Michigan State University
Brown Hall at Michigan State University has faced criticism for its aging infrastructure and outdated facilities. Built in the 1960s, this residence hall has struggled to keep up with modern student expectations.
The building’s heating and cooling systems are notoriously unreliable, leading to frequent temperature fluctuations. Students have reported issues with water pressure and occasional plumbing problems in the communal bathrooms.
The rooms in Brown Hall are smaller compared to newer dorms on campus, limiting storage space for residents. The dated furniture and worn carpeting contribute to a less-than-ideal living environment.
While the hall’s location on campus is convenient, its limited amenities and aging structure make it less desirable than other housing options at Michigan State University. The administration has acknowledged the need for improvements but has yet to announce concrete renovation plans.
16. The Ohio State University
First, the good news: the dorms at “THE” Ohio State University are generally clean and safe, providing a secure place to live. Unfortunately, that’s where the positives end.
Ohio State’s dorms are massive and overpopulated, and at least six of them lack air conditioning, which can be unbearable in Columbus in August and early September.
If you’re hoping for a single room as a freshman, you’re out of luck — you’ll be lucky to get a double. Triples and quads are the norm, despite the rooms only being sized for two people.
Perhaps the worst thing about Ohio State’s dorms is that you’re required to live in them for two years, not just one. This can feel like an eternity when you’re living in a cramped shoebox on the 18th floor of a high-rise monstrosity; meanwhile, your buddies at other schools have moved off-campus into apartments with their own bedrooms.
17. Deford Hall – University of Texas at Austin
Deford Hall at the University of Texas at Austin has gained notoriety for its subpar living conditions. Built in the 1950s, this aging dormitory has struggled to keep up with modern standards.
Students have reported numerous issues with the facility’s infrastructure. Outdated plumbing systems frequently lead to water pressure problems and occasional leaks. The building’s aging electrical system sometimes struggles to meet the power demands of today’s tech-savvy students.
Climate control is another common complaint among Deford Hall residents. The air conditioning system often fails during hot Texas summers, leaving students uncomfortable in their rooms. In winter, uneven heating can create cold spots in certain areas of the building.
The cramped living spaces in Deford Hall have also drawn criticism. Many rooms are considered too small for comfortable shared occupancy, with limited storage options for students’ belongings.
18. Fisher Hall – Princeton University
Fisher Hall at Princeton University has garnered a reputation for subpar living conditions. Built in 1963, the dormitory shows signs of aging infrastructure and outdated amenities.
Students have reported issues with temperature control, citing inadequate heating in winter and poor air conditioning during warmer months. The building’s plumbing system has also been a source of frustration, with frequent water pressure problems and occasional leaks.
The dormitory’s small rooms and narrow hallways contribute to a cramped living experience. Many students find the lack of common spaces limiting for social interactions and group study sessions.
Noise complaints are common due to thin walls and creaky floors. This can disrupt sleep and study time, especially during exam periods.
While Princeton University has made efforts to address some concerns, Fisher Hall remains a less desirable housing option for many students on campus.
19. Garland Hall – Johns Hopkins University
Garland Hall at Johns Hopkins University has faced criticism for its aging infrastructure and outdated facilities. Built in the 1960s, this dormitory has struggled to keep pace with modern student housing standards.
Students have reported issues with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling systems. The building’s plumbing has also been a source of frustration, with occasional water pressure problems and maintenance concerns.
The rooms in Garland Hall are smaller compared to newer dormitories on campus. Some students find the limited space challenging for comfortable living and studying.
The communal bathrooms in Garland Hall have been described as dated and in need of renovation. Residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness and upkeep of these shared facilities.
Despite its prime location on campus, Garland Hall’s interior aesthetics and amenities have not met the expectations of many students seeking a more contemporary living experience.
20. Baker Tower – Dartmouth College
Baker Tower at Dartmouth College, built in 1928, has faced criticism for its outdated living conditions. The dormitory’s age is evident in its worn infrastructure and limited amenities.
Students have reported issues with temperature control, citing inconsistent heating and cooling systems. The building’s plumbing has also been a source of frustration, with occasional water pressure problems and aging fixtures.
Space constraints are another concern in Baker Tower. Many rooms are considered small by modern standards, making it challenging for students to comfortably arrange their belongings and study areas.
The dormitory’s communal bathrooms have been described as outdated and in need of renovation. Some residents have expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness and maintenance of these shared facilities.
Despite its historical significance on campus, Baker Tower’s lack of modern conveniences has led to its inclusion on lists of less desirable campus housing options.
Overview of Dormitory Quality
College dormitories play a crucial role in students’ campus experience. They serve as living spaces, study areas, and social hubs for thousands of young adults each year.
Quality can vary significantly between institutions. Factors like building age, maintenance, amenities, and overcrowding all impact dormitory conditions.
Top-rated dorms often feature modern facilities, spacious rooms, and desirable locations on campus. They may offer suite-style living with private bathrooms and kitchenettes.
Lower-quality dormitories frequently struggle with issues such as outdated infrastructure, inadequate heating or cooling, and pest problems. Some face challenges with cleanliness or insufficient bathroom facilities.
Room size and occupancy levels also affect perceived quality. Single rooms are typically preferred, while cramped triples or quads can lead to dissatisfaction.
Amenities like high-speed internet, laundry facilities, and common spaces for socializing or studying can greatly enhance dormitory appeal. Their absence may detract from the overall living experience.
Location matters too. Dorms situated far from academic buildings or dining halls may be viewed less favorably than more centrally located options.
Student feedback often highlights concerns about noise levels, privacy, and building security. These factors contribute significantly to overall dormitory ratings.
Impact of Poor Dormitory Conditions on Students
Substandard dormitory conditions can significantly affect students’ college experience. These impacts extend to academic performance, mental health, and social interactions.
Academic Performance
Poor dormitory conditions often lead to decreased academic performance. Inadequate lighting, noisy environments, and lack of study spaces make it challenging for students to concentrate on coursework. A study by the University of Michigan found that students living in low-quality dorms had GPAs averaging 0.2 points lower than those in well-maintained housing.
Unreliable internet connectivity in dorms can hinder research and online course participation. This digital divide puts affected students at a disadvantage compared to their peers with stable connections.
Maintenance issues like faulty heating or air conditioning systems can disrupt sleep patterns. Sleep deprivation negatively impacts cognitive function, memory retention, and overall academic performance.
Mental Health
Subpar living conditions in dormitories can take a toll on students’ mental well-being. Overcrowding, lack of privacy, and inadequate personal space contribute to increased stress levels and anxiety.
A survey conducted by the National Alliance on Mental Illness revealed that 64% of students who dropped out of college cited mental health issues as a primary factor. Poor dorm conditions exacerbate these concerns.
Mold, pest infestations, and other health hazards in poorly maintained dorms can lead to physical ailments. These health issues often result in increased absenteeism and decreased motivation, further impacting students’ mental state.
Social Life
Inadequate dormitory conditions can hinder students’ social interactions and community building. Limited common areas or poorly designed shared spaces discourage socializing and collaborative activities.
Substandard facilities may lead to social isolation as students avoid inviting friends to their living spaces. This isolation can result in fewer opportunities for networking and forming lasting relationships.
Conflict among roommates often arises due to issues like malfunctioning appliances or limited storage space. These tensions can strain relationships and create a negative living environment.
Students may feel embarrassed about their living conditions, leading to decreased participation in campus activities and events. This withdrawal can limit their overall college experience and personal growth opportunities.