Over all, I understand this theory. I understand that natural settings are important. Going outside is important. Allowing your mind and body to take a break from pressures and relief in a holistic manner is important, but each student is different. Students are able to decide for themselves if they will benefit from a more holistic campus or if they prefer to be in a unbalanced or city setting. It all depends on what kind of environment an individual prefers for their own relaxation and education.

Another way these two articles I read contrast is, although this theory might not be accepted by all universities, it does talk about how it would be beneficial to the student's health and experience in college. 'Lazy Rivers and Student Debt doesn't necessarily speak of benefiting students at all. The rock walls and pools and $85 million doesn't get supported by evidence or studies tat student's will benefit from where their student fees are being involuntarily put towards.

This statement speaks of just how benifitial to all humans, not just college students. Although college students are under a lot of pressures and have tested to have very nigh stress levels, this statement could help influence many other places. Like i mentioned before, grade schools, as well as work places. Many adults who sit in an office all day long could benefit from outside time and natural rejuvenation.

This sentence seems contradicting to me. If a newer campus is amorphous, meaning without a recognizable shape or form, how can it also be integrative? Can a campus be considered unorganized but unifying at the same time?

After reading this article and my supplemental Article, "Lazy Rivers and Student Debt", both have contradicting views as to what students are drawn towards when deciding which university to attend. This article presents a theory that natural environment stimulate students and help their progress, which is a point of interest. The other states that students are more worried about the recreational offers of the university and extra curricular advances the college presents. I disagree with both. I would like to think that most students pick where they want to gain a higher education from, based on the educational aspect of it. Which school has the best professors? Which school has the highest graduating hiring rate? Which school offers the best programs for my major?Not which school has the largest park or which school has the nicest lazy river and rock wall.

This is an image of Cornell University. As you can see their master plan is to utilize 2/3 of their land as natural open space in order to sustain this natural holistic landscape. Cornell was also established in 1865. This is a typical type of landscape for the schools created in 19th and early 20th centuries.

A student that wishes to be in an environment where there is many opportunities to spend time outside and many options of places to be a a natural setting, need to go to campuses that have this to offer. This theory doesn't work for schools in city environments such as Georgia State. We have one park on campus and it is barely a park. It's very small and over taken by the homeless. Students who come to universities like GSU, know the environment they are accepting to live in. There isn't anywhere to put in green houses or farms in the middle of Atlanta. Georgia State is tightly integrated with the public and overlaps most of the time, like the homeless situation. Although the students might appreciate a nice natural setting to relax in, they knew it wasn't available to them upon going to school there. But despite the lack of greenery at this particular campus, there are so many learning opportunities and other factors to influence the students' experience at GSU. The buildings might be influential to an architect student, the roads to a civil engineer, or even the homeless people to a student activist. The environment influences in which way a student wants it to influence them.

Again, I am slightly frustrated with this article and this phrase. College is a time when students are expected to go off, live on their own, act like adults, and make their own decisions. Yes, we now live in a time of ultimate destruction. We have the entire world at our finger tips. You have the ultimate entertainer all inside your phone and, in college, no one to tell you to get off of it. Although outdoor time is important, getting fresh air and relaxing in a natural environment is proven to stimulate one's brain and help concentration, if a college student doesn't want to go outside, they won't. There is no "recess" in college where professors or RA's make the students go run around. Having the option to go outside is very important, I do agree. Alternatively, trying to convert every college campus into one that solely focuses on having a holistic campus might not be beneficial to all the students or campuses.

I agree with this particular phrase and not just in the context of college campuses. An adult who wants to be learning actively is going to, usually, place themselves in an environment which they will learn in. It doesn't have to be a classroom. It can take place even inside their own home. College is a short 4-6 years typically. Although higher education is a very influential part of people's lives, it is only about 5.5% of their life time. Humans begin learning the second their brains are developed, even subconsciously. We learn without trying to. That is why this article was slightly frustrating for me. Standardized learning beings around age 4 or 5, where toddlers are placed into a room made of 4 cinderblock walls, with about 30 minutes of outside time per 7 hours in the classroom. Therefore, this entire theory of cognitive learning and holistic learning environments shouldn't be held off until the ages of 18-25 when humans brains are almost fully developed.

Supplemental Reading: Lazy Rivers and Student Debt

This article from Inside Higher ED is a hot topic many college students discuss. Throughout this article Chris Christie and Elizabeth Warren, both influences in American politics, discuss their views on the large amount of money universities are spending on recreational complexes like lazy rivers and rock climbing walls. Although not all places of higher education are buying these two specific things, the price of college is going up, the rate of student debt is increasing, and students aren’t usually seeing how their student fees are benefiting them first hand. Although things like free pizza and movie nights or free t-shirts are all greatly appreciated by students, using the LSU example, $85 million renovation to the rec center might not have been where student fees needed to go, especially not when student fees were increased by $100 per semester. On a personal level, I don’t benefit what-so-ever from Grammy award winner Lil Wayne coming to perform at my school’s panther palooza this year, but for some reason my student fees went towards it. Meanwhile, every day we run out of parking, desks in Sparks hall, and the speakers in my music class are broken. (listening to music is pretty important in a music class) As a college student, I personally didn’t make a decision of where to college based of the rec center, even though I am very active in going to it and using the facility. If GSU put in a lazy river, I can agree with Jane Wellman, it wouldn’t influence the decision of prospective students. Updating dorms, expanding parking, making sure the education buildings are fully functioning, these things will draw more students in and raise profits.