Monday - Day ThreeToday we get up and look forward to visiting another United World College. Armand Hammar UWC of the American West is located here in Las Vegas, New Mexico and was the reason why we came this way. The college is closer to the Las Vegas community than we thought it would be - about the distance Metchosin Cafe might be from the college. Coming from Pearson, with trails that lead off far in the distance we were surprised at how near other people were to the campus. We get to the administration offices, located in a really nice old building which used to be the Hot Springs Hotel. We get a visitors' pass and head out exploring. The first place we head for is the Dwan Light Sanctuary, which is the college's place for reflection for people of all beliefs. This is an incredible building which uses 'twelve large prisms in the apses and ceiling to create a progression throughout the year of unique spectrum events.' The building is something of a circular pyramid, with three large windows that rise its full height. The floor is paved so that there are a number of circles and other geometrical figures in its centre, and there are seats built circularly around the walls. In the alcove under each window is a stand for three candles, and in a room off the main room there is a storage space for cushions, and a bathroom. As the literature says, 'The Sancturary's orientation and geometry are derived from calculations to align the prisms of the building to the sun, moon and stars, and to capture their light rays from sunrise to sunset'. Pearson has talked many times about building a spiritual centre and if it turns out to be anything like this it would be a true place for reflection. |
|
 |
 |
| We move on to the Montezuma Castle which was well in the process of being renovated, covered with scaffolding and a number of workmen. This reminded Philip of when work was being done on the Statue of Liberty in New York a number of years back. There is a fence that does not allow us to get very close so we look on and then head to the the rest of the campus which is where the main differences from Pearson College are evident.
Perhaps the most obvious difference between the colleges is that the American UWC is designed like a college, while Pearson (as many of you will have heard me remark) is designed like a village. Montezuma is not as organic as Pearson. That is probably an advantage to people who like things orderly; all the student residences are at one end of the campus, all the academic buildings are in the middle, and the administration building is at the other end. The auditorium is right in the centre, with the music room and the art room on either end. On the outside of this complex is a large CLOCK!!!!! (Naren would love it!).
This complex, as well as the cafeteria, which looks very nice, and is carpeted, looks out over the sports field that is at the very front of the campus. The overall feeling is that one is more crowded by buildings than is the case at Pearson, as the buldings don't disappear into the foliage, and as the layout is far more school-like, with concrete paving covering much of this area. However, from the outside, all of this is very pretty - the buildings are done in red brick, with blue roofs, echoing the theme set by the castle. Especially from the main driveway, the picture offered by the college is very pleasing (a little spoiled, for me, by the fact that the clock is front and centre). But it looks like a college, and not like a summer camp. Maybe that's a good thing; but Philip and I decided that we are now biased in the Pearson direction. What we found most disappointing were the communal interior spaces - the classrooms, the auditorium, the dorm rooms. In every case, it appeared that functionality was the overriding principle, rather than aesthetics or communality. Although the actual residential area is very pleasant - each pair of dorms has a patio area that they share, and there are lots of trees and shade and grassy areas - the inside was far too much like a college dorm for my liking. Their equivalent dayrooms are nowhere near as inviting aesthetically as Pearson's dayrooms - they are simply lounges at the end of each dorm. I get the impression that the residents of each dorm are responsible for decorating them. The first one we entered was (I presume) a guy's dorm (no offence, guys) because the walls were really shabby, as though the paint had been stripped away in places. The nice thing about these rooms is that they have a proper cooking area as well as the laundry area (off to the back). They appear to be about the same size as a Pearson College dayroom, but again a less organic space. Another disappointment was the sense that there was really no true communal entryway for these buildings either. Like college residences, the main door enters into a separate space that isn't big enough, or inviting enough, for any kind of socializing to take place. The hallways lie beyond more doors, which can be shut off as well. I would guess that the main idea is that most socializing should take place on the patios - not a bad idea for an area that is not part of a rain forest.
We peeped into one of the rooms. This one was designed for two people, not for four, and the overall impression that we got, again, was functionality. However that seems to work better in a room than in a communal space. Although the room was again not designed for aesthetic pleasure - it was boxy, with high windows - it certainly allowed more personal space than Pearson rooms do. I would imagine that it is probably a lot easier to study in one of these rooms than it is at Pearson - a good thing, because the common area is terrible for studying in! Also the square footage per person seems larger. However there was no real character about these rooms, unlike (say) an upstairs room at Pearson, or Room 3, where the ceiling is so high and the big window lets in more light. The auditorium and the classrooms were equally disappointing, if not more so. They were absolutely functional! The auditorium reminded Philip and me of many a high school auditorium anywhere, with no views to the outside and carpeting on the floor and a high proscenium stage. The seating is not built-in, as it is in Pearson, but it consists of folding metal chairs. The first years discussed the true communality of the Max Bell in their meeting - well, guys, the Max Bell is a veritable hotbed of communality compared with this hall! Any performance would have the audience looking up at a stage that is square on and hidden behind a proscenium arch - MUCH less intimate than the Max Bell. As a performance space Philip was very disappointed in it, as the carpet and the functional ceiling rendered it acoustically deadly. For my part, I could barely imagine holding a national day performance there, and CERTAINLY not a village meeting (though I believe the practice at that UWC is to sit on the floor in a circle when such meetings occur). However, it looked as though the techinical amenities were superior to Pearson's - there seemed to be more lights, both in front of the stage and over it. Again, the classrooms looked just like any other classroom in any other school. Unlike Pearson, where each classroom/teaching space has its own distinctive character and feeling, these are all alike, and have either long tables where people sit or those metal chairs with attached desktops that you see in every high school movie. Philip and I decided that the most functional and least attractive of Pearson's classrooms (we decided these were the math rooms - we are not including the labs) are more attractive than these! In the end, Philip and I came away with the impression that for people who attend the American UWC, there is no doubt from the beginning that one is attending a school. With the exception of the castle, which, once it is renovated, is going to be the centre of activity on campus (and which should, then, change the atmosphere considerably), the functional parts of the college, while pretty, haven't got a whole lot of character. The spiritual centre is a BIG plus, as is the sports field, which is huge and extremely well landscaped (no ruts and holes in their soccer field). The rest of the college, though, could have been lifted from any other American liberal arts college, placed in New Mexico, and occupied by international scholars. We are of course biased, having lived at Pearson. My cousin Adrian, who attended AC, thought it was great (he was particularly impressed, I think, with the setting, the hot springs, and the castle.) No doubt, though, when the students are there, it feels completely different. For as we've learned at Pearson, it's the students that make the college!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|