We’ve all read the reviews. Fairfield University hits the charts as one of the most beautiful college campuses in the country.

It is true that the aesthetic environment is considered one of Fairfield’s greatest assets and proves to be a strong advantage in winning over prospective students, or their parents at any rate.

Just think of the view of the hillside overlooking the library. One envisions a picturesque couple strolling beneath brilliant, sun-dappled foliage past the quaint, almost cottage-like Egan Chapel, past Bellarmine with the distinctive air of a Victorian manor house, before finally arriving at what appears to be the temporary housing quarters for a group of naturalists on safari.

This is not to say that the new Jesuit Residence is necessarily unattractive, although an alumni source was said to have found difficulty in distinguishing between the finished residence and the construction for it. It simply doesn’t  go with anything else.

Looking around the campus I notice that this holds true for most of the building designs. Only Bellarmine Hall, which was built in 1921, really has that collegiate feel. Its Tudor/ Norman style bears a striking contrast to the geometric patterns of 1960s era buildings such as the DiMenna- Nyselius Library.

Founded in 1942, Fairfield is a relatively young school, so it is understandable that its buildings bear little resemblance to the collegiate Gothic architecture common to such universities as Fordham and Yale.

Sure, the natural beauty of our campus would perhaps be enhanced by the presence of ivy covered brownstone or gray stone buildings, but evidently the original architect opted to give Fairfield a “modern” appearance. That was in the 1940s.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with rendering the first structures built after the founding of the University, namely Xavier Hall in 1947 and Loyola Hall in 1955, in a modern fashion. A problem develops when this concept of planning for new University buildings around contemporary styles continues through the ’50s, ’60s, ’70s, and every subsequent decade up to 2009.

Instituting a set plan for the style of future projects would have allowed new building plans to trace back to earlier constructs and contribute to an overall atmosphere of coordination. Instead Fairfield’s architecture is dated, disconnected and just confused.

In an age of U.S. News and World Report rankings, with more people going to college than ever before, and heightened qualifications for a tight job market, 2009 has been a year of more frenetic competition than America has experienced for quite some time. And it will only intensify- hence the scramble of colleges across the country (Farifield included) to improve itself in the wide eyes of potential undergraduates.

We’ve “gone green,” made the SAT optional, conducted renovations, planted a plot of grass, torn it up, and replanted it. If we are going to spend the money, we may as well do it right.

We should make choices to present Fairfield as an efficient institution that has pride in itself and respects the student body and faculty who have to see it everyday. We can all appreciate a little continuity.