From the St. Joseph River to the Living Water
Andrews University has quite a few water fountains on campus. I have been tasked with ranking these water fountains on three criteria, the total allotment towards each category which will add up to a total of 10 points. I will award up to three points for aesthetic/visual appeal, up to three points for convenience, and up to four points for taste. For reference, a 1 on this scale is equivalent to the St. Joseph River, and a 10 on this scale is the Living Water that is Jesus Christ. So, keep reading if you want to know which fountains to drink out of and which to avoid.
University Towers: The water fountain in front of the Burman Chapel was a two in aesthetics, a three in convenience, and a two in taste, leading to an overall rating of seven points. The Damazo Hall water fountain was the same. This was based on both the water fountain’s unpolished metal body, their lukewarm water, and the easy accessibility they offered. Score: 7 out of 10.
Meier Hall: Here, the water fountain in the lobby is easily accessible, and the water is crisp and cold, in spite of its bland taste and lackluster visual appeal. Thus, the Meier Hall water fountain receives a two in visual attractiveness, a three in taste, and a three in accessibility. Score: 8 out of 10.
Lamson Hall: The fountain in the Lamson Hall lobby deserves three points based on convenience, as visitors can easily stop by and get a drink. However, it is a two based on aesthetic appeal and taste, as its corner location is unattractive and the water is mediocre. The Lamson hallway water fountain, based on aesthetics and convenience, receives a score of three and two, respectively, but its water is warm, earning a score of two. Score: 8 out of 10, 7 out of 10.
Smith Hall: This building contains the most disappointing water fountain on campus. In terms of taste, it is horrendous, tasting of lawn clippings. It is difficult to access, requiring students to navigate through long hallways, and when the fountain is found, it is not attractive. Score: 3 out of 10.
Architecture Building: Here, the drinking fountain was conveniently placed at the front of the building, and with its clean exterior and cool water, which granted 3 points each, the fountain embodied a perfect model for a drinking fountain. Score: 9 out of 10.
Art & Design Center: This location offered a pleasant environment. The water fountains were placed in the midst of art hangings, and with moderate accessibility, provided an avenue for quenching one’s thirst. However, the water’s metallic taste detracted from these positive supports. Score: 6 out of 10.
The Physical Therapy Building: Exceeded expectations, with easy access, crisp water and a pleasant atmosphere. Score: 9 out of 10.
The Science Complex: This building has a plethora of fountains on each floor, with some better than others. The first floor Department of Chemistry received two’s all around, for a lack of convenience, as well as overall mediocrity. The Department of Biology was even more disappointing, receiving five points. The Department of Mathematics received a total of six points. The second floor offered a little relief, with the Department of Biology totalling at seven points. The Department of Chemistry receives a nine points, not due to the quality of water, but rather, their posting of the water’s mineral and chemical contents. Score: 6 out of 10, 7 out of 10, and 9 out of 10.
Nethery Hall: Stigmatized as one of the seemingly oldest buildings on campus, its water does not seem as such. The fountain on the first floor receives a total of eight points, due to its cleanliness and accessibility, with the second floor receiving the same score due to the pleasant taste of its water. Score: 8 out of 10.
Buller Hall: The second floor fountain will squirt bland water into your eye; however, it is accessible. The building’s first floor provides a mineral report, but is still not tasty. Score: 6 out of 10, 8 out of 10.
Johnson Gym: This water fountain is in a small corner, but is protected by a protective shield. Score: 7 out of 10.
Harrigan Hall: The first floor was musty and the water was bad. The second floor water fountain was the best, but was still not pleasant, and the third floor’s fountain was mediocre at best. Score: 4 out of 10, 6 out of 10, 5 out of 10.
Some of you may be thinking how overly pretentious this article may be, as a student can roams the campus criticizing water fountains; however, it brings to light a privilege that we have: clean water. There are people across the globe and across county lines that cannot drink out of their water fountains, let alone rate them. For example, Flint, Michigan, has been without clean water for nearly two years. Families must depend on external filters or bottled water to drink, while worrying that their children will suffer from the after effects of lead poisoning. But, there are ways to help. Donate or volunteer in communities that don’t have the same opportunities that you do, whether it be in Flint, or in other underserved areas. Consciously seek to make an impact in communities and populations that do not have the same privileges as you. Visit www.helpforflint.com/action for more information on how to aid Flint, and help others to write absurd water fountain reviews too.