Why removing wardens from halls is a mistake

For the thousands of first-year students arriving at Imperial each year, halls are more than just a place to sleep. They are the first community that every wide-eyed fresher encounters after a long-awaited summer spent imagining what it would be like to finally live away from home. What will flatmates be like? What will your room look like? Who will be your first point of contact if you’re worried about your wellbeing? In Imperial halls, that would be your warden.

This year, the university is currently considering changes to the wardening system that could fundamentally reshape that experience, and we need to talk about it. As a hall senior, I have seen firsthand what wardens do. The university-proposed changes misunderstand how halls function and risk dismantling one of the most important support systems first-year students have. Wardens are not distant administrators. They live in the building, know students by name, and are part of the everyday life of the hall. They deal with pastoral incidents, provide emergency responses, and support hall seniors. This cannot be replicated by a distant out-of-hours officer.

For many hall residents, it is their first time living without their family, some on the other side of the world. It is crucial that they can find a community where they belong within their accommodation – their home away from home. However, hall culture does not emerge on its own: it is built through events and shared experiences. Wardens support hall seniors in organising these events effectively, from the small gatherings to larger activities that make first year memorable (theatre trips, theme parks, etc.) that many students could not otherwise afford. Without a wardening team providing guidance, oversight, and logistical support, both the quantity and quality of these opportunities would inevitably decline.

In difficult moments, residents also turn to people they recognise and trust. The strength of the current system lies precisely in that familiarity. Wardens are present, visible, and integrated into hall life. A centralised welfare system staffed by external professionals may look efficient on paper, but it only works if students are willing to use it. A student who is distressed at two in the morning is far more likely to call the Duty Phone because they know the warden or sub-warden who will answer than call an anonymous service. Immediate help from a trusted person is often more valuable than distant help that feels impersonal.

There are also serious practical concerns. A small central team cannot realistically respond quickly to incidents occurring across multiple halls. Wardens currently provide immediate on-site support. Removing that presence risks creating delays precisely when fast responses matter most.

The proposal also raises questions about expectations placed on hall seniors. In the proposal, it is said that hall seniors would work 5 to 10 hours a week on average. This does not reflect the current workload. Hall seniors are student volunteers, not trained welfare professionals. Expanding our responsibilities to compensate for the removal of wardens would not only be inappropriate, but potentially also harmful to residents.

Overall, this decision feels rushed and, perhaps, not in students’ best interests. It would decrease the quality of service offered by first-year halls. Also, many questions remain unanswered. Who will deal with fire safety if not the wardening teams? Will someone be present to provide first aid in the middle of the night? Who will deal with disciplinary action? Who will advance the payments for bigger events? When will we know if things are changing? Will those currently in the application processes to become hall seniors be officially informed that the role they are applying for might significantly change in near future?

I am not saying that the university should not provide support to students that no longer live in halls by having a team they can always reach. I am just saying that this should not be at the detriment of hall residents, who remain vulnerable.

Beyond the objections I have to the proposed changes, I find Imperial’s handling of the situation deplorable. The main stakeholders of university accommodation should be the students, yet none of us have been asked what we think about the proposals. If the decisions, especially welfare and accommodation decisions, are being made without us, how can they truly benefit us?