Year in the Yard

The freshman year would be improved if freshmen lived in the Houses. Life in the Houses is generally considered one of Harvard's main advantages, and is usually considered far more pleasant than the freshman year by upperclassmen. The intellectual superiority of House life over that of the communal bathrooms of the Yard and the stock-yard Union is rarely denied. Students should be drawn into this more vital experience for their freshman year.

The main arguments advanced by the Administration for the advisability of a year in the Yard are: that it provides a more gradual transition to college life than the Houses; that it gives freshmen their own set of activities; that freshmen meet more people and develop more "class spirit" than they would in the Houses; that a freshman is helped by being surrounded by people "in the same boat"; and that upperclassmen would be a harmful influence on a student's life so early in his undergraduate career.

The first two "transition" arguments are hardly defensible. It is doubtful that the Houses offer any more difficult transition than does the Yard. Giving freshmen their own set of activities for transition's sake is of equally dubious value; these activities are usually of peripheral importance.

If the University's purpose is to incubate a brood of college politicians, a year in the Union might be an experience to be desired. It is also probably true that a year together in the Yard would develop more "Class spirit"--if anyone at Harvard had such an unlikely trait as "Class spirit."

Possibly what is regarded as the strongest argument for not having freshmen in the Houses, the inadvisability of being exposed to upperclassmen, is one of the strongest arguments for having freshmen in the Houses. Being surrounded by people in "the same boat" is not necessarily a good thing; this experience often only intensifies the fear of the academic process that bedevils many freshmen. Many freshmen take the academic requirements of Harvard far too seriously, usually to their academic and personal detriment.

Certainly, the most serious argument against having freshmen in the Houses is that of space limitation. This limitation prevents any immediate movement of freshmen into the Houses. However, the advisability of this suggestion should be considered in the University's long-range building program. The present freshman dormitories could possibly be used for University offices, graduate housing, or, if the already needed remodeling is done, to house married students.

Granting that space limitation is a serious objection does not preclude the possibility of considering the future admission of freshmen to the Houses. The ever-increasing number of students admitted with sophomore standing will make first-year House residence more of a reality.

Having freshmen in the Houses would give them a more intellectually and socially fruitful year, and a much more pleasant first impression of Harvard. But even if housing limitations do prevent the institution of this suggestion, the Administration should stop deluding itself and the freshmen in proclaiming the advantages of a year together in the Yard.