CHUL and Housing

ALTHOUGH THE recommendations of the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) did little to change the present housing system and offered no solution to the problem of the Quad Houses' unpopularity, Dean Rosovsky two weeks ago "reluctantly" accepted the CHUL's proposals, except for one "minor" alteration in the system used to assign freshmen to Houses.

However, the alteration Rosovsky made is hardly a minor one. CHUL had suggested that Rosovsky continue to use the assignment system that had been in effect the last two years. Under that system, freshman roommate groups ranked all 12 Houses in order of preference. Assignments were then made randomly by a computer programmed to give as many groups as possible their first choice House.

The method Rosovsky used this year still asked roommate groups to rank the Houses, but the order in which those groups were assigned to a House was determined by a computer-run lottery. Each roommate groups received the House it ranked highest among those still available when its turn arose.

Rosovsky says he made this change to create an assignment system that is "more straightforward and easier for freshmen to understand." The method did encourage students to list the Houses in their actual order of preference (something administrators have been curious about for several years) rather than devise elaborate schemes of juggling the rankings "to beat the computer."

But the benefits the administration might have derived from obtaining a more accurate statistical picture of the Houses' relative popularity will undoubtedly be paid for by the many members of the Class of '79 who receive Houses ranked in the lower half of their list. Although Bruce Collier, assistant dean of the College, insists that "the results of the new method will depend on the way in which choice is distributed" and that "if the distribution is similar to last year's, there will not be much difference in the results," Collier does admit that Rosovsky's method is more likely to result in fewer people receiving their first choice and more people receiving their 12th choice.

What is more unfortunate and most ironic about the dean's "minor alteration" is that it, like CHUL's suggestion to raise the Quad sex ratio, appears likely to exacerbate rather than solve the housing problem. Not only will freshmen with high lottery numbers be assigned to a Quad House which they very likely ranked 11th or 12th, but it is also conceivable that roommate groups whose first choice is a Quad House will not be assigned there.

Although the dean made a serious and important mistake in rejecting out of hand CHUL's recommendation and altering the assignment process, Rosovsky's reluctance to accept CHUL's other proposals is understandable. After struggling for a year and considering a variety of alternatives, the panel's recommendations, in essence reaffirming the status quo despite its present flaws, made no progress toward solving the complex housing problem. Despite the complexity of the issue, CHUL's performance provides a sad illustration of its effectiveness as an institution in dealing with matters clearly within its jurisdiction.