Housing

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As a North House representative to the Undergraduate Council and a member of its Residential Committee. I would like to make one final, post referendum statement concerning the debate over choice and diversity in Harvard's House assignment process.

First of all it is essential to point out that when 54 percent of the student population prefers the present system over a modified random system and only 35 percent feel conversely the Council has little choice but to support the present system. This comes from an individual who has ardently supported the indication of a modified random system.

When dealing with the choice vs. diversity issues one very interesting point presents itself in the staristies students were asked to rate the two options, one of which was hypothetical and intangible (i.e, the modified random system) and another which every upperclassman had experienced (i.e, the present system). Thus one rating was air academic assessment based on thought alone while the other was primarily the product of personal experience.

It's especially noteworthy that when asked to rate the present system the percentage of students supporting it was roughly equivalent to the number of students in a first choice. House Personal experience dictated that about three-fourths of the student body "won the lottery game so about three-fourths were satisfied with the current system.

On the other hand, when asked to rate the modified random-system a concept that had not been personally experienced and could only be analyzed in an abstract manner, more students actually supported if than opposed it. Thus when removed form any biases resulting from experience, the modified random system was actually supported more tha opposed. So what does this actually mean.

I would suggest that it illustrates a situation which I have suspected to existing all along the Harvard House system is a good one where a sizeable majority of students get their first-choice House and every House exhibits a student population that is very satisfied with its House experience. Thus the substantial support for the present system. However, while a majority of students are happy with this system, I would submit that even a larger majority would be happier in the diverse inconveniences resulting form their distance from other Houses, Quail residents are just as satisfied with their Houses as are River House residents. This is primarily a result of the greater diversity found in the Quad environment resulting-from a modified random system I would cite the Quad Houses as my example.

Despite inferior housing arrangements and Houses. If students like a diverse House population enough that it more than compensates for inferior structures and greater isolation can von imagine how valuable diversity would be in an architecturally first-rate as Eliot or Lowell?

Maybe if students had been more objective, more far sighted and better in formed the referendum results would have been different. But that's an awful lot of maybe's. We have a choice-oriented-system now and will continue to have one for some time to come. The Houses as a rule do nor represent microcosms of the College as a whole. Whether this is good or bad is open to debate. However, it is all-important that as the referendum fades into the past, residential issues don't fade as well North House still has no money for renovations. Mather is still crowded, and the list goes on. While our system is good, it isn't perfect. While it won't be random it can still be improved. Let us not lose sight of this. Christopher Roy '86   North House Representative to the Undergraduate Council