Reaction to Data Is Mixed

Students had mixed reactions to the statistics on house diversity released by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 last night.

Jewett's report indicated that there is significant variation among the houses in athletic and other extracurricular participation, scholastic achievement, ethnic and socioeconomic representation and area of concentration.

Most students anticipated these differences among the houses, although some said they were surprised by their magnitudes. But many undergraduates disagreed when interpreting the statistics, and when deciding the importance of diversity within the houses.

Lowell House resident John J. Nowaczyk '91-92 called most of the statistics expected, but said that the differences between the highest house and the lowest house in both scholarship aid and concentration choice came as a shock.

"I'm surprised by the financial aid statistic--and the one on the low house's percentage of concentrators in the humanities surprised me," he said.

Many students, both first-year and upperclass, said there was a problem with house diversity. "I think [the statistics] show a great lack of diversity," said Teddy Moscoso '93, a Thayer Hall resident. "It really affects the way you think about the houses. You form biases about the person from the houses."

"Compared to the [first-year] dorms it's definitely not as diverse," said Raquel A. Romano '92, of Lowell. "I would rather have [the houses] as random as the dorms."

But many disagreed. "At this place they worship diversity as a god," said Adam M. Jones '93, a resident of Holworthy Hall. "Diversity is not an end in itself. I don't think that having a lot of different people in your house is necessarily beneficial. You just have a house with more cliques in it."

Adams House resident Albert E. Wenger '90 agreed.

"The argument is that it is more educational to force different people to live together. Just by putting people in the same space you don't force them to interact," he said.

Wenger also felt the statistics were misleading. "I think the problem is the notion of diversity and how you measure it. I don't think you can measure diversity by these single statistics."

Stephen J. Klasen '91, also from Adams, said "I think there are obvious overall differences between houses. But I think it's ridiculous to assume there's an absolute lack of diversity in particular houses."

"Take the example of Adams House," he added, "I'm pretty sure we have the highest concentration of social science [concentrators]. But we have a high concentration of science [concentrators]. All houses are diverse to a certain degree. Why is it such a problem?"

Several students said that eliminating racial and socioeconomic differences was important, however.

"There would only be a problem with lack of diversity on racial grounds or socioeconomic grounds," Klasen said. "This is diversity by choice, not pressure."

"To try to make [the houses] completely diverse isn't a good idea. [But the socioeconomic differences] I think are a problem," said Holworthy Hall resident Steven L. Peterson '93.

Disagreement also arose over plans to increase house diversity. Most students opposed Jewett's proposal to randomize at least 50 percent of the sophomore spots within houses.

"It seems that the 50 percent won't change the character [of the stereotyped houses]," said Peterson. "You'll just stick people in that wouldn't want to be part of that character," he added.

While most of those who said that lack of diversity was a problem supported a policy of full randomization, some students favored a policy of "non-ordered choice." That alternative, forwarded by students, would allow rooming blocks to list four to six houses in no particular order, and be randomly placed into one of them given available space.