Appeal of Lottery Compromise Dwindles

What a difference three months can make.

In January, first-year students were full of hope and joy, as Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 agreed to a compromise on the housing lottery--a compromise that seemed to grant the students more control over their housing destinies.

But as first-years filled out their house preference forms this week, they suddenly learned that the new system of non-ordered choice was not exactly what they had expected.

"I just realized this week how we've been really screwed," one first-year student lamented on Thursday.

For the first time ever, first-year students this year will be randomly assigned to one of four unranked house choices. The new non-ordered choice-system is a marked change from the old lottery system, which allowed students to rank their top three choices.

Last January, students and administrators alike were more than happy to end three years of polarized debate over the housing lottery by accepting Jewett's decision to implement the non-ordered choice compromise.

"It's not the perfect plan, but the masters are willing to try it," Leverett House Master John A. Dowling '57 said.

"I think it's definitely a victory for students and for student choice," said James M. Harmon '93, chair of the committee that originally proposed the plan.

And the Class of 1993 seemed to agree. After all, a study based on last year's data indicated that a smaller percentage of students would be randomized.

But as the first-years actually began to pick their house preferences this week, many said they suddenly realized they had never really given much thought to the new system.

Under the old system, students concocted imaginative strategies for getting the house assignments they wanted. But the new system has left many baffled. Most say it leaves little room for scheming to beat the system.

Even worse for choice advocates, a survey conducted by The Crimson this week revealed a skewed distribution of house choices, with many students choosing the same two or three houses. Meanwhile, only 35 percent of the Class of 1993 said they would be including a "safety" as one of their four choices.

An uneven distribution of house choices may result in a significant number of students being randomly assigned to a house other than one of their four choices.

"The more clustering there is, then there's a smaller chance you will get in one of your choices," says Dean K. Whitla, director of the Office of Instructional Research and Evaluation. "Maybe there was a change in the thinking of the students."

"The problem with this system is that there's no incentive for people to choose a safety," says Harmon. "I'm unhappy with how its working."

As a result, some of the compromise architects are now having second thoughts.

"The Committee on House Life, the Deans and the Masters didn't expect this to happen," says Guhan Subramanian '91-92, chair of the Undergraduate Council. "Maybe we'll have to rethink the system."

Administrators, however, are more optimistic about the new system.

"There seemed to be much less anxiety," says Associate Dean Thomas Dingman. "There wasn't a need to sort out the ranks of the choices."

Of course, nobody is making any predictions about future lottery changes--at least not until housing assignments are announced this Thursday.