New Cap On House Transfers Proposed

The Committee on House Life voted Wednesday to place tighter restrictions on students transferring among the upperclass houses.

If approved by a majority of house masters at their meeting later this month, the policy will go into effect this spring.

Under the new policy, students transferring into a house can take no more than 6 percent of the total slots available for incoming students. For example,if a house expects to have room for 150 newstudents--including incoming first-years andreturning undergraduates--the house could accept amaximum of nine transfer students.

The net loss of each house is also capped at 4percent of the house's ongoing population, thenumber of sophomores and juniors expected toreturn the following year.

These two criteria determine the amount ofpeople that can leave each house, according toDavid L. Duncan '93, a committee member and memberof the Undergraduate Council. The more people ahouse gains, the more it can lose throughtransfers--but both of these numbers are limitedby the 6 percent ceiling on the number of incomingstudents.

"I suspect it will be approved. What wasoutlined seemed to me like a happy compromise,where both sides get what is important to them,"said Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel.

Duncan said this plan is somewhat differentfrom last year's committee proposal which limitedincoming transfer students to 6 percent of totalincoming students and outgoing students to 6percent of the ongoing population, with no cap seton net loss or gain.

However, he said, confusion over the terms ofthe agreement kept it from being implemented asplanned.

"Some masters said they had interpreted itdifferently, that if they lost more they couldtake in more as long as the net [change] wasn'tover 6 percent," he said.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 decidedto go with the more liberal interpretation,overriding the original decision of the committee.This year, however, he has said he will accept anypolicy that the committee and the masters agreeupon.

He said the policy used last year receivedmixed reviews, although allowing transfers to bedetermined intra-house lotteries was generallyapproved. Previously, would-be transfer studentscould only apply to fill any leftover spaces inthe summer, and had to float into the house ifaccepted.

According to committee members, the newguidelines greatly increased the number oftransfers, from about 50 in past years to 155 lastyear out of 185 applicants.

"The imbalance with sophomores is a concern,"Jewett said. "People don't want to have too muchof a change."

Unless the masters decide at their meeting toask for further review, the policy will go intoeffect this spring, Jewett said.

Shinagel said his main concerns are that highlyliberalized transfer rules could adversely affectstability and diversity in the houses.

"We're not averse to students having choice,but [we don't want] houses to become ghettos forone group or another. I think Harvard is uniqueand think we need to preserve the uniqueness," hesaid.

However, David L. Hanselman '94, who sits onthe house life committee, opposed the policybecause of its restriction on inter-housemovement.

According to committee members, the resolutionwill reduce the total amount of transfers amongthe houses.

"Being from Currier, I couldn't in goodconscience vote for a plan [that's] morerestrictive," Hanselman said. "If you're going toget out of a house, it's because you're unhappy.It doesn't make any sense for you to have tostay.

The net loss of each house is also capped at 4percent of the house's ongoing population, thenumber of sophomores and juniors expected toreturn the following year.

These two criteria determine the amount ofpeople that can leave each house, according toDavid L. Duncan '93, a committee member and memberof the Undergraduate Council. The more people ahouse gains, the more it can lose throughtransfers--but both of these numbers are limitedby the 6 percent ceiling on the number of incomingstudents.

"I suspect it will be approved. What wasoutlined seemed to me like a happy compromise,where both sides get what is important to them,"said Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel.

Duncan said this plan is somewhat differentfrom last year's committee proposal which limitedincoming transfer students to 6 percent of totalincoming students and outgoing students to 6percent of the ongoing population, with no cap seton net loss or gain.

However, he said, confusion over the terms ofthe agreement kept it from being implemented asplanned.

"Some masters said they had interpreted itdifferently, that if they lost more they couldtake in more as long as the net [change] wasn'tover 6 percent," he said.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 decidedto go with the more liberal interpretation,overriding the original decision of the committee.This year, however, he has said he will accept anypolicy that the committee and the masters agreeupon.

He said the policy used last year receivedmixed reviews, although allowing transfers to bedetermined intra-house lotteries was generallyapproved. Previously, would-be transfer studentscould only apply to fill any leftover spaces inthe summer, and had to float into the house ifaccepted.

According to committee members, the newguidelines greatly increased the number oftransfers, from about 50 in past years to 155 lastyear out of 185 applicants.

"The imbalance with sophomores is a concern,"Jewett said. "People don't want to have too muchof a change."

Unless the masters decide at their meeting toask for further review, the policy will go intoeffect this spring, Jewett said.

Shinagel said his main concerns are that highlyliberalized transfer rules could adversely affectstability and diversity in the houses.

"We're not averse to students having choice,but [we don't want] houses to become ghettos forone group or another. I think Harvard is uniqueand think we need to preserve the uniqueness," hesaid.

However, David L. Hanselman '94, who sits onthe house life committee, opposed the policybecause of its restriction on inter-housemovement.

According to committee members, the resolutionwill reduce the total amount of transfers amongthe houses.

"Being from Currier, I couldn't in goodconscience vote for a plan [that's] morerestrictive," Hanselman said. "If you're going toget out of a house, it's because you're unhappy.It doesn't make any sense for you to have tostay.