Making a House a Home

For all that we disparage our brethren in New Haven, there is one area where I am convinced Yale has us beat: the strength of its residential college system. Both Harvard's Houses and Yale's colleges were inspired by the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, but Yale has surpassed Harvard in achieving the goal of vibrant social and educational communities within the larger university. You see it in the spirit of the Elis at The Game, where inter-college rivalry nearly surpasses their animosity towards Fair Harvard. Yale has a popular residential college seminar program in which undergraduates propose the courses and instructors; contrast that with the poorly-publicized smattering of House seminar offerings at Harvard. Intramural athletics in Yale's colleges, instead of a hodgepodge of last-minute sign-ups and forfeits, is so intense and competitive that IM results are covered in campus publications.

I bring up the comparisons with Yale because Harvard's House system today is in grave danger of becoming irrelevant. Most of today's undergraduates view the Houses merely as upperclass dormitories. Tutors provide little, if any, academic instruction and are compared to "resident advisors" at other schools. Harvard students do not identify with their Houses the way they did several decades ago. The first question an alum asks is, "What House are you in?" Today, we pose the question to fellow students as "Where do you live?" And with two major shocks to the House system during my brief stint at Harvard-the departure of five of the 12 residential masters, some who had served upwards of 20 years, and the complete randomization of House assignments-the future of the House system looks uncertain at best.

It certainly wasn't always this way. In a discussion a year and a half ago, former Lowell House master William H. Bossert '59 described with fondness the days when the House committee would regularly plan parties which most of the residents would attend. He attributed the declining role of the House in Harvard social life to the raising of the drinking age in the 1980s, which forced weekend activities off campus to bars in the Square and the final clubs. I think part of the demise of the House is explained by the astronomical rise in the number of student organizations in recent decades and the growing importance of extracurricular, athletic and other College-wide activities.

I don't deny that House spirit exists today. A handful of Houses have done a remarkable job holding onto their existing traditions or creating new ones. Lowell has its opera and masters' tea; Kirkland has "incestfest" and the House boat club; Adams its masquerade and gong (flawed as it is as a symbol of exclusion); and Pforzheimer has revived Quad spirit on the wings of its Pfunny name. But the availability of House-based activities is wildly inconsistent across the Houses, and there certainly isn't any spirit or rivalry in the House system itself. Cabot residents may be very enthusiastic about IMs, but, for the rest of us, so what?

Here are some steps the College could take to revive the overall educational role of the Houses:

Offer more instruction, in the form of sections and seminars, in the Houses. I've only once had a section taught in my House. It was certainly more convenient and a great opportunity to meet new people in the House. But most importantly, the relaxed, informal environment led to the kind of natural, high-quality discussions which are so often lacking in sections. In-house sections for large lecture classes should be the norm, and Harvard should perhaps encourage resident or non-resident tutors to lead the sections whenever possible. Also, House seminar offerings-only a handful a year in only a few Houses--are pathetic, especially in comparison to the largely successful freshman seminars. More House seminars would be a great way for Harvard to satisfy its students' craving for more small-group instruction, especially in their electives.

Host more guests and professors for dinners and discussions in the Houses. The Senior Common Rooms (SCR), the loose network of professors and visiting scholars affiliated with each House, are grossly underutilized. Students never meet most of these luminaries; the few accessible ones pop in for an occasional Sunday brunch. Why not have SCR members lead discussion panels on interesting issues of the day or give general talks about their fields of research? Also, when SCR members host prominent visitors to their departments, perhaps they could invite those guests to the House for dinner or discussion.

Finally, Harvard should encourage diversity in the Houses, not stifle it. It's no wonder that so many long-serving masters want out. University Hall wants to make the Houses more uniform, from selecting tutors to making residential policies. The heavy hand of the Dean of the College means the masters have less control over the fate of their Houses.

President A. Lawrence Lowell, class of 1877 and the father of the House system, probably did not intend the Houses to become uniform residential and administrative districts, void of individual character and academic purpose. At a place as large and intimidating as Harvard, students want and deserve a smaller community that they can call home--an academic, recreational and residential home.

Andrew S. Chang '99 is a neurobiology concentrator in Kirkland House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.