Size Does Matter

Last week's long-anticipated blocking statistics offer the College a positive-but tentative-sense that some of the adverse effects of randomization predicted by its critics may not be born out in practice. But the data also raise concerns about ways in which students may be trying to avoid randomization's ill-effects by surrounding themselves with large groups of companions. Though the figures regarding the concentration of minority students in blocking groups raise interesting questions, the statistics are not yet conclusive enough for productive discussion. We hope to hear more from the College on the topic in the future. Meanwhile, the question of how large a blocking group is too large remains central to the issue of randomization.

Additional data presented at the Committee on House Life meeting also showed an increasing trend in the size of blocking groups, particularly those with the maximum number of 16. House masters and College administrators have long worried about this upward trend, but these figures finally confirm those concerns. In particular, officials worry that the trend will stymie the College's attempts to create gender balance in the Houses-a goal the Crimson supports.

But their other major concerns is that large blocking groups insulate students from the ideals of randomization by reducing their motivation to get involved in House community beyond the confines of the blocking group. And while we understand the College and various masters' concern that students in large blocking groups neglect to take as active a role in House-specific activities as students from smaller groups, we feel that such integration is the burden of the House themselves and not of the students. Last week's announcement should not prompt the College to limit student liberty by curbing blocking group size. Instead, this statistical evidence proves to the House masters and tutors that their duty to involve students in House activities is greater than ever. There simply will not be the same level of House-involvement as there was pre-randomization unless a concerted, tangible effort is made to bring students in the Houses together.

But while we support maintaining the 16-member blocking group option based on the principle of student choice, we concede that large blocking groups are not always the best answer. We recognize that the effect of students' living with their entire group of friends in the same house-and often also in the same entryway-is detrimental to their college experience and prevents the broadening of social horizons.

The problem with blocking groups is not their upward trend in size or their unbalanced gender composition. Instead, it is the nebulous conception of a blocking group in itself. Ideally and for the most part, a blocking group should be a group of close friends and potential roommates. Rarely should it be an entire social circle. But the hazy purpose of blocking groups is again not reason to restrict students' ability to choose with whom to live throughout their college years. Rather, it is reason for the Houses, upperclass students and first-year proctors to clarify the purpose of blocking groups to first-years before these misinterpretations gel. Blocking should be addressed far before first-year housing forms are due in March so as to explain that a blocking group should never encompass one's entire social circle but rather provide students with a core of companions with which to experience and identify with their specific house.

Randomization continues to be one of Harvard's most complicated campus issues. These statistics are a good first step-but only a first step-towards a continuing analysis of whether this new system has been a success.