Social Life and Harvard Don't Mix

Consistently on this page, we have lamented that Harvard administrators are out of touch with students. We have called for greater student outreach when important decisions are up for deliberation. And too often, our appeals have fallen on deaf ears. But there are new indications that our cries have not been in vain.

The College is thankfully taking steps to recruit new voices to speak on behalf of the student body. Following the year-long tenure of Zachary A. Corker ’04 as assistant to the dean for special programming, the College is creating the Harvard College Fellowship for Campus Life—a one-year position available only to graduating seniors. The new fellowship will resemble Corker’s role—an attempt to build an effective bridge between students and the administration to improve Harvard’s oft-bemoaned social life.

While we are glad that the administration is taking an active interest in bridging the student-administration gap, the new position, unless properly considered, may inevitably fail—and it is not the sole solution to ending social woes at Harvard.

According to Harvard’s employment website, prospective employees will be charged with “[broadening] the range of social activities offered to students and provid[ing] logistical support and advice on funding and procedures.” And while Corker has been effective in this capacity—he was, after all, integral in Harvard-Yale tailgate negotiations and the recent first-ever dodge ball tournament—it is likely that much of the position’s success stems from the personality who inhabited it rather than the clear objectives that defined it. After all, it was Corker who proposed and created the position in the first place, calling on the College to create the post only months after he graduated. His hard work throughout the semester has proven that his interest in improving student life is sincere. Unfortunately, creating a position around a specific departing person can all to easily devolve into yet another layer of wasteful bureaucracy.

To be sure, most any recent graduate—like Corker—will have a more relevant perspective on student concerns than his or her antiquated administrative counterparts; but to be an effective position, the College needs to attract the rare student like Corker to apply. Under the current provisions, however, we worry that the College will not attract the most talented and student-sympathetic graduates. First, while the new fellowship will provide its prospective employee with full benefits and a “competitive salary,” the College will not be providing the recent graduate with housing, which Corker currently enjoys in Pforzheimer House. Though College officials have given no indication as to what defines a “competitive salary,” it is safe to say it will not be competitive with investment banking or consulting.

Not providing housing also seems counterintuitive to the virtues of this position. An administrator working for student interests can only benefit from the essential daily interactions involved in living and eating with students on a daily basis. Corker’s successor should be given the opportunity to live in one of the Houses not only to make the salary more attractive, but also to ensure that he or she is genuinely attuned to student sentiment.

We certainly hope this position leads to vast improvements and brings student representatives and the administrators in University Hall closer together. But it has the very real potential of being a moderate waste of money. Furthermore, anyone who thinks this position will single-handedly solve the problem of social life at Harvard by itself is just dead wrong. That will require far more than offering a fellowship to a recent grad, but we are glad to know that the goal is on administrators’ minds. If only we could say it’s just the thought that counts.