ENGINEERS IN THE HOUSE

A single sentence in the University's release of information for prospective House applicants printed in this issue of the CRIMSON refers to the controversial question of Engineering students in the Houses. Although announcing that sophomores and juniors in the School may apply for rooms in the new units, the report says nothing about the status of the present first year men. Doubt apparently remains as to the final relation of the engineers and the House Plan.

When the details of the House Plan were made public last spring, it was understood that members of the Engineering School were to be excluded from the residences because the curriculum of the School has no connection with the tutorial system. This stand, however, was later temporarily modified, and prospective engineers were admitted into both Dunster and Lowell House. But the University has not as yet made any definite reversal of its original decision, and the present acceptance of applications from Engineering students only continues a hand to mouth policy.

The CRIMSON has repeatedly pointed out the desirability of including Engineering students in the House Plan. The cultural and social advantages of living in the Houses are as valuable to men in the School as to those in the Houses. No objection has been made to taking the engineers except the afore mentioned fact that their work does not embrace the methods of the tutorial system. The decision to exclude them on this basis was made entirely on the theory of the House plan on paper. As the plan seems to be working out, however, the importance of the tutorial system is relatively not so significant as is the benefit of general social contacts. Since this is the case, why not make practice a definite policy and include the Engineering School in the House Plan?