WHAT PRICE HARVARD?

Increased college expenses and student financial aids must be discussed in them same breath. The two problems are closely bound up with each other; the first question asked when hearing of the rising expense of going to college is, what is the University doing to alleviate the situation? Attempting to relieve tremendous expense by more scholarships and more student loans is, however, applying a superficial remedy instead of attacking the problem itself. Dean Hindmarsh publishes an article in the current Alumni Bulletin, reprinted in today's CRIMSON, in which he explains student aids in the light of greater college costs. He states that a greater loan fund would prove beneficial. Why does he circumnavigate the vital spot? Why does he not talk about the increased room rents in the House Plan? They are the main reason for the present jump in the cost of going to Harvard.

The main trouble with the room rent situation seems to be that the whole business is very hazy. Nobody exactly knows just where the half-million dollar rental is going. For upkeep to be sure, but what is all included in "upkeep"? The president, the deans, the comptroller, the bursar, the seven house masters--all these men and many more have some kind of connection with the level of the rents but all except the president seem to be confused by the problem. Students are complaining, and some of the houses face the prospect of having several empty rooms, but still there is no explanation of the policy behind the raise.

In fact, there seem to be two divergent policies that have accentuated the high prices. Part of the men hold that the house plan rents, no matter whether necessary or not, can be paid by the Harvard undergraduate and hence should be charged. The other faction holds that the accrued rent is needed to defray the cost, of running the houses and hence must be charged. The first point is not only economically wrong but is unfair. Certainly no more than absolutely necessary should be charged. The second point admits another fallacy on which the authorities are working. They have taken Dunster and Lowell houses as criteria on which to fix the basic charge. These two houses had the pick of the University at their disposal and were filled, in the main, with men well above the economic average of Harvard College. Rather than make the average high a slight risk should have been taken. The authorities themselves have admitted that there is a risk even now. They have set aside $70,000 to cover it. This is also unfair. Why should the students be made to pay for being the subject of an educational experiment? Raising the rents and precluding the entrance of certain men into the House Plan defeats its fundamental purpose. Why, if such restrictions are placed, should the students themselves cover a risk?

One thing has been done in the enough money has been secured to raise the stipends given to the men now holding scholarships. But there are indigent students not holding these aids. Should they be made to borrow more? That is what they will have to do if they want to meet their financial obligations. A raise in the loan fund may be desirable but a decrease in room rents is more necessary.

The whole question finally comes down to this: the room rents are too high and if over a half-million dollars are needed to keep up the houses some endowment or other financial assistance should be secured. That this amount is hardly necessary is quite conceivable. The present student body, whose fathers are in the throes of a financial depression, should not bear the cost of launching the House Plan. That is the obligation of the University.