STUDENT COUNCIL URGES NARROWING ROOM RENT RANGE

A plan to narrow the range of room rents, by eliminating the topmost brackets of the rent scale and raising the prices of the cheapest rooms, is set forth in the report of the 1932-33 Student Council on the House Plan.

Among the other highlights of the report is a recommendation that House athletics be more thoroughly organized, and an approval of the club method exemplified by the Eliot House rowing club. The emergency employment program for students receives high praise and a hope that it will be continued. A plan to have an assistant dean reside in each House is also approved.

The sections of the report dealing with these questions are printed below:

House Rents

The question of rents in the Houger notwithstanding rate reductions, remains a problem of major importance at the present time. Why is it that one of the Houses is losing 20 men next year, roughly 18 per cent of whom state that financial reasons have influenced them? Is there no remedy for such cases? And why does a group representing 34 per cent of the final club membership, 78 men out of 227, remain outside the House Plan? How much income should the University obtain from room rentals? These questions can best be considered by a reference to the history of this perplexing problem.

When the seven Houses first opened during the year 1931-32, an effort was made, in pricing the rooms, to obtain an average figure that would be the same as the previous figure in the Yard and Mt. Auburn Street dormitories. The Student Council Report of that year, dealing with "Student Expenses, Aids, and Employment," disclosed that the average room rental price in the Houses was about $40 higher than in the College dormitories prior to the House plan.

Faculty Committee

A Faculty committee took this difficulty in hand, and as a result of its investigation House rents were cut 12 per cent, the new price schedule to take effect in 1933-34. The change, chiefly affecting higher priced rooms, represented a $60,000 shrinkage in income to the University; the average rental figure dropped from $300 to $264, its value before the Houses came into being. Throughout this discussion the prices quoted are those per man. Under the new schedule no rooms were priced higher than $500, in contrast to the previous maximum of $600. The number of accommodations costing $260 and less was increased from 681 to 1000.

Quite naturally this extensive reduction in room prices was greeted enthusiastically by those concerned with the cost of living in the Houses. Speaking for the average man, the CRIMSON stated that "the University had satisfied all its financial wants." With an average price for accommodations set up to the figure that had existed prior to the establishment of the House Plan, if could no longer be said that the introduction of the Houses had increased the cost of rooms. Nevertheless the room rent problem persists, chiefly as mentioned in question form at the beginning of this section.

Native Economy

The chief factor contributing to the reluctance of men to take high priced rooms is native economy. In addition, the advantages of "expensive suites" are little greater than those of more moderate rooms. Since the rooms themselves are certainly fairly even in affection with ten exceptions, a spread in reuis from $100 to $500 does not accurately measure the relative values received. Men who realize this seek the cheapest room available. Few men of ample means are altruistic enough to take expensive rooms for the sake of making possible low-priced accommodations for their less affluent colleagues. Nor are they moved by the realization that no undergraduate pays fully for the amount of equipment and instruction offered him, and that by taking an expensive room they are merely paying in proportion to their ability.

It is the purpose of this report to advocate narrowing the band of room prices. Once this is done in a way compatible with the income that the University must receive, room rents should be revised to give equality among the Houses.

Span of Prices

To lessen the great differences that exist in room prices would be to lessen the feeling of many residents that some men are obtaining the same advantages at far less than cost. The best way of setting the rates would be first to set the span of prices, and to determine how many different levels there should be. The number of accommodations in each price class should be proportional to the total accommodations in the House.

The traditional argument against such a scheme is that differences exist between the numbers of doubles, singles, and multiple suites in the various Houses. Here the committee reasserts its contention that these differences can be ironed out, due to the near uniformity of room advantages. Difficulties will of course arise in rooms of sunless character, and in multiple suites. Where a House has a certain proportion of its rooms priced at the lowest level the sunless room could be rented at that figure. Multiple suites could be rented to the many groups of men who seek entrance into a House in a body. After pricing at low figures these less desirable rooms, the bulk of the rooms in the House would remain available at slightly higher rates.

Higher Priced Rooms

The higher priced rooms should be reduced to rates that will attract men who can afford them and who are now outside the House Plan because of the savings they make in rents.

[A table is attached to the Council's report showing room rents as they will be in 1933-34, together with a "Schedule X" intended to illustrate the way in which the band of prices could be narrowed.--Ed]

The extra $8815 income obtained by increasing prices of all accommodations $5 each is used to counteract losses in room rentals when, for example, 100 rooms are changed from the $300 to the $260 class. The income drop is $40 per accommodation (the price actually falls from $305 to $265), or $4000 for the block of 100. The additions and subtractions in each case are indicated in the "change" column. Summation of the gains and losses incurred coincident with the change in the number of accommodations at each price, indicates a loss of income of $8800. Hence the increased price level makes possible the changes indicated on page 15, with a change in the total income of plus $15 for the University.

Arbitrary Adjustment

Of course this calculation represents an arbitrary adjustment, furnished as an example. Schedule X, or any other schedule of equal amount, could be put through without raising all prices $5 at the outset if the University could afford a decrease of $8800 in its revenues. Incidentally it is gratifying to know that the interest charges to which the House rents contribute will be reduced when