THE HOUSING LOTTERY

I believe that the current housing lottery should be changed to a system of modified random assignment. A modified random plan would allow freshmen to still pick their rooming and blocking groups in March These groups then would be randomly assigned to the different houses. But most Harvard students blindly come to the defense of the current system. Students harp on "the right to choose" and the importance of determining their own face. Many assume that the more control they have over the assignment process, the happier they will be. The Administration perceives these sentiments and hesitates to deny students this privilege to choose their place of residence. Although these people realize some of the drawbacks to the Hease lottery, they are nonetheless drawn to the status quo. Most forget that the lottery system is only 12 years old. There has been change before and there are important reasons why there should be change again.

The stereotypes of the Harvard houses are based on actual differences According to Dean of the College John B. Fox his '59 study of House population, in 1982, the percentage of varsity athletes ranged from a high of 45.7 percent in one House to a low of 4.7 percent in another. The percentage of Black students ranged from 17 percent to 3 percent. There is no reason to believe the 1985 will figures will be much different because the current lottery ensures that stereotypes exist and persist. Freshmen undeniably choose the Houses according to stereotypes because they assume they will be happiest with people "similar to themselves."

The result is a house system that divides students into separate and internally homogeneous groupings. Harvard stresses its diversity; these are practically the opening lines of the admission catalogue and one of the qualities of the University that draws students here. Yet, the Harvard House system frustrates this effort to promote diversity by encouraging segregation rather than by creating a melting pot of the different ethnic and social groups admitted to Harvard.

House population should approximate a microcosm of the college population. It is a given that Harvard largely impersonal place. Except in their Houses, students usually are exposed only to students with similar academic and extracurricular interests. Only the House can bring together students of different backrounds and interests. This contact is crucial to the so called Harvard experience. With a more equal distribution of students among the Houses, the quality of undergraduate life at Harvard will improve, giving students valuable experience will survive long after graduation.

Moreover, students individually would benefit from change to a more random assignment process. Students arguing for the present system say that if 70 percent of students get their first choice then 70 percent of the student body must be happy. I remain unconvinced that all students in their first choice house--not to mention the other 30 percent--are extremely satisfied. Many are content, but they rightly believe that something is missing from their House environment.

One student in Dunster, for example, described how he missed not having even the occasional opportunity to sit down, with a varsity football player in his own House dining room. Many students in a first choice house also feel uncomfortable with the stereotypes and regret having to be labelled. On the other hand, the Houses that do not to first round have more diverse house populations. I have never heard students in those Houses complain about their fellow Housemates but only about the distance of their house from the Square and classes. In fact these students frequently seen most enthusiastic about their House life.

Despite students emphasis on the importance of choice, I believe that freshmen in fact would benefit most if they did not have such a choice. The current lottery simply generates enormous anxiety for freshmen during February and March. I still remember how traumatic it was to decide on our choice of house, and even witnessed rooming groups break up over the decision of which House to pick first. Since freshmen believe that each House is very different from the others, they are overly concerned about getting into the House that best suits them. Moreover, the lottery overemphasizes the perceived disparity between river and Quad houses and the importance of the results. Random House assignment could minimize this anxiety and free freshmen from what is a time consuming and unproductive concern.

Harvard should not adopt the Yale system in which freshmen are assigned to their upperclass Colleges even before they reach new Haven; Harvard is different from Yale and should have a different type of random system. Freshmen should still be able to pick their roommates and blockmates in March. But these groups would be randomly assigned to the Houses, although the sex ratio would be maintained. There are many advantages to such a system. A freshmen would continue to be exposed to all his or her classmates during the year and could still pick roommates from the whole class. The choice of roommates is really essential and would not be limited to those freshmen who had beer assigned to the same House. All 12 residential Houses would benefit from the overall diversity of Harvard students.

Students would no longer be stereotyped, Instead they would have the opportunity to live with and learn from all different types of people Contrary to the arguments made by those favoring the status quo random group assignment would foster rather than destroy house spirit. Students would work to create their house identity each year rather than conform to existing reputations. Harvard could use a shake up like this.

Jessica E. Levin, a sapitomore, is chairman of the Residential Commuiea of of the Undergraduate Council and a member of the student-faculty Committee on Housing.