Non-Ordered Choice Confirmed, Promotes More Diverse Houses

This spring the College confirmed the trial housing system of "non-ordered choice" by which students are randomly assigned among four specified houses.

The move is meant to break up stratification in the houses by sprinkling the College's diverse elements among the various houses. It also flew in the face of Undergraduate Council proposals seeking to increase the amount of choice first-year students have in selecting their upper-class house.

"Although there was some discussion and some new suggestions, there was not a consensus on a different system," says Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57.

The new system has increased diversity in many categories, including athletes and private school background. But it has made little hand-way in other key areas--including the distribution of minority students, according to a four-year review of the system last December by Associate Dean of the College for Housing Thomas A. Dingman '67.

In 1989 the non-ordered choice system was the result of a brokered compromise among some students who wanted to retain ordered choice in the computerized assignment procedure and many house masters who insisted on fully random housing allotments.

Many house masters said then that under the previous system the houses did not reflect the College's diversity.

"At the time, we were concerned with the distribution of athletes and students with public and private school backgrounds," Associate Dean of the College for the House System Thomas A. Dingman '67 said earlier this year.

Similar Debate

When the debate opened earlier this year, as the system's three-year trial period expired, it appeared that while the faces were different, the positions of the students and masters were the same as in 1990.

Most of the students on the Committee on House Life argued for more choice, and almost all of the masters wanted further randomization, according to Jewett. The main opponent of reduced student choice among the masters was Alan E. Heimert '49, who retired as master of Eliot House last spring.

In a drive spearheaded by Residential Committee Co-Chair David L. Hanselman '94, the Undergraduate Council supported greater student input into housing selection, presenting to the committee a plan, it dubbed "enhanced choice," that guaranteed 25 percent of first-years their first choice.

Most of the council members on the committee said they backed the council's proposal, but Jewett and the masters were wary.

"I'm a little worried that it may go back too much to favoring choice and sacrifice some of the improvements we've made," Jewett said at the time.

Most masters say they want to see the College's diversity translated into the houses.

"Harvard goes to great expense to recruit a diversified class, and we think that the houses should reflect as much as possible a microcosm of the College as a whole," Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel has said.

The committee was unable to reach a consensus after several meetings and as a result Jewett says he decided to keep the College on the same course.

Jewett says he personally favors randomization, but he says there was "significant enough opposition to doing that on the part of the students that I didn't want to do that."

"Essentially we stayed with non-ordered choice because there was no agreement on where to go instead," says Jewett.

As a result, Jewett and many of the masters are not completely satisfied. "[Non-ordered choice] has made some significant changes for the better, but I don't think it's a perfect system," he says

Most masters say they want to see the College's diversity translated into the houses.

"Harvard goes to great expense to recruit a diversified class, and we think that the houses should reflect as much as possible a microcosm of the College as a whole," Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel has said.

The committee was unable to reach a consensus after several meetings and as a result Jewett says he decided to keep the College on the same course.

Jewett says he personally favors randomization, but he says there was "significant enough opposition to doing that on the part of the students that I didn't want to do that."

"Essentially we stayed with non-ordered choice because there was no agreement on where to go instead," says Jewett.

As a result, Jewett and many of the masters are not completely satisfied. "[Non-ordered choice] has made some significant changes for the better, but I don't think it's a perfect system," he says