Randomized Housing Lottery Procedure Enters Second Year

Armed with a few minor alterations, the completely randomized housing lottery process entered its second year at Harvard this past spring.

In place of the non-ordered choice system that determined housing assignments for years, students are now at the mercy of fate. To cushion the blow, they can choose blocking groups of up to 16 people with whom to enter the lottery.

In May 1995, former Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 outlined his commitment to total randomization in a letter, citing a motivation to increase the diversity in each of the house communities. The policy was first implemented in spring 1996 and was Jewett's final major project before retirement.

Although changes were made this year to randomization to protect gender balance in the houses, the debate still centered on the same question as when complete randomization was instituted: Is the diversity that randomization aims to achieve worth the sacrifice of freedom of choice?

Randomization: Round II

It was slightly chilly the morning of March 20, 1997, when hundreds of anxious first-years set their alarms for 5:30 a.m., the rumored time that housing assignments would be dropped at first-years' doors.

Students hit the snooze button for up to four hours, checking beneath the door every nine minutes for the small envelope. Just like last year's first-years, the majority of the class of 2000 hoped the imminent notice would place them in the nearby and popular river houses such as Lowell, Eliot and Kirkland; meanwhile, most students feared the distant Radcliffe Quadrangle.

"Lowell and Adams appealed to me because of optimal location and their 'traditional' Harvard style," said Jacob P. Goldstein '00. "But staying away from the Quad was priority numero uno."

Alicia A. Carasquillo '00 was especially nervous. Wary of a (false) rumor concerning the disproportionately large number of female first-year who would be placed in the Quad due to gender controls in this year's lottery, Carasquillo was convinced she and her 16-women lottery group would end up in Cabot, Currier or Pforzheimer. To her surprise, she was assigned to Leverett House.

Despite the fact that Carasquillo's prediction did not come true, several shared her fears. Soon after randomization's implementation in March 1996, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 recommended to house masters that the lottery for the class of 2000 use gender controls to better balance male/female ratios in the houses. The recommendation was approved and instituted in this year's housing process.

Lewis' concern stemmed from gender imbalance as dramatic as that in Pforzheimer House, which received nearly 70 percent males in the 1996 lottery.

Although the change in the lottery did not correct for existing gender imbalances, several women echoed Carasquillo's fears of mysterious "gender controls."

At the time of the change to the process, Lewis was quick to point out this was not a sign he had changed his view on randomization.

The Changing Face of Houses

When Jewett first announced the new procedure, 82 percent of the student body opposed the change, prompting a rally in front of University Hall in spring 1995.

Two years later, it is still unclear whether randomization has been a success and whether students have changed their opinions of the procedure.

It is unlikely any official assessment of the new lottery will occur before 1999, at which time Lewis has agreed to review randomization. In addition, Lewis will then release data on the breakdown of undergraduate houses by race, concentration and other categories to the Committee on House Life (COHL). There will be a special committee established in 1998 to review the data and assess the effects of randomization on the makeup of the houses at the request of the COHL.

Until that time, the Harvard community will be forced to argue about the success of randomization using data of a more speculative nature.

For example, in March, it was announced that the number of students requesting transfers between houses dropped from 171 the previous year to 101 this spring. Some students attributed this drop-off to the larger blocking groups which have become more common since randomization, which have led to students having more of their friends within their houses. Others speculated randomization had led to student contentment with house placement.

However, representatives from the Housing Office were quick to note that the two years couldn't be compared due to drastic changes in the transfer process. Students can now request a transfer to a particular house only if they know of a larger existing group in the house with whom they will room. Students who wish to transfer to a particular house but only know an equal or smaller number of possible roommates in the other house face the possibility of ending up in their old house with their friends required to transfer. Otherwise, students can specify three houses they do not wish to transfer to but will still be randomly assigned among the remaining nine.

Assistant to the Master of Quincy House Suzanne M. Watts said changes were generally implemented to aid students who wanted to live with others in a house, rather than to aid students who wanted to move into a house they considered more desirable.

As far as change within the houses is concerned, the impact of randomization varied across campus. Some sophomores complained that juniors, seniors and administrators of Adams House were unreceptive toward randomized students who did not fit what they considered the typical Adams mold.

This fall, derogatory statements about incoming sophomores were found on the Adams House news-group.

In addition, Powerade, a fitness drink popular among athletes, was introduced in the Adams dining hall but removed after juniors and seniors protested the changing character of the house.

Other houses were more outwardly friendly to randomization. Lowell House Allston Burr Senior Tutor Eugene C. McAfee down-played the effect that the new lottery policy had on his house.

"I don't think randomization is a big deal for us," he said. "I don't want to make our students feel that it is a big deal."

McAfee went on to note that, in a way, Lowell House has been randomized for years. Because so many more students wanted to live in Lowell each year than there were slots, its residents ended up being randomly selected from a large and diverse pool.

In addition, Mather, Eliot and Cabot houses offered a wide variety of activities geared toward welcoming the incoming class.

However, not all students were encouraged by the activities. Many first-years said they remained upset at their inability to make any choice about where they would be living for the next three years.

"It's not fair that we're unable to have any say in the housing process," said Donald P. Casey '00. "Fortunately, I didn't get Quadded, but I would have liked to be able to voice my preferences."

Other students noted that particular groups would actually suffer as a result of randomization. The lack of natural support havens for Asian-Americans, blacks, homosexuals and others concerned many.

History

Randomization has a history dating back to the 1920s, when President A. Lawrence Lowell, class of 1877, wrote that an unfortunate segregation would result from students being able to choose their own houses. Lowell envisioned each house as a microcosm of the College, and not as small, separate institutions with their own identities.

Before 1971, masters selected who would live in their houses through a student application process.

It was at this point that students began ranking all the houses in order of preference. Six years later, the policy changed so students were only allowed to rank their top four choices. In 1990, the policy changed once again to a non-ordered four-choice system.