Advice for Cornell

In the face of criticism that large research institutions are neglecting their undergraduates, Cornell University last week unveiled a $200 million initiative to "enhance the living and learning environment for undergraduates." Central to the plan are changes to make Cornell's residential system more like Harvard's. Under the new system, first-years would live together on one section of campus and upperclass students would live in residential houses.

The impetus behind Cornell's proposal is certainly laudable-undergraduates should be the main focus in any university's structure. But we caution our Ivy League colleague against blindly replicating the Harvard model. Though the House system does have its merits, its value has slowly eroded over the years-both because of the changing times and wrong-headed decisions on the part of College administrators.

Cornell is correct to assume that a college residence should "link living and learning" and "emphasize strong faculty participation" in the lives of undergraduates. At Harvard, the House system was instituted in the 1930s for this purpose-to provide students with a decentralized, small-college atmosphere, modeled on the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, within a large university. Students were supposed to feel a strong personal attachment to their House and to the community it provided.

Earlier this century, the residents, masters and tutors worked together to give each house a distinct character. While the basic House structure persists, and each House maintains some spirit and sense of uniqueness, there has been a gradual temperament of the vigor President A. Lawrence Lowell, class of 1877, envisioned.

Randomization, under the guise of homogenizing the Houses for sake of "diversity," has eroded this individual character. It has trivialized Houses to mere physical entities devoid of any distinguishable flavor, and hence weakened the links between individual residents. Living with people with similar interests can create a feeling of solidarity and strength that may not be available from other outlets.

Moreover, students today seem busier than ever before. Jobs, extracurricular activities and other obligations keep students outside their houses for longer and longer periods of time. Meanwhile, a fast-paced hightechnology culture may also have contributed to the withering of House communities. Students are now used to grabbing lunch on the fly; they're habituated into spending hours alone in front of the computer. They do not possess a communal mindset.

What can Cornell learn from the state of our house system? Let students have some choice in their housing and allow them to define the character of their residential setting. But don't expect the close-knit communities of earlier this century to develop.

Cornell's decision to base its future on Harvard's House system reinforces what we already know-Harvard's educational policies carry influence beyond our crimson walls. Harvard can learn from Cornell's decision in that the College should be constantly reevaluating its prevalent system while looking for ways to improve it. Only by doing so can it remain a leaderin the realm of undergraduate education.