A Waste Of Space

Harvard’s House system isn’t working. Shorn of their pre-randomization characters and rendered impotent by insular blocking groups, the College’s 12 Houses can’t possibly hope to transcend their own bricks and mortar to become viable incubators of community. A significant change in how Harvard assigns its students is long overdue; since randomized housing, any success at creating House community has come in spite of the system, which fricassees House populations into complete incoherence along blocking group lines.

Under the present system, Houses are expected to begin integrating new members in the middle of spring midterms, after seven months of community-starved first-years’ attaching themselves to their entryways and extracurricular activities in a frantic search for a niche at often-impersonal, always-intimidating Harvard. It is simply unreasonable to expect freshmen, who in many cases feel satisfied with their Harvard experiences come March, to buy into the community of a randomly assigned House. This problem is exacerbated by the presence of blocking groups; since freshmen usually block with friends from one of their improvised first-year communities, there’s no incentive to become part of the broader House community.

Supporters of the current system argue that there’s no harm in losing out on House community if students find friendships and communities elsewhere at Harvard. This argument is wrongheaded. First, if communities at Harvard are to exist without reference to residential life, then the House system should be converted into a simple dormitory system. The reason the College puts up with the massive inefficiency of operating 14 undergraduate dining halls, for example, is that it recognizes the importance of House dining in creating viable communities. Also, relying on extracurricular activities and friendships from high school is unwise because of the inherent instability of these kinds of communities. Student organizations lose their appeal with time, as their leadership and priorities change, and high school friends grow apart in college. Strong House communities are vital because they are a safety net—when students can profit from the acquaintance and friendship of hundreds of housemates, their chances of emerging safely from the collapse of friendships or changes in activities increase dramatically.

To put its existing House infrastructure to good use, the College must begin assigning incoming freshmen to Houses before they arrive at Harvard. Presently, at the start of their first year, freshmen are welcomed to their entryways by proctors and prefects. As soon as the year gets underway, however, freshmen must choose whether or not they will invest themselves in the ready-made communities in their entryways, or instead spend their time with friends from classes and extracurricular activities. Because the entryway unit has a predetermined lifespan of exactly one academic year, there is very little incentive for a student to take time away from other commitments to attend study breaks, play intramural sports, and otherwise involve himself in the life of the entryway.

Were entryways to be comprised of freshmen with a common housing assignment, students would be much more likely to choose to form friendships with their entryway-mates, their future housemates. Upperclassmen assigned to entryways as prefects or peer advisers would be able to take advantage of the common ground of a shared housing assignment as a starting point for their advising and mentoring relationships. And linking entryways to Houses would also allow freshman participation in special House events—panels, formal dinners, and faculty events—which would be a great boon to the freshman experience.

Thus, once freshmen moved into their Houses, they would profit from the stronger community created by pre-assignment. It would be possible, for example, for a newly-minted sophomore to walk into her House dining hall and actually recognize her neighbors. Without pre-assignment, such a tight-knit atmosphere is a fantasy.

Of course, pre-assignment is no magical tonic that will cure all undergraduate life woes. For one thing, disparities in the distance between the Yard and individual Houses would complicate the integration of freshmen into farther a field Houses, like Mather and the Quad. But such drawbacks could be easily mitigated by minor details in a pre-assignment policy. For example, peer advisers would be given access to Annenberg, and would be expected to have meals and interactions with their advisees in the Yard. And when it comes to special House events, the draw of an excellent speaker or of Stein Club should overcome the inconvenience of a short shuttle ride to the Quad or Mather.

By far the most common complaint about pre-assignment is that such a system would eliminate the opportunity for freshmen to choose their roommates. But with around 150 students assigned to each House each year, the likelihood of being unable to find two or three people to live with would be a small one. And in those few unlikely cases where a freshman felt unable to find compatible roommates among their housing cohort, a procedure for early transfers, before the beginning of sophomore year, could be put in place.

As it stands now, Harvard’s Houses are a colossal waste of space and of money. The timing and manner of freshmen being assigned to Houses undermine efforts to build community in Houses and entryways, at a real cost to the undergraduate experience. Things should be better. These structural changes can lead the way.

Adam Goldenberg ’08 is a social studies concentrator in Winthrop House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.