Like Disney's Seven Dwarfs, each House has an individual character. And though the Houses are named Lowell and Winthrop rather than Happy or Bashful, the superficial House differences are definite and well-known. Whether justified or not, stereotypes have grown up for each House: one will have a reputation for aloofness, another for warmth; a third for its scholars, another for its parties.

Each year, as freshmen make their choice of Houses, there are undercurrents of disatisfaction down by the river. Perhaps, suggest some House faculty and members, Houses should not be distinctive. Perhaps, doling to each House an equal number of athletes and scholars, private and public school graduates, Vermonters and Arizonians, would make all Houses uniform and therefor more effective. This year, the Student Council is considering a plan which attempts to end inequities in distributing freshmen. According to the Council's suggestion, freshmen could only indicate the small group of fellow freshmen with whom they wish to spend their upperclass years. The Houses would then pick their members, insuring diversity in all fields.

The Council plan, however, overrates the differences between the Houses. Though each has particular distinctions, the Houses are all allied with the customs and standards of the entire College. Once placed, few undergraduates are unhappy in any House whether or not it was their choice. They learn quickly that basic similarities outweigh the differences and that any House develops a loyalty among its members. A freshman does not have to fit the House stereotype to enjoy living it it.

Not only are the disadvantages of the present House preference system exaggerated, but there are certain positive benefits in it. Freshmen often decide on a House because of the upperclass friends they have there. In an assignment system, there would be little chance of their being accepted at this same House. Then, too, since freshmen have a choice, competition has developed which is often valuable to the Houses. Forums are planned, trophies sought, and improvements instituted with special thought to their effect in interesting freshmen.

But the especially loud complaints this year have indicated that the present system is not perfect. There are two large improvements necessary, both based on the educational function of the College and both correctable within the existing system. Though the College should not apportion freshmen by athletic ability, school, or geographical background, neither should the less popular Houses be a dumping ground for freshmen whose grades rank under Group IV. Each Housemaster should be required to accept an equal number of Group V and VI students.

Similarly, Housemasters should insure that all fields of concentration are represented in each House. And no one field should be so predominant that the House is out of balance or that the tutors can not accommodate the specialized influx. To turn one House into a cluster of English, social relations, or biology majors is to encourage an academic parochialism.

As part of a college, the Houses should strive for this equal distribution of the lower grade groupings and the fields of concentration. As part of this College, the Houses should leave selection by any other criterion to the undergraduate.