The College is now facing its worst housing shortage since the post-war years. The facts, as of last week, were these: nearly 75 upperclassmen, who wanted to live in the Houses, were without rooms; many students returning to College after time away were being forced to find accommodations off-campus; and some Houses were preparing to make more space available by converting doubles to triples, and triples to quads.

Much of the crowding was unavoidable. Because of the threat of the draft, there are simply more students in the College. Few are taking leaves of absence, and those who have in the past are coming back. But all this was very predictable, and the Administration, instead of making the necessary preparations, did little or nothing.

Last January Dean Watson set a limit of 20 students in each House who could live off-campus. In the Spring, perceiving that things might be a little tight in the fall, he raised each quota to 28. Most Houses failed to fulfill their quota, bu tat least one, Adams, had far more applicants to live off than the quota permitted. Instead of raising the Adams Houses failed to fill their quota, but at least one, other Houses, the administration remained rigid. Thus in the Spring it denied off-campus status to many students, and in the fall, to open up space in the overcrowded Houses, it requested that any junior or senior wanting to live off make the move immediately.

The burden of this stupidity falls almost entirely on the student. Anyone who knows anything about the Cambridge housing market understands that the supply is extremely tight and prices, especially close to Harvard Square, are high. In the Spring a student may find decent rooms near the Square at reasonable rates. Every passing month makes the search more difficult, and by the fall apartment seekers often have to sacrifice the convenience of proximity to the Yard to avoid paying exorbitant rents.

Whether off-campus living is a good or bad policy is now almost irrelevant. Harvard, for as long as the war in Vietnam continues and the 10th House remains unbuilt, is going to have to permit a large number of students to live off. The Houses, even with more conversion, simply cannot absorb the added population.

This fall has seen the confusion and uncertainty of previous housing crises multiplied. Many students are being put up in temporary "barracks"; others are either moving unexpectedly off-campus, losing rooms promised them in the Spring, or being forced to take in an extra roommate. Harvard has an obligation to limit this confusion as much as possible. One clear way is to abandon its traditionally hostile attitude towards off-campus living--if only temporarily while the Housing shortage persists. It should not keep one House's off-campus quota down, if others go unfilled. It should make sure that students in all the Houses have some knowledge of the possibilities of living off; one suspects that the poor response from some of the Houses may have reflected unfamiliarity as much as anything else.

The traditional argument against off-campus living is that it is damaging to the House system. But under the present circumstances, the conversion of more suites and the early-year administrative chaos may be more damaging still.

Dean Watson has predicted that the situation will get worse before it gets better. Maybe. But the University, by planning a little, could do a lot to cushion the impact of an inflated student population.