In making these recommendations, we are aware that as long as Harvard and Radcliffe are legally separate institutions, the use of the Quad as a regular part of the University may present some difficulty. We hope that the spirit of pragmatism that made possible coeducational living can also be applied here.

North House and South House are traditionally organized differently from the River Houses; they contain members from all four classes and have individual rooms grouped along corridors instead of suites grouped in entries. From opinions given to us by students, we find that those students who live in North House and South House prefer their system, those who live in the River Houses prefer the "entry" system. Whether this is "because" or "why" they live in the particular area we do not know.

In our investigation and discussion of coeducational needs, we have found the people in positions of responsibility at both Harvard and Radcliffe sensitive to the needs of coeducation, and responsible to specific complaints and suggestions. We are confident that the needs identified in this section will be taken care of.

The Size of the College:

The view of the Committee that an increase in the number of women attending the University is desirable raises the question of the future size of the undergraduate student body. Should an increase in the number of women be tied to an increase in the size of the student body?

To try to evaluate factors which determine the answer to this question, we have studied the effects of a limited increase in the size of the entering class from the present level of 1550-1600 students to a future level of 1750-1800 students through the addition of women. All members of the Committee agreed that it was of the greatest importance to preserve the present character of the College and the quality of the educational experience. With this in mind, no member felt that it would be useful to consider at this time a model with a growth factor beyond the one used.

Two sister institutions have expanded significantly in the process of becoming coeducational. Princeton and Yale were all male until 1968; both became coeducational in 1969 and both have recently adopted equal access admission policies. Between 1968 and 1974 the entering class at Princeton has increased by 33 per cent (from 852 to 1137 students) while at Yale it has increased by 27 per cent (from 1025 to 1307 students); at the same time, the number of entering men has decreased by seven per cent at Princeton (from 852 to 796) and by 18 per cent at Yale (from 1025 to 843). Because of the long association between Harvard and Radcliffe, the University is fortunate that it need not contemplate increases of the same magnitude. Since we start with a sizeable number of women students, the pressures are reduced for employing expansion as the quickest method of increasing their number.

The consequences of the assumed 13 per cent increase in the number of students on those areas for which a quantitative evaluation is possible can be summarized as follows:

(1) Assuming that present concentration preferences remain stable (not necessarily true in practice), the number of natural scientists would remain about stable, the number of social scientists would grow by about 10 per cent of humanists by about 20 per cent.

(2) Some small decrease from present levels in the number of men students will occur as the number of women students increases as anticipated.

(3) A substantial amount of new student housing would be required to maintain present standards of living space and quality.

(4) Other University facilities such as class rooms, libraries and laboratories could adjust themselves to the assumed increase with more minor changes (athletic facilities constitute a likely exception).

It is much more difficult to evaluate the consequences of the assumed increase on other and more intangible but at least equally important factors which are included under the term "the quality of the undergraduate experience at Harvard." In fact their evaluation involves mainly individual perception and experience.

Thus it is not surprising that no question before the Committee has produced a wider range of discussion than the future size of the College. The Committee agreed on the major factors that influence the decision; differences arose because members tended to give different priority and significance to individual factors. Some foresaw the problems of limited expansion as quite solvable, and thus gave priority to the benefits which accrue from minimizing the reduction in the number of men. Others felt that any expansion was likely to erode seriously the quality of education, both formal and informal, and further, that the problems and costs of expansion were more serious than the problems arising from a reduction in the number of men. Other members found themselves at various points between these two positions.

Given this range of views, it appears to be useful to state the major factors that entered into the discussions and to summarize the arguments which determined the relative weight given to each by various members of the Committee.